ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Education
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th May 2020, 11:45 AM   #1
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Is this argument logical or not?

Hi all,

is the below argument logical to you (does it make sense), or am I wrong somewhere (p.s. yeah, I know it's a weird argument...).
All feedback welcome, but please keep it classy

Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:

1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
2) When I feel it, it feels good.
3) I cannot experience it continuously for it to still remain funny.

Forward Proof:
Assume a joke is funny --> prove that all 3 above are true:
1) If when I thought of it, it was normal, it wouldn’t surprise me. Yet a successful joke always surprises me.
2) If when I felt it, it felt bad, it wouldn’t be a joke to me.
3) No matter how good a joke is, I can only experience it from time to time for it to be funny.

Backwards Proof:
Assume all three above are true --> prove it is funny
Start from 2.
2) it feels good. It belongs in the set of experiences I want to live.
1) I think it is abnormal. It is a surprise/unknown experience I want to live.
3)I cannot experience it continuously. It is an unknown experience I want to live, but once…or from time to time…but I’m not sure when…isn’t it ?

In the above text, by definition the following words provide answers to the following questions in life:
1.Think: If I calm down from emotion, what conclusion do I reach?
2.Feel: which emotions come to me?
3.Experience: within everything, it is me, it is the rest (rest = everything-me). What is my connection with everything, this time?
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 11:48 AM   #2
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,858
Joking is an art. Art cannot, per definition, be quantified.

A joke is funny of you think so.
It may not be a joke to everybody.

Hans

ETA: Oh, and welcome here.
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 12:17 PM   #3
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,804
Are you asking if the argument is logical in structure?

Or are you asking if the argument is a logically sound description of how jokes work?

Or are you asking something else?

---

If the question is whether it's logical in structure, we can get rid of the joke-specific references:

Hypothesis:
A is true if and only if
1) B is true
2) C is true
3) D is true

Forward Proof:
Assume A is true --> prove that all 3 above are true:
1) B is true
2) C is true
3) D is true

Backwards Proof:
Assume all three above are true --> prove A is true
Start from 2.
2) C is true
1) B is true
3) C is true

I'm not sure this argument structure is logical. But I'm not sure it isn't.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 12:30 PM   #4
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,858
Oh, and to dissect:

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:

1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
False. Jokes can be about the trivial.

Quote:
2) When I feel it, it feels good.
False. Jokes can hurt you (even if, and perhaps especially, if you can see they are funny)

Quote:
3) I cannot experience it continuously for it to still remain funny.
False, some jokes are funny especially on repetition.


Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 04:21 PM   #5
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,816
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If the question is whether it's logical in structure, we can get rid of the joke-specific references:

Hypothesis:
A is true if and only if
1) B is true
2) C is true
3) D is true

Forward Proof:
Assume A is true --> prove that all 3 above are true:
1) B is true
2) C is true
3) D is true

Backwards Proof:
Assume all three above are true --> prove A is true
Start from 2.
2) C is true
1) B is true
3) C is true

I'm not sure this argument structure is logical. But I'm not sure it isn't.
It is, because when all is said and done, when you say "if and only if", it's an equivalence. Essentially the proposition is "A <=> (B ∧ C ∧ D)". (Where "∧" is the logical conjunction operator. I.e., "and".) By definition of how an equivalence works it is itself equivalent to "(A => (B ∧ C ∧ D)) ∧ ((B ∧ C ∧ D) => A)". In turn, by definition of the conjunction operator, B ∧ C ∧ D can only be true if B, C and D are all true.

So basically what you wrote and I quoted above is pretty much just the verbose version of the definitions. So it's not even as much a case of it being logical, as it just being the definition of the operators involved.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 04:30 PM   #6
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,816
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Hi all,

is the below argument logical to you (does it make sense), or am I wrong somewhere (p.s. yeah, I know it's a weird argument...).
All feedback welcome, but please keep it classy

Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:

1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
2) When I feel it, it feels good.
3) I cannot experience it continuously for it to still remain funny.
That said, I think the argument is unsound, as in, your premise is false.

The most obvious problem is P3. You attempt to define what is funny, but P3 is a part of your definition and it includes it being funny. That's circular. You'd need to define it in some way that avoids that, such as stopping feeling good.

But the biggest problem is that, even with the above redefinition, the categories you use for the definition are actually covering a lot more ground than you seem to think. Especially feeling good is covering a LOT of mental states, over VERY different neural pathways and even different chemical mediators in the brain.

E.g., if I were a furry, seeing a poster of an anthropomorphic cat with big titties might
2) turn me on, which is pleasurable, and
1) A human shaped cat with only two breasts, on the chest, is abnormal as hell for this world, if you have a think about it, and
3) well, I can't stay sexually turned on for ever, can I? After a while it will *ahem* go down, one way or another
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th May 2020 at 04:35 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2020, 07:15 PM   #7
Athyrio
Hipster Doofus
 
Athyrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Nutsack, FL
Posts: 1,901
I always lie on surveys like this just to maliciously skew the numbers because I think a lot of the other surveyed did too.
__________________
Knowledge is good.... Emil Faber
Athyrio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 12:31 AM   #8
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 67,929
Analysing a joke is like dissecting a frog. You don't learn much, and the frog dies.
__________________
Self-described nerd.

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 03:25 AM   #9
Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
 
Jack by the hedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 10,483
I only got as far as "when I think of it, it is abnormal" and couldn't define what that means.
Jack by the hedge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2020, 03:30 AM   #10
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,015
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:

1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
2) When I feel it, it feels good.
3) I cannot experience it continuously for it to still remain funny.
A sunny day in November is abnormal, feels good, and isn't funny if I experience it continuously; but in fact it isn't a joke in any sense, because it's not funny if I experience it momentarily either.

Conversely, observational comedy is rarely abnormal in any sense, as it focuses on the humour of the familiar.

Since there are counter examples to your hypothesis, it can't be always true, regardless of the argument offered for it.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 11:22 AM   #11
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,429
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
A sunny day in November is abnormal, feels good, and isn't funny if I experience it continuously; but in fact it isn't a joke in any sense, because it's not funny if I experience it momentarily either.

Conversely, observational comedy is rarely abnormal in any sense, as it focuses on the humour of the familiar.

Since there are counter examples to your hypothesis, it can't be always true, regardless of the argument offered for it.

Dave
Ah, you've missed a point.

In effect, your counterexample assumes that you have a "true" sense of humor. Based on your examples, you don't.

Or at least, your sense of humor does not correspond to the logical structure of "funny" as given in the OP.
WhatRoughBeast is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 12:29 PM   #12
wardenclyffe
Master Poster
 
wardenclyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,291
I am guessing that English is not the first language of the OP. I think he means something different than "When I think of it, it is abnormal."

Ward
__________________
~~Na eth'er aa, ammre' en ank'aar'eith, d'emner'aa-, asd'reng'aather, em'n'err-aae...~
- Alenara Al'Kher'aat, aged 347
wardenclyffe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 03:25 PM   #13
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Moderator
 
novaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunny South Australia
Posts: 2,836
I note that this theory of jokes seems to ignore established classes of jokes.

1. Funny once.
2. Funny always.
3. Funny never.

There is probably some argument that puns fall into class 3.
__________________
We would be better, and braver, to engage in enquiry, rather than indulge in the idle fancy, that we already know -- Plato.
novaphile is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2020, 03:34 PM   #14
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Port Townsend, Washington
Posts: 28,461
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
I note that this theory of jokes seems to ignore established classes of jokes.

1. Funny once.
2. Funny always.
3. Funny never.

There is probably some argument that puns fall into class 3.
That's what makes them so awesome!
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2020, 08:11 AM   #15
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Hi all

I need to warn you from the beginning the below is a bit far fetched, so please keep it classy in your responses .


I use the following simple model to describe myself. Generally, I can:
1. feel, which ranges from subtle to intense.
How good and how bad I don't know , but the fact that there is this range is obvious to me judging from my life's experience. The specific point in the range which happens at any given moment, depends on the occasion.
For example, sleeping feels less to me than swimming, and swimming feels less than me hitting myself (and also the last one feels a bit stupid for me to do repeatedly to verify...)

2. calm down, which requires time to work, and when successful changes feelings to a less intense state.
How much time, I don't know , but the fact that I can't calm down instantaneously is obvious to me judging from my life's experience. How much time it will take for me to calm down depends on the occasion, and my previous state.
For example physical pain going away (i.e. stop feeling pain) takes more time , than putting myself to sleep.
Calming down is related to thinking, but when I am thinking, I am also trying to reach some conclusion after I imagine, feel, and calm down from emotion.

3. experience, which has to do with what I can sense happening in time to me.
How experience can be defined formally, I honestly don't know(despite my attempts in this text), but the fact that what I experience has to do with what I can sense happening in time to me, is obvious to me judging from my life's experience.
For example, when sleeping without dreams I don't have any memory of experiencing anything when I wake up.
Sleeping with dreams which I remember, I can sense in time, and remember the dream in some order in time (probably not continuous but still ordered in time).
When I am awake, regardless of the occasion, and how relative time may seem in the moment, I can feel time passing by.
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2020, 08:19 AM   #16
Lplus
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by novaphile View Post
I note that this theory of jokes seems to ignore established classes of jokes.

1. Funny once.
2. Funny always.
3. Funny never.

There is probably some argument that puns fall into class 3.
There's probably some argument that puns fall into all 3
Lplus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2020, 09:34 AM   #17
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Hi all,

is the below argument logical to you (does it make sense), or am I wrong somewhere (p.s. yeah, I know it's a weird argument...).
All feedback welcome, but please keep it classy

Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:

1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
I order for to be funny it has to be abby normal....


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE








Someone had to say it.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 12:20 PM   #18
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I order for to be funny it has to be abby normal....


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE








Someone had to say it.
In order for something to be funny it has to be normal, is what you wanted to write I assume (please correct me if not the case).

If you are walking down the street with a friend, and while we are walking, your friend steps on a banana, slips, and falls, before he/she slipped, he/she didn't expect to slip, or he/she would have tried to avoid it.
The normal thing he/she would expect to happen is to be able to still walk without slipping.
Is it funny to your friend? If it feels good (he/she doesn't get hurt just a slight fright), and is experienced once (he/she doesn't keep on slipping like it's his/her thing now), it is.

Something which was funny, can be normal after it has happened (you slipped, you fell, but nothing bad happened), but at the moment it happens, it is not normal. If something was normal at the moment when it happened, and at the same time it was funny, then people would be laughing hysterically all the time , which is not the case.
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th June 2020, 12:52 PM   #19
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,845
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Hi all,

is the below argument logical to you (does it make sense), or am I wrong somewhere (p.s. yeah, I know it's a weird argument...).
All feedback welcome, but please keep it classy

Hypothesis:
A joke is funny if and only if:

1) When I think of it, it is abnormal.
2) When I feel it, it feels good.
3) I cannot experience it continuously for it to still remain funny.
While I don't want to put myself in the strictures of "if and only if" I think your formulation is close. I'd put it more like a joke has the potential to be funny if:

1) if it is logical
2) and it is unexpected

If you think about it for a moment, your #3 is simply an extension of my #2--the joke isn't funny after awhile because the surprise goes away.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2020, 06:08 AM   #20
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
In order for something to be funny it has to be normal, is what you wanted to write I assume (please correct me if not the case).
Nope, I wrote what I wanted to say which in itself was a joke.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
If you are walking down the street with a friend, and while we are walking, your friend steps on a banana, slips, and falls, before he/she slipped, he/she didn't expect to slip, or he/she would have tried to avoid it.
The normal thing he/she would expect to happen is to be able to still walk without slipping.
Why can't slipping on the banana peel and avoiding it both be normal outcomes based on the particular circumstances?

There an old saying in visual comedy particularly about the set up for that gag.

See the banana,
See the banana,
Slip on the banana.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Is it funny to your friend? If it feels good (he/she doesn't get hurt just a slight fright), and is experienced once (he/she doesn't keep on slipping like it's his/her thing now), it is.
Watch some internet videos, people will at times laugh at their own pratfalls, even when hurt.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Something which was funny, can be normal after it has happened (you slipped, you fell, but nothing bad happened), but at the moment it happens, it is not normal. If something was normal at the moment when it happened, and at the same time it was funny, then people would be laughing hysterically all the time , which is not the case.
The logical fallacy here is called denying the antecedent. Just because something that is funny can be normal does not infer that something normal must be funny.

As I think already noted above, observational comedy is specifically about finding what is funny in what is normal.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th June 2020, 06:26 AM   #21
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
While I don't want to put myself in the strictures of "if and only if" I think your formulation is close. I'd put it more like a joke has the potential to be funny if:

1) if it is logical
2) and it is unexpected

If you think about it for a moment, your #3 is simply an extension of my #2--the joke isn't funny after awhile because the surprise goes away.
Right, particularly about the exclusion of the "if and only if" formulation.

Let's take the Three Stooges for example. While their antics may not be normal for the real world or even often their own given environment at the time. It is normal for them and even expected of them, yet still funny to people. So while some jokes or gags can get played out for some, for others there may be an expectation, that when missing diminishes the humor. While there can be pseudo formulaics in comedy (like the "triple" in comedy) nothing is cast in stone or universally dependable. From the subjects to the topic, from the circumstances to even the freshness (as you note) of the gaf or gag and of course the audience, all often have a greater influence on the comedic outcome than some logic or formula.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 14th June 2020 at 06:28 AM. Reason: typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2020, 05:39 AM   #22
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 27,631
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Analysing a joke is like dissecting a frog. You don't learn much, and the frog dies.
It should have ended with “...and the frog croaks.”
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2020, 04:35 AM   #23
Jhau
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
It should have ended with “...and the frog croaks.”
Quick - a joke!

We should analyse it using the above formula!
Jhau is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 01:13 AM   #24
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, I wrote what I wanted to say which in itself was a joke.


Why can't slipping on the banana peel and avoiding it both be normal outcomes based on the particular circumstances?

There an old saying in visual comedy particularly about the set up for that gag.

See the banana,
See the banana,
Slip on the banana.
because at the moment when you stepped on the banana and starting slipping, you expected to be walking, and not slipping, meaning an unexpected event took place for you (the others around you may have noticed the banana, for them the unexpected event is that you didn't notice it.
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 02:09 AM   #25
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
While I don't want to put myself in the strictures of "if and only if" I think your formulation is close. I'd put it more like a joke has the potential to be funny if:

1) if it is logical
2) and it is unexpected

If you think about it for a moment, your #3 is simply an extension of my #2--the joke isn't funny after awhile because the surprise goes away.
If a joke has to be logical and unexpected, when you are reading a book on mathematical logic, which you haven't read before, what you read is unexpected and logical. Is this funny?

If I google "logical definition" I get the below .
Logical:
1)of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.
2)characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
3)(of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances.

Are you referring to one of these definitions of logical, or do you mean something else? If the latter, please explain yourself a bit more.

My view is that logical arguments take time to formulate.

For example let's consider a little child, who just learned how to speak, and as children do, is trying to have some fun. Their parents, laugh when something the child says or does is funny, and don't laugh when it isn't and try to deter it from doing or saying the same thing. The child slowly learns how to behave in a way that is fun for its surroundings. This process doesn't stop when the child grows, the adult still does the same thing, but now it is not his/her parents who judge his/her behavior, but society.

Logic happens with time, as people find that there are words which when put in a particular order, describe what seems to be happening in the world for all humans. (e.g. if the sky is full with black clouds, there is an increased possibility it will rain, compared to when the sky is clear).
For everyday life, humans use what humans call "common sense", which means that the way an individual senses the world, has overlaps with the rest humans (else we couldn't communicate). The reason this happens, is that our senses are...common to a certain degree. (e.g. I like chocolate ice-cream, you like vanilla, but it is common sense that both vanilla and chocolate ice-cream, is still ice-cream)
For example most people blue is blue, the ones who think or say that blue isn't blue are at best ignored, or at worst treated.
This is why we say "words have meaning", most words meaning is common to us up to a point and open to interpretation after this point. The reason this happens is that our senses are common up to a point, and after this point depend on the individual's senses. (e.g. I like chocolate ice-cream, you like vanilla ice-cream, but if you say chocolate ice-cream isn't ice-cream...you are not making any sense).
In summary, I would say that our senses, with experimentation and communication, becomes common sense, and with thinking it becomes logic. (and please do correct me if you disagree with this last phrase)
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 08:47 AM   #26
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
because at the moment when you stepped on the banana and starting slipping, you expected to be walking, and not slipping, meaning an unexpected event took place for you (the others around you may have noticed the banana, for them the unexpected event is that you didn't notice it.
First, simply being unexpected doesn't make it abnormal. In fact slipping on such peels became such a common expectation that it helped drive municipal ordinances and the creation of sanitation departments.


https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/...-comedy-staple

Quote:

Whether or not people frequently slipped on the rotten skins, the banana peel came to symbolize poor manners. Around 1880, Harper’s Weekly admonished anyone who tossed their banana peels on a public walkway, as this would likely result in broken limbs. In the book Bananas: An American History, author Virginia Scott Jenkins describes how Sunday Schools warned children that an improperly discarded peel would not only definitively lead to a broken limb, but that the person with the broken limb would inevitably end up in the poorhouse due to this injury. In 1909, the St. Louis city council completely outlawed “throwing or casting” a banana rind on public thoroughfares.


Second, if you are to hold to your formulaic claims then being unexpected by both it should be funny to both.

Third, the others around you, having seen the banana, or even having placed it there themselves, may well have expected you to slip. In fact a whole genre of humor, practical jokes, gags and pranks are enacted by the specific actions and expectations of others.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2020, 09:21 AM   #27
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
If a joke has to be logical and unexpected, when you are reading a book on mathematical logic, which you haven't read before, what you read is unexpected and logical. Is this funny?
It could be but again doesn't have to be.

Even just considering "a joke has to be logical and unexpected" to be true that doesn't make simply what is "logical and unexpected" a "joke".

Please see the formal fallacy of Afirming the consequnt.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
If I google "logical definition" I get the below .
Logical:
1)of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.
2)characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
3)(of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances.

Are you referring to one of these definitions of logical, or do you mean something else? If the latter, please explain yourself a bit more.

My view is that logical arguments take time to formulate.

For example let's consider a little child, who just learned how to speak, and as children do, is trying to have some fun. Their parents, laugh when something the child says or does is funny, and don't laugh when it isn't and try to deter it from doing or saying the same thing. The child slowly learns how to behave in a way that is fun for its surroundings. This process doesn't stop when the child grows, the adult still does the same thing, but now it is not his/her parents who judge his/her behavior, but society.

Logic happens with time, as people find that there are words which when put in a particular order, describe what seems to be happening in the world for all humans. (e.g. if the sky is full with black clouds, there is an increased possibility it will rain, compared to when the sky is clear).
For everyday life, humans use what humans call "common sense", which means that the way an individual senses the world, has overlaps with the rest humans (else we couldn't communicate). The reason this happens, is that our senses are...common to a certain degree. (e.g. I like chocolate ice-cream, you like vanilla, but it is common sense that both vanilla and chocolate ice-cream, is still ice-cream)
For example most people blue is blue, the ones who think or say that blue isn't blue are at best ignored, or at worst treated.
This is why we say "words have meaning", most words meaning is common to us up to a point and open to interpretation after this point. The reason this happens is that our senses are common up to a point, and after this point depend on the individual's senses. (e.g. I like chocolate ice-cream, you like vanilla ice-cream, but if you say chocolate ice-cream isn't ice-cream...you are not making any sense).
In summary, I would say that our senses, with experimentation and communication, becomes common sense, and with thinking it becomes logic. (and please do correct me if you disagree with this last phrase)
Logic is a rigorous formal language not a "sense" (common or otherwise) nor a method of thinking. Least not any more than thinking in French or English is a particular method of thought. Heck, common sense is an oxymoron as our mental sensibilities are as individual to us as our physical senses and their interpretations. Hence the development of language to try to give us a common basis to express what is specifically not common, our thoughts. Heck, if any measure of sense were in fact common we probably wouldn't be so dependent on language, and rigorous formal languages in particular, to try to make sense of things.


Take ants for example. Communication is done chemically, common sensory apparatuses results in common action based on chemical stimuli.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 22nd June 2020 at 10:48 AM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st July 2020, 04:13 PM   #28
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Heck, common sense is an oxymoron as our mental sensibilities are as individual to us as our physical senses and their interpretations.
Humans are pretty social creatures, our mental sensibilities are as individual to us as our physical senses and their interpretations, so long that they are not too individual to cut us off the group we belong in.

And when that doesn't happen, and our individuality meets the group sensibility, or further the human sensibility, this is what we call common sense.

It hasn't worked that bad for us if you ask me, I can't think of a better way for humans to be, we are different and the same, as long as it is fun.
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2020, 06:32 AM   #29
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Humans are pretty social creatures, our mental sensibilities are as individual to us as our physical senses and their interpretations, so long that they are not too individual to cut us off the group we belong in.
They do cut us off, heck it takes years and decades for an infant just to lean how to interact with their intimidate family let alone some larger group.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
And when that doesn't happen, and our individuality meets the group sensibility, or further the human sensibility, this is what we call common sense.
You've got it backasswords, we start out cut off and learn how to adapt and interpolate the smaller and larger group dynamics through our individual mental sensibilities and physical senses. What is called common sense is defined simply as "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters." Not some sociological group think as you expound here. That would be more akin to brain washing or cult dynamics rather than the more generally applicable "sound judgment in practical matters".


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
It hasn't worked that bad for us if you ask me, I can't think of a better way for humans to be, we are different and the same, as long as it is fun.
You are confusing sociability with commonality of sensibility. While they can be linked they don't have to be. I'm quite sociable with people I share almost not common sensibility with. It's simply a consequence of living in a polite, diverse social environment.

ETA: And my being funny helps with that, particularly self deprecating humor.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 4th July 2020 at 06:34 AM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2020, 06:18 AM   #30
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
They do cut us off, heck it takes years and decades for an infant just to lean how to interact with their intimidate family let alone some larger group.
It does take years, if it was happening any sooner than that, can you imagine a world with better consequences? If yes, please elaborate.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You've got it backasswords, we start out cut off and learn how to adapt and interpolate the smaller and larger group dynamics through our individual mental sensibilities and physical senses. What is called common sense is defined simply as "good sense and sound judgment in practical matters." Not some sociological group think as you expound here. That would be more akin to brain washing or cult dynamics rather than the more generally applicable "sound judgment in practical matters".
I did get it backwards here how it works forwards, and also why I wrote it that way (perhaps the following is clearer):
Start with common sense defined as "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter".
What this good sense and sound judgement depends on the practical matter.
For example, you wouldn't want to have someone who is not a doctor operate on your children's bodies.In the same example, among the doctors you may have available to choose, you would try to choose the one who has the best reputation. This reputation is judged by you, as you have to choose, but if you are not a doctor, you will have to use the information you get from other people ( to shorten it, I would say that doctors, patients, and nature judge doctors, and you in the end choose according to the information you have, and according to your judgement).
Why am I writing that this is the way that you, someone I don't know or have met, or can imagine anything about, would make a decision to choose a doctor for his children this way? Because it is common sense. How? People who don't follow this way, and have any other way you can imagine, get pointed back by consequences that happen more often to them, to the way nature works (which people have already found for them and are practicing as responsibly as they chose).
And nature for humans works with common sense. How? When people agree, and it is what seems to be happening in nature, it works, when they don't or it isn't what seems to be happening in nature, it doesn't work. For what? For anything humans can do.
Is it as common as one would want to be? No for people who don't want to imagine, think and judge, but simply want to feel that their own sensibilities are satisfied. Why? Because if you always got what you wanted, what exactly is it that you think you are doing being alive? And if your answer is getting always what you want, how about you start flipping a coin and start guessing which side it falls right all the time, and after you do that enough that you believe you can judge what is and what isn't, come and display this to the rest of us, or else, am I wrong to think that this person is lying?
And what about me who writes this? I simply write that there is such a thing as common sense, regardless of how people feel about it, if they want to question what is common sense or not, they need to think, you guessed it commonly. If you didn't guess it, how are you going to find out what we have in common if you think only about your own sensibilities all the time?


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You are confusing sociability with commonality of sensibility. While they can be linked they don't have to be. I'm quite sociable with people I share almost not common sensibility with. It's simply a consequence of living in a polite, diverse social environment.

ETA: And my being funny helps with that, particularly self deprecating humor.
I can't see how. For people that you are sociable with as a consequence of living in a polite, diverse environment, if you share "almost not common sensibility with", what is the common sensibility of living in a polite, diverse environment...isn't it common among the people who share this sensibility? And what good is this sensibility? It helps people be patient, or else I leave you to imagine and reply with whatever better way you may think of.
It seems to me that people who are sociable, share the sensibility of living in a polite, diverse social environment, or is it not the case? If so, could you elaborate?
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th July 2020, 07:11 AM   #31
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
It does take years, if it was happening any sooner than that, can you imagine a world with better consequences? If yes, please elaborate.
Faster human development in no way necessitates greater human cooperation and in fact may diminish such. Children would become more independent faster.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
I did get it backwards here how it works forwards, and also why I wrote it that way (perhaps the following is clearer):
Start with common sense defined as "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter".
Sure the actual definition of a word is a good place to start when attempting to use it.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
What this good sense and sound judgement depends on the practical matter.
For example, you wouldn't want to have someone who is not a doctor operate on your children's bodies.
Common sense would dictate that a surgeon , not just a doctor, be required for an operation.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
In the same example, among the doctors you may have available to choose, you would try to choose the one who has the best reputation. This reputation is judged by you, as you have to choose, but if you are not a doctor, you will have to use the information you get from other people ( to shorten it, I would say that doctors, patients, and nature judge doctors, and you in the end choose according to the information you have, and according to your judgement).
Similarly, experience with the operation to be preformed would need to be an important factor. A heart surgeon with the best reputation probably is still not a good choice for a knee reconstruction.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Why am I writing that this is the way that you, someone I don't know or have met, or can imagine anything about, would make a decision to choose a doctor for his children this way? Because it is common sense. How? People who don't follow this way, and have any other way you can imagine, get pointed back by consequences that happen more often to them, to the way nature works (which people have already found for them and are practicing as responsibly as they chose).
But see the sensibility wasn't common, you missed the importance of a surgeon for an operation and the importance of practical experience over simply reputation. It is because we have to learn these things, even as you assert by getting it wrong from time to time, that demonstrates such sensibility isn't inherently common to us.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
And nature for humans works with common sense. How? When people agree, and it is what seems to be happening in nature, it works, when they don't or it isn't what seems to be happening in nature, it doesn't work. For what? For anything humans can do.
People can and do agree on the stupidest nonsensical things, so that dog just don't bark.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Is it as common as one would want to be? No for people who don't want to imagine, think and judge, but simply want to feel that their own sensibilities are satisfied. Why? Because if you always got what you wanted, what exactly is it that you think you are doing being alive? And if your answer is getting always what you want, how about you start flipping a coin and start guessing which side it falls right all the time, and after you do that enough that you believe you can judge what is and what isn't, come and display this to the rest of us, or else, am I wrong to think that this person is lying?
And what about me who writes this? I simply write that there is such a thing as common sense, regardless of how people feel about it, if they want to question what is common sense or not, they need to think, you guessed it commonly. If you didn't guess it, how are you going to find out what we have in common if you think only about your own sensibilities all the time?
Some people have have lots of things in common, some of them nonsensical. So simply being in common doesn't make it sensible by any account. Heck, that's even an aspect of comedy 'common nonsense'. So that 'commonality' dog just doesn't dance.



Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
I can't see how. For people that you are sociable with as a consequence of living in a polite, diverse environment, if you share "almost not common sensibility with", what is the common sensibility of living in a polite, diverse environment...isn't it common among the people who share this sensibility? And what good is this sensibility? It helps people be patient, or else I leave you to imagine and reply with whatever better way you may think of.
It seems to me that people who are sociable, share the sensibility of living in a polite, diverse social environment, or is it not the case? If so, could you elaborate?

Some people aren't particularly sociable or even polite but that is no reason not to be socially polite to them.

This story may help with the distinct spectra of sociability.

I was coming on shift at work and most everyone else was headed out to a farewell gathering for a worker who was leaving. I asked one of the more reclusive workers if he was going and he replied "No, I'm anti-social". So I told him "That makes you asocial, anti-social is the guy that goes to the party and tries to beat the crap out of everyone".

To elaborate I like being challenged, I like to hang out with people who offer me new outlooks and perspectives even if I don't agree with them. I take getting a reclusive person to open up or being overly polite to a rude person as a successful interaction. Certainly being perhaps where you are not wanted carries some risks so best to know your limitations, not overplay your hand and not seriously overstay your unwelcome.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 6th July 2020 at 07:20 AM. Reason: typo
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2020, 06:03 PM   #32
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,845
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
If a joke has to be logical and unexpected, when you are reading a book on mathematical logic, which you haven't read before, what you read is unexpected and logical. Is this funny?
Which is why I said if it is logical and unexpected, a joke has the potential to be funny.

Quote:
If I google "logical definition" I get the below .
Logical:
1)of or according to the rules of logic or formal argument.
2)characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.
3)(of an action, decision, etc.) expected or sensible under the circumstances.

Are you referring to one of these definitions of logical, or do you mean something else? If the latter, please explain yourself a bit more.
All jokes essentially end with a punchline, and it is this punchline which must be logical and unexpected. By logical I do not mean by a rigorous system of arguments, but that it makes sense in the context of what has gone before. For example, consider Henny Youngman's old gag:
"Take my wife. Please."

It's logical, in the sense that we immediately understand that he wants to get rid of his wife. But it's unexpected, because he would set it up by talking about something that women do, so that when he says "take my wife," we assume he is saying "take my wife as an example of this thing that women do," and only when he says "Please," do we see the humor.

Quote:
My view is that logical arguments take time to formulate. <snip>
Again, you are thinking of much more formal logic than what I intended. A little kid may not know logic, but they do pretty quickly pick up sequences of events. They watch a bad guy get shot on tv and keel over, and the next time they hear a gunshot they might keel over in pantomime.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th July 2020, 06:18 PM   #33
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 45,804
Is this argument logical or not?

Yes.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2020, 06:13 PM   #34
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,168
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Analysing a joke is like dissecting a frog. You don't learn much, and the frog dies.
Usually the frog is already dead.

But overthinking humor usually ruins the humor, and if you have to explain it, that tends to ruin it too. Jokes only really work when the person hearing it immediately understands it.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 09:48 AM   #35
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Faster human development in no way necessitates greater human cooperation and in fact may diminish such. Children would become more independent faster.
you are not done elaborating your imaginary world which is not the one you live in, but one where human development is faster.
Sure children would become more independent faster, but what would be the consequences of children becoming more independent faster?


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Common sense would dictate that a surgeon , not just a doctor, be required for an operation.
Common sense is dictated by what people commonly say for specific occasions.
When one needs an operation, to my experience people use both the words "doctor", as well as the specific specialty of doctor for operations which is "surgeon", meaning I have heard people say both for stories told to me "we needed a doctor" and "we needed a surgeon".
If one wants to be specific, you are correct to point out that the right word is surgeon for operations, but it is not the only one used by people, doctor is also used, and usually people are not that picky about which one is used, if they understand the rest of what was said.
In short, I shouldn't even have spend the time to write the above to you, I am not sure if you are looking for some short of a brawl here, but I assure you I don't have the time to fight with you.
But if you meant something else, and I am misjudging you, please elaborate, I am just having fun here.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Similarly, experience with the operation to be preformed would need to be an important factor. A heart surgeon with the best reputation probably is still not a good choice for a knee reconstruction.
when you need a surgeon, and you are not one, you don't have the experience in operations.
So as to be able to judge which doctor has the best experience in operations if you talked to them, meaning you don't understand their practice.
What you do is ask around, and find which doctor people say has the best experience in operations.
Does he/she have that experience? You don't know, you will have to judge by their reputation, what other people said about that doctor.

"a heart surgeon with the best reputation probably is still not a good choice for a knee reconstruction"... I honestly don't understand what you mean here, a heart surgeon with the best reputation in being a heart surgeon, doesn't have any reputation in knee reconstruction. Why? Cause he is a heart surgeon.
Or do you mean a heart surgeon with the best reputation as a knee reconstruction surgeon, even if he/she isn't, is still not a good choice for a knee reconstruction? In this case, I honestly haven't heard this one before, I thought heart surgeons stayed within their practice as heart surgeons, but ok if you have a different experience, let us know.


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
But see the sensibility wasn't common, you missed the importance of a surgeon for an operation and the importance of practical experience over simply reputation. It is because we have to learn these things, even as you assert by getting it wrong from time to time, that demonstrates such sensibility isn't inherently common to us.
Practical experience is what gets one to do what one does.
The ones doing the same thing with that one, judge whether that one is good or not at the practice he/she follows.
For the ones who don't follow that practice, they don't have any practical experience in the field and need to learn information from other people.
This they do either by asking people who follow the specific practice, or (fortunately or unfortunately I don't know) more commonly ask people they know have faced a similar problem in the past.
This latter people asking other people, occurs in a wide variety of ways, but what is simple, is that people asking other people, are looking for the reputation one has in the practice one follows.
This reputation does not always reflect reality, because some people think it is fun to deceive others.
What did I miss?

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
People can and do agree on the stupidest nonsensical things, so that dog just don't bark.
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, could you elaborate?


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Some people have have lots of things in common, some of them nonsensical.
Nonsensical to you, or to them?
If you meant nonsensical to you, who cares, they still have these things in common, if you don't like those particular things, they are nonsensical to you, but to them, they mean something don't they?
If you meant nonsensical to them, some people like to say and write such things, but they still keep doing those things...which to them is why they say they are nonsensical. In this case, my view is those people are having fun with something and can't even admit that to themselves, this is how nonsensical they are in that sense.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
So simply being in common doesn't make it sensible by any account. Heck, that's even an aspect of comedy 'common nonsense'. So that 'commonality' dog just doesn't dance.
"So simply being in common doesn't make it sensible by any account", to my view works this way as I have experienced it in my life.
Some people find out they have things in common and start having fun.
Some of the things they have in common remain in common as time passes (imagine years passing).
These things, people consider sensible, and do them periodically.
Some of the things they had in common, now they don't have in common, and people go their separate ways.
On those separate ways people, after enough time and effort was spend, find new things that they have in common with the previous people, but...
sometimes, on those separate ways people, come back to other people with things they claim are sensible for other people, even though other people cannot sense that.
Regardless, nature in the end dictates what is sensible to people. And for people to find this out, it takes patience, nature is not just made for humans, there are other life forms having fun around also.



Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Some people aren't particularly sociable or even polite but that is no reason not to be socially polite to them.
Some people not being particularly sociable or even polite, is judged by you when you interact with them, so it is preferable to be patient with them, before you can decide whether you want to interact with them further.


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
This story may help with the distinct spectra of sociability.

I was coming on shift at work and most everyone else was headed out to a farewell gathering for a worker who was leaving. I asked one of the more reclusive workers if he was going and he replied "No, I'm anti-social". So I told him "That makes you asocial, anti-social is the guy that goes to the party and tries to beat the crap out of everyone".

To elaborate I like being challenged, I like to hang out with people who offer me new outlooks and perspectives even if I don't agree with them. I take getting a reclusive person to open up or being overly polite to a rude person as a successful interaction. Certainly being perhaps where you are not wanted carries some risks so best to know your limitations, not overplay your hand and not seriously overstay your unwelcome.
I hope you both had fun, because if that other person didn't have fun and was insulted, well now he/she knows what anti-social means and will practice that on the next occasion.
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 09:59 AM   #36
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Which is why I said if it is logical and unexpected, a joke has the potential to be funny.


All jokes essentially end with a punchline, and it is this punchline which must be logical and unexpected. By logical I do not mean by a rigorous system of arguments, but that it makes sense in the context of what has gone before. For example, consider Henny Youngman's old gag:
"Take my wife. Please."

It's logical, in the sense that we immediately understand that he wants to get rid of his wife. But it's unexpected, because he would set it up by talking about something that women do, so that when he says "take my wife," we assume he is saying "take my wife as an example of this thing that women do," and only when he says "Please," do we see the humor.



Again, you are thinking of much more formal logic than what I intended. A little kid may not know logic, but they do pretty quickly pick up sequences of events. They watch a bad guy get shot on tv and keel over, and the next time they hear a gunshot they might keel over in pantomime.
Would it be fair to say that logical in your context is, "makes sense in the moment", or rephrased "when you experience it, you will at that moment feel good", or do you mean something else?
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 02:30 PM   #37
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
you are not done elaborating your imaginary world which is not the one you live in, but one where human development is faster.
Sure children would become more independent faster, but what would be the consequences of children becoming more independent faster?
It is not imaginary, it is happening now, children are becoming more independent faster than they were before. In some cases due to the parents not wanting to stifle the child or impose their own upbringing. In other cases it is just the demands on the parents' time. There can be a lot of consequences both good and bad but mostly dependent on why the child became so independent so fast. Primary, though it will most likely result in a divergence of the child's goals from the parent's goals, sooner.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Common sense is dictated by what people commonly say for specific occasions.
Not by the definition you said we would use, it would be dictated by what is required to make good practical decisions.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
When one needs an operation, to my experience people use both the words "doctor", as well as the specific specialty of doctor for operations which is "surgeon", meaning I have heard people say both for stories told to me "we needed a doctor" and "we needed a surgeon".
If one wants to be specific, you are correct to point out that the right word is surgeon for operations, but it is not the only one used by people, doctor is also used, and usually people are not that picky about which one is used, if they understand the rest of what was said.
In short, I shouldn't even have spend the time to write the above to you, I am not sure if you are looking for some short of a brawl here, but I assure you I don't have the time to fight with you.
But if you meant something else, and I am misjudging you, please elaborate, I am just having fun here.
No I'm not looking for a fight and sorry it if it seems that way but unfortunately confronting someone's assertions can often have the appearance of looking for a fight.

No reason fun can't also be informative. Remember the definition "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter". Well that often takes practical knowledge. Something you alluded to yourself by noting people "get pointed back by consequences that happen more often to them".

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
when you need a surgeon, and you are not one, you don't have the experience in operations.
So as to be able to judge which doctor has the best experience in operations if you talked to them, meaning you don't understand their practice.
What you do is ask around, and find which doctor people say has the best experience in operations.
Does he/she have that experience? You don't know, you will have to judge by their reputation, what other people said about that doctor.

"a heart surgeon with the best reputation probably is still not a good choice for a knee reconstruction"... I honestly don't understand what you mean here, a heart surgeon with the best reputation in being a heart surgeon, doesn't have any reputation in knee reconstruction. Why? Cause he is a heart surgeon.
Or do you mean a heart surgeon with the best reputation as a knee reconstruction surgeon, even if he/she isn't, is still not a good choice for a knee reconstruction? In this case, I honestly haven't heard this one before, I thought heart surgeons stayed within their practice as heart surgeons, but ok if you have a different experience, let us know.
You seem to be conflating reputation with experience. Even having done the operation a few times, for whatever reason, and doing it well thus having a good reputation for those times the heart surgeon has done a knee reconstruction. They can still lack the experience of the orthopedic surgeon who specializes in that field and perhaps might not even have the best reputation. Making good practical decisions often involves making good practical trade offs.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Practical experience is what gets one to do what one does.
The ones doing the same thing with that one, judge whether that one is good or not at the practice he/she follows.
For the ones who don't follow that practice, they don't have any practical experience in the field and need to learn information from other people.
This they do either by asking people who follow the specific practice, or (fortunately or unfortunately I don't know) more commonly ask people they know have faced a similar problem in the past.
This latter people asking other people, occurs in a wide variety of ways, but what is simple, is that people asking other people, are looking for the reputation one has in the practice one follows.
This reputation does not always reflect reality, because some people think it is fun to deceive others.
What did I miss?
That common sense as "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter" is also a development of practical experience. As is also the ability to judge those good practical trade offs mentioned above.



Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
I am not sure what you are trying to say here, could you elaborate?
You were asserting things that people had in common as if it represented some kind of "common sense". Much like you did above with "what people commonly say for specific occasions". That's not common sense by the definition we agreed to work from, nor is it inherently sensible simply because it is common. Hack, things common to one group isn't common to another so just commonality has to take a very limited context in the way you keep trying to use the phrase "common sense". Which is why that usage is an oxymoron.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Nonsensical to you, or to them?
If it's not both then it is not common. Again this demonstrates the lack of commonality in what is often colloquially referred to as common sense.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
If you meant nonsensical to you, who cares, they still have these things in common, if you don't like those particular things, they are nonsensical to you, but to them, they mean something don't they?
If you meant nonsensical to them, some people like to say and write such things, but they still keep doing those things...which to them is why they say they are nonsensical. In this case, my view is those people are having fun with something and can't even admit that to themselves, this is how nonsensical they are in that sense.
So there you have 'common nonsense', as I mention before as a type of humor.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
"So simply being in common doesn't make it sensible by any account", to my view works this way as I have experienced it in my life.
Some people find out they have things in common and start having fun.
Some of the things they have in common remain in common as time passes (imagine years passing).
These things, people consider sensible, and do them periodically.
Some of the things they had in common, now they don't have in common, and people go their separate ways.
On those separate ways people, after enough time and effort was spend, find new things that they have in common with the previous people, but...
sometimes, on those separate ways people, come back to other people with things they claim are sensible for other people, even though other people cannot sense that.
Regardless, nature in the end dictates what is sensible to people. And for people to find this out, it takes patience, nature is not just made for humans, there are other life forms having fun around also.
And here you are back to the 'sensibility' part being learned and thus not inherently common even with the 'common' part no longer being common when considering the distinct aspects of groups of individuals. Again this is where the more colloquial usage of the term 'common sense' tends to fall apart. In that the sensibility is learned and even when learned not often common across larger groups of people. So I implore you to just stick with the definition we spoke of before "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter". Still perhaps not common but not really group dependent either as it is something that can be gained by experience. Mostly in making bad practical decisions. What we often find here (not saying this is you) is people asserting what is simply their intuition as being "common sense".


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Some people not being particularly sociable or even polite, is judged by you when you interact with them, so it is preferable to be patient with them, before you can decide whether you want to interact with them further.
Nope, I let people express themselves so not being sociable or being impolite are decisions they have to make. Why should I have to interact with someone in order for them to be unsociable or impolite?.

Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
I hope you both had fun, because if that other person didn't have fun and was insulted, well now he/she knows what anti-social means and will practice that on the next occasion.
Sure we had fun, at least as much as a casual acquaintance can have with an a-social person. That was the whole point, letting him know what "anti-social means" and that it wasn't the inference the intended to project, along with the fun of the hyperbole.

Heck, while anti-social types can be volatile and dangerous they can also be fun. They even tend to form groups, having those anti-social tenancies in common. How sensible is that, anti-social sociability?


Now to bring it back around to your OP, see that's the thing about comedy while there may be some general rules of thumb there are no universal methods nor some type of logical decision chart. Though trying to assert such can be a joke in itself. It's often just an application of what's going on, so we get a true but hopefully humorous assertion of anti-social sociability. So in accordance with the discussion above 'common sense' for comedy would mean making good practical decisions in comedy which, as discussed above, would require good practical experience in comedy.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2020, 03:54 PM   #38
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
It is not imaginary, it is happening now, children are becoming more independent faster than they were before. In some cases due to the parents not wanting to stifle the child or impose their own upbringing. In other cases it is just the demands on the parents' time. There can be a lot of consequences both good and bad but mostly dependent on why the child became so independent so fast. Primary, though it will most likely result in a divergence of the child's goals from the parent's goals, sooner.
I am not sure how are children in general are becoming more independent faster. Children seem pretty attached to technology these days, and through technology socially to other children, or they exchange their independence from their parents with dependence with other children, online groups according to their interests.

Still why does that constitute faster human development? Humans are spending more time with their personal interests these days, in general, but aristocrats, or child-prodigies of the past did that also, and their human development seems to have stopped where their efforts stopped, and this happens when it stops being fun for one to continue.
Today more people have more choices, true, but humans in the past, who were given the time to spend their efforts in something and develop their skills did so.
I don't see humans developing faster or evolving into anything else, but variations of what we humans call humans.
How is it you conclude that humans are developing faster? Skills take a certain amount of time and effort spend to develop, and you never know exactly this time, you may simply have and idea, but you will find out only in the end.


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Not by the definition you said we would use, it would be dictated by what is required to make good practical decisions.
So let's go this way.
Let's assume that people commonly say something for specific occasions. ("when this happens blah blah blah")
Is this something they say, required to make good practical decisions for similar occasions?
Let's assume it is not required to make good practical decisions for similar occasions.
Then people would be commonly saying something for specific occasions which is not required to make good practical decisions for those specific occasions, over an indefinite amount of time...but that doesn't happen does it?
People commonly saying something for specific occasion doesn't have a specified amount of time, because when people commonly say something for specific occasions, enough time has passed for experience to be built (so that people end up commonly saying something for specific occasions).

People commonly saying something for specific occasion this year, is not common sense. But if they have been saying these things in the past also, and they still seem valid to us, it is. And it is required to make good practical decisions.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No I'm not looking for a fight and sorry it if it seems that way but unfortunately confronting someone's assertions can often have the appearance of looking for a fight.

No reason fun can't also be informative. Remember the definition "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter". Well that often takes practical knowledge. Something you alluded to yourself by noting people "get pointed back by consequences that happen more often to them".
ok, let's continue then

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You seem to be conflating reputation with experience. Even having done the operation a few times, for whatever reason, and doing it well thus having a good reputation for those times the heart surgeon has done a knee reconstruction. They can still lack the experience of the orthopedic surgeon who specializes in that field and perhaps might not even have the best reputation. Making good practical decisions often involves making good practical trade offs.
"Even having done the operation a few times, for whatever reason, and doing it well thus having a good reputation for those times the heart surgeon has done a knee reconstruction. They can still lack the experience of the orthopedic surgeon who specializes in that field and perhaps might not even have the best reputation"
So there is an orthopedic surgeon, who specializes in that field, has all the experience for the specific operation, and people are looking not for this person but for the heart surgeon who does knee reconstructions as exceptions from his/her actual specialty?
Let's assume this happens for heaven's sake, is this what seems to be happening in society to you? That people wanting a knee reconstruction are looking for the heart surgeon with the best reputation?

One gets experience in something one does.
This experience has to be able to be verified by other people, before they approach the specific person (because they can choose from many different people and need a way to be able to make a good practical decision).
Information about the experience one has in something, can be in the end when it reaches other people's ears helpful or unhelpful. If it is helpful, people keep following it, if it is not people drop it, because it makes no sense to keep it.
In order for a reputation to be build, the information reaching other people's ears about one has to be helpful to them, according to their own judgement.
The reputation one has in a field is summarized information about the experience this person has in the field, so it is not the same thing as experience in a field. But, people who don't have experience in a field, are not judging the experience another person has in the field (they don't have the experience to do that), they are trying to find information of what other people thought of the person after they had experience with them (once or repeated).



Originally Posted by The Man View Post
You were asserting things that people had in common as if it represented some kind of "common sense". Much like you did above with "what people commonly say for specific occasions". That's not common sense by the definition we agreed to work from, nor is it inherently sensible simply because it is common. Hack, things common to one group isn't common to another so just commonality has to take a very limited context in the way you keep trying to use the phrase "common sense". Which is why that usage is an oxymoron.
"common sense" and "what people commonly say for specific occasions" was clarified above.

Regarding "You were asserting things that people had in common as if it represented some kind of "common sense""
I am saying exactly that, correct. Why? Let's use an example people have in common, music.
You will notice in music, that a band that lives in one place of the planet, can when heard for the first time from a person in another part of the planet, make quite an impact to the second person, if it falls within his/her taste.
To isolate a bit further in time, when jazz or rock n' roll where first heard in Europe, there were no prior references people had to those sounds. But they intuitively understood them, and this is what they said if they wanted to use the least words: "This is fun!"
Music is part of our common sense, as we commonly as humans understand music. How? Some is within your taste some is not according to you taste, but you know it is music.
And what is the practical use of music? People relax and commonly spend time together without conflict and by repetition they learn to be a bit more patient with each other.

Things that humans have in common intuitively, when they appear with statistical significance in populations, and for an extended period of time, are part of our common sense.
Most of the things humans of the past did which we have physically today (buildings, art, technology etc.), we can commonly understand still today to a degree, even if we didn't live in their time. We don't need too much training to do this intuitively, and categorize them as fun or not fun to us ("I like it" / "I don't like it").
On the other hand there isn't any training I could think of where a dolphin would be interested in listening to human music.
So humans have human senses, and when their senses are common, this is common sense. Why is this practical? Because where human senses are common, usually it is what seems to be happening for humans.
When this isn't the case, then our common sense failed us, and we'd better update our information, as something else seemed to be happening for this occasion.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
If it's not both then it is not common. Again this demonstrates the lack of commonality in what is often colloquially referred to as common sense.
Let's start from the beginning here.
you:"Some people have have lots of things in common, some of them nonsensical."
me: "Nonsensical to you, or to them?"
you: "If it's not both then it is not common"
If it is both, it is nonsensical to you and to them.
If this is so, how do those people have things nonsensical to them that they have in common?
Can you give us an example of what you mean?
Also I hope we are not spending all this time here for the case where you meant "Some people have lots of things in common, out of coincidence, but not because their senses point them to those same things common", yes that can happen too, this is called coincidence.
When it is specifically due to their senses , it is common sense. But if you use music as an example, you will notice music is quite varied, some humans like this type of music others the other, some are not even interested in music. But all commonly understand what music is, even though it would be quite a challenge to explain this to any cat.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
So there you have 'common nonsense', as I mention before as a type of humor.
"common nonsense" is how the one who doesn't have these things in common with the rest feels about them, the rest of the people feel good about having these things in common, call them common sense (unless nature proves them otherwise).



Originally Posted by The Man View Post
And here you are back to the 'sensibility' part being learned and thus not inherently common even with the 'common' part no longer being common when considering the distinct aspects of groups of individuals. Again this is where the more colloquial usage of the term 'common sense' tends to fall apart. In that the sensibility is learned and even when learned not often common across larger groups of people. So I implore you to just stick with the definition we spoke of before "good sense and sound judgement in practical matter". Still perhaps not common but not really group dependent either as it is something that can be gained by experience. Mostly in making bad practical decisions. What we often find here (not saying this is you) is people asserting what is simply their intuition as being "common sense".
"In that the sensibility is learned and even when learned not often common across larger groups of people."
Whatever sensibility you learn, it can be verified back by other people if it is of any use to them, through their senses, in a way that is common, or else sensibility wouldn't be helpful for people.
You may not be skilled at something, but for the subjects which interest you, your senses can guide you up to a point, and then they fail.
People watching a great movie, may not have the sensibility of the director of the movie, probably they can't make as good a movie (or any movie) , but they can judge the movie after they experienced it as a great movie.

The ones who spend time and effort patiently on a practice, can become good in that practice, so that they can perform it intuitively. Others can't perform the practice intuitively, but they can verify the practices results intuitively.
For a song to be heard a single time by a listener and enjoyed, the performer has to spend quite more time and effort, so that the song is performed with emotion, or intuitively.




Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Nope, I let people express themselves so not being sociable or being impolite are decisions they have to make. Why should I have to interact with someone in order for them to be unsociable or impolite?.
You don't have to interact with someone in order for them to be unsociable or impolite.
You have to be patient when interacting with someone, because whether one is impolite or unsociable, is judged by you at that specific occasion, you may be right or you may be wrong in that case.
In the second case (since this is the one you are trying to avoid) you are the impolite or unsociable, but this won't be possible to be seen by you, because you are not using your common sense, and assume beforehand that what is polite and sociable for you, is polite and sociable exactly the same for all.
There isn't a human being who has the ability to do that, know what is sociable and polite for all occasions, this is common sense also.
What is polite and sociable for people in japan is a bit different than people in Spain.
If a Japanese person visits Spain and some Spanish person does something which is rude for a japanese person but accepted for Spanish people, both the Japanese and Spanish have common sense to be a bit more patient in their interaction, as the things they have in common are less in this case than the things they would have in common with their country's people, and that latter thing they both know, commonly (when they don't they find out quickly...)


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Now to bring it back around to your OP, see that's the thing about comedy while there may be some general rules of thumb there are no universal methods nor some type of logical decision chart. Though trying to assert such can be a joke in itself. It's often just an application of what's going on, so we get a true but hopefully humorous assertion of anti-social sociability. So in accordance with the discussion above 'common sense' for comedy would mean making good practical decisions in comedy which, as discussed above, would require good practical experience in comedy.
The "general rules of thumb comedy" are also part of our common sense, because we can commonly see that these rules of thumb work.
The universal method is that as a human being you can do fun stuff for other people. How? By being patient with them.

Why? Because you need patience to have fun. Why? You need patience to find this out. Why again? Because you find this out in a funny way.
Sometimes it is more fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, sometimes it is less fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, but when you are having a good time, it is just the right amount of fun.
And to find those times, it comes back to the beginning, you need patience to have fun. And if you are passing this part of the text fast, you are not being patient.

And patience doesn't have any winners and losers, only fun happens with patience.
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th July 2020, 04:53 PM   #39
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,787
Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
I am not sure how are children in general are becoming more independent faster. Children seem pretty attached to technology these days, and through technology socially to other children, or they exchange their independence from their parents with dependence with other children, online groups according to their interests.

Still why does that constitute faster human development? Humans are spending more time with their personal interests these days, in general, but aristocrats, or child-prodigies of the past did that also, and their human development seems to have stopped where their efforts stopped, and this happens when it stops being fun for one to continue.
Today more people have more choices, true, but humans in the past, who were given the time to spend their efforts in something and develop their skills did so.
I don't see humans developing faster or evolving into anything else, but variations of what we humans call humans.
How is it you conclude that humans are developing faster? Skills take a certain amount of time and effort spend to develop, and you never know exactly this time, you may simply have and idea, but you will find out only in the end.
I didn't say it constituted faster human development, just addressing your question about the consequences of children becoming more independent faster. One of the consequences of independence is you get to choose what asncd/or whom you might want to depend upon.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
So let's go this way.
Let's assume that people commonly say something for specific occasions. ("when this happens blah blah blah")
Is this something they say, required to make good practical decisions for similar occasions?
Let's assume it is not required to make good practical decisions for similar occasions.
Then people would be commonly saying something for specific occasions which is not required to make good practical decisions for those specific occasions, over an indefinite amount of time...but that doesn't happen does it?
People commonly saying something for specific occasion doesn't have a specified amount of time, because when people commonly say something for specific occasions, enough time has passed for experience to be built (so that people end up commonly saying something for specific occasions).

People commonly saying something for specific occasion this year, is not common sense. But if they have been saying these things in the past also, and they still seem valid to us, it is. And it is required to make good practical decisions.
What people are commonly saying is not part of the definition of common sense we said we'd use.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
ok, let's continue then



"Even having done the operation a few times, for whatever reason, and doing it well thus having a good reputation for those times the heart surgeon has done a knee reconstruction. They can still lack the experience of the orthopedic surgeon who specializes in that field and perhaps might not even have the best reputation"
So there is an orthopedic surgeon, who specializes in that field, has all the experience for the specific operation, and people are looking not for this person but for the heart surgeon who does knee reconstructions as exceptions from his/her actual specialty?
Let's assume this happens for heaven's sake, is this what seems to be happening in society to you? That people wanting a knee reconstruction are looking for the heart surgeon with the best reputation?

One gets experience in something one does.
This experience has to be able to be verified by other people, before they approach the specific person (because they can choose from many different people and need a way to be able to make a good practical decision).
Information about the experience one has in something, can be in the end when it reaches other people's ears helpful or unhelpful. If it is helpful, people keep following it, if it is not people drop it, because it makes no sense to keep it.
In order for a reputation to be build, the information reaching other people's ears about one has to be helpful to them, according to their own judgement.
The reputation one has in a field is summarized information about the experience this person has in the field, so it is not the same thing as experience in a field. But, people who don't have experience in a field, are not judging the experience another person has in the field (they don't have the experience to do that), they are trying to find information of what other people thought of the person after they had experience with them (once or repeated).
No you can gauge a persons experience by how often they successfully complete the task not by what people though about them doing the task. Think of an airplane pilot, experience in a given type of aircraft is gauged by hours flying that type not what passengers though about the experience.



Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
"common sense" and "what people commonly say for specific occasions" was clarified above.

Regarding "You were asserting things that people had in common as if it represented some kind of "common sense""
I am saying exactly that, correct. Why? Let's use an example people have in common, music.
You will notice in music, that a band that lives in one place of the planet, can when heard for the first time from a person in another part of the planet, make quite an impact to the second person, if it falls within his/her taste.
To isolate a bit further in time, when jazz or rock n' roll where first heard in Europe, there were no prior references people had to those sounds. But they intuitively understood them, and this is what they said if they wanted to use the least words: "This is fun!"
Music is part of our common sense, as we commonly as humans understand music. How? Some is within your taste some is not according to you taste, but you know it is music.
And what is the practical use of music? People relax and commonly spend time together without conflict and by repetition they learn to be a bit more patient with each other.

Things that humans have in common intuitively, when they appear with statistical significance in populations, and for an extended period of time, are part of our common sense.
Most of the things humans of the past did which we have physically today (buildings, art, technology etc.), we can commonly understand still today to a degree, even if we didn't live in their time. We don't need too much training to do this intuitively, and categorize them as fun or not fun to us ("I like it" / "I don't like it").
On the other hand there isn't any training I could think of where a dolphin would be interested in listening to human music.
So humans have human senses, and when their senses are common, this is common sense. Why is this practical? Because where human senses are common, usually it is what seems to be happening for humans.
When this isn't the case, then our common sense failed us, and we'd better update our information, as something else seemed to be happening for this occasion.

What the common in common sense refers to, in the definition we said we'd use is simply that the ability to make good practical decisions is a trait people commonly have or can gain. It is not about anything else they may have in common other than that specific trait.

Heck, even dolphins may commonly have the trait to be able to make good piratical decisions.


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
Let's start from the beginning here.
you:"Some people have have lots of things in common, some of them nonsensical."
me: "Nonsensical to you, or to them?"
you: "If it's not both then it is not common"
If it is both, it is nonsensical to you and to them.
If this is so, how do those people have things nonsensical to them that they have in common?
Can you give us an example of what you mean?
Also I hope we are not spending all this time here for the case where you meant "Some people have lots of things in common, out of coincidence, but not because their senses point them to those same things common", yes that can happen too, this is called coincidence.
When it is specifically due to their senses , it is common sense. But if you use music as an example, you will notice music is quite varied, some humans like this type of music others the other, some are not even interested in music. But all commonly understand what music is, even though it would be quite a challenge to explain this to any cat.

"common nonsense" is how the one who doesn't have these things in common with the rest feels about them, the rest of the people feel good about having these things in common, call them common sense (unless nature proves them otherwise).
What i mean by common nonsense is things that people would commonly take as nonsensical. Comedians like Jerry Lewis, Bud Abbott and the three stooges made careers out of it.



Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post

"In that the sensibility is learned and even when learned not often common across larger groups of people."
Whatever sensibility you learn, it can be verified back by other people if it is of any use to them, through their senses, in a way that is common, or else sensibility wouldn't be helpful for people.
You may not be skilled at something, but for the subjects which interest you, your senses can guide you up to a point, and then they fail.
People watching a great movie, may not have the sensibility of the director of the movie, probably they can't make as good a movie (or any movie) , but they can judge the movie after they experienced it as a great movie.

The ones who spend time and effort patiently on a practice, can become good in that practice, so that they can perform it intuitively. Others can't perform the practice intuitively, but they can verify the practices results intuitively.
For a song to be heard a single time by a listener and enjoyed, the performer has to spend quite more time and effort, so that the song is performed with emotion, or intuitively.
No they can't hence the problem, as mentioned, with some on this forum, at times, people think they can intuitively judge complex concepts without putting any effort into understanding them



Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post

You don't have to interact with someone in order for them to be unsociable or impolite.
You have to be patient when interacting with someone, because whether one is impolite or unsociable, is judged by you at that specific occasion, you may be right or you may be wrong in that case.

In the second case (since this is the one you are trying to avoid) you are the impolite or unsociable, but this won't be possible to be seen by you, because you are not using your common sense, and assume beforehand that what is polite and sociable for you, is polite and sociable exactly the same for all.
There isn't a human being who has the ability to do that, know what is sociable and polite for all occasions, this is common sense also.
What is polite and sociable for people in japan is a bit different than people in Spain.
If a Japanese person visits Spain and some Spanish person does something which is rude for a japanese person but accepted for Spanish people, both the Japanese and Spanish have common sense to be a bit more patient in their interaction, as the things they have in common are less in this case than the things they would have in common with their country's people, and that latter thing they both know, commonly (when they don't they find out quickly...)
Can you not also find that one is unsociable or impolite by their actions with others?

Heck, some people specifically display such intent so that you don't have to interact with them to know.

Didn't I specifically tell you before that I don't avoid unsociable or impolite people?


Originally Posted by AlexPontik View Post
The "general rules of thumb comedy" are also part of our common sense, because we can commonly see that these rules of thumb work.
The universal method is that as a human being you can do fun stuff for other people. How? By being patient with them.

Why? Because you need patience to have fun. Why? You need patience to find this out. Why again? Because you find this out in a funny way.
Sometimes it is more fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, sometimes it is less fun than what you can handle at that moment in your life, but when you are having a good time, it is just the right amount of fun.
And to find those times, it comes back to the beginning, you need patience to have fun. And if you are passing this part of the text fast, you are not being patient.

And patience doesn't have any winners and losers, only fun happens with patience.
No you don't have to be patient to have fun with people, much of comedy is off the cuff, fast paced and even geared towards the casual passerby.

I'm in a rush right now so I dashed this of quick I'm happy to expand upon anything you have questions on. However I would recommend that you try to gain experience with different forms of comedy not just as an observer and intuitive judge but instead in performance of, the formalic inclinations might get some of that natural negative feedback you often allude to. Thus gaining you some good piratical experience.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 20th July 2020 at 04:54 PM.
The Man is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st July 2020, 04:59 AM   #40
AlexPontik
Student
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I didn't say it constituted faster human development, just addressing your question about the consequences of children becoming more independent faster. One of the consequences of independence is you get to choose what asncd/or whom you might want to depend upon.
Not sure what you are getting at here, for me probably let's drop this one for conversations sake (this doesn't seem to be going anywhere fun), but feel free to expand on what you are getting at.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What people are commonly saying is not part of the definition of common sense we said we'd use.
Let's start with the definition we'd say we would use then.
common sense =good sense and sound judgement in practical matters

If we say there is such a thing, there are some people who have this skill to some extend (good sense and sound judgement in practical matters). Why? because there are two words ("common sense") to describe this skill, so some people should have it, or people wouldn't use those two words, as they wouldn't see it as as skill over people have in the real world around them.
is it common sense among people that some have common sense and others don't, or is it something else?

Let's talk about the people who have good sense and sound judgement in practical matters.
Those people, by exercising their good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, can do something in practice consistently (consistently=acting or done in the same way over time, especially so as to be fair or accurate).
Do those who have common sense find this in practice in the real world, or is it something else?

Because they can do something in practice, others who may not have good sense and sound judgment, can verify the results of those people in practice. Why? Because those people claim they can do something in practice, if others cannot verify the results of those people in practice, then they are not doing something in practice, they are just claiming they are doing something in practice.
Can you do what you are saying that you can do or is it something else?

Because others can verify the results of those people in practice, and these results point to good sense and sound judgement in practical matters, others want to talk to those people, to learn more, but also, they want to talk to other people also, so that good and sound judgement in practical matters is known in society, so that in the end good sense and sound judgement guides society.
Why? Because this way society is fun for as much people as possible practically, those people in society do what they do in practice, and all other people are guided, not by those people, but by their results in practice.
Why? Because when this isn't then case, then society becomes less fun for people, as less good sense and sound judgement in practical matters guides people in general, and they end up getting hurt, because real life, has real consequences. So, eventually they correct their course, according to their current good sense and sound judgement, with whatever mess they have caused, or the fun ends for them in real life, for that time or for a longer time (but don't worry in the end the fun ends for all of us in the real world, and we all relax).
Do people express commonly what is their good sense and sound judgement in society as they have experienced it in their lives, or is it something else?Do people in the end commonly find, what common sense is in their lives as they live in the real world, or is it something else?
Is it common sense among people, that common sense requires time and effort spend in practical matters, or is it something else?




Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No you can gauge a persons experience by how often they successfully complete the task not by what people though about them doing the task.
So what people thought about one doing a task, is not how they gauge(=estimate or determine the amount, level, or volume of) a persons experience by how often that person successfully completed the task?
Why do they take into account how often that person completed the task?
Because if they see something once and they don't see it ever again, then this isn't common sense, is it?

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Think of an airplane pilot, experience in a given type of aircraft is gauged by hours flying that type not what passengers though about the experience.
For what the passenger thought about the experience, does it matter to them, that there is an experienced pilot on the plane, or should I think it some other way (if yes, how)?


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What the common in common sense refers to, in the definition we said we'd use is simply that the ability to make good practical decisions is a trait people commonly have or can gain. It is not about anything else they may have in common other than that specific trait.
This was covered above I think, but feel free to expand.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Heck, even dolphins may commonly have the trait to be able to make good piratical decisions.
Yes, dolphins have senses, or else they wouldn't be able to sense the world they live in when they were awake.
What senses? Dolphins senses, the senses that dolphins have, if you visit dolphins you will see them, they go here, they go there, they are doing what is fun for dolphins to do, what satisfies their senses.
Do dolphins talk commonly about their senses? I don't know, but let's ignore this and say that dolphins follow each other as their sense guide them. Why? Because otherwise if they don't follow each other as their senses guide them, what else are they doing in the real world following each other?


Originally Posted by The Man View Post
What i mean by common nonsense is things that people would commonly take as nonsensical. Comedians like Jerry Lewis, Bud Abbott and the three stooges made careers out of it.
There are two definitions in google for what people commonly take as nonsensical.
1.having no meaning; making no sense
2.ridiculously impractical or ill-advised.

"Comedians like Jerry Lewis, Bud Abbott and the three stooges made careers out of it."
I am not a particular fan of any of the above, but for someone to make a career out of something, this something makes sense to someone else.
If this something is ridiculously impractical or ill-advised, and one makes a career out of this something in practice, is it ridiculously impractical or ill-advised just for this one, or also for all of the others who followed this one's career for years?
What was ridiculously impractical for those comedians, people liked their comedy in practice, and however ill-advised on the way, in the end, they just had fun and nothing more, is that ill-advised?

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No they can't hence the problem, as mentioned, with some on this forum, at times, people think they can intuitively judge complex concepts without putting any effort into understanding them
No they can't what and why?

People need to intuitively judge when they put effort into understanding anything, if they don't intuitive judge they don't put any effort towards ending up intuitively understanding, as they are doing something else.
They will intuitively judge, they will fail, they will correct their intuitions.
The ones in the end who do intuitively understand, intuitively understand that they don't understand more than what is fun for them.
Others believe that they intuitively understand what is fun for everyone, but they are unwilling to explain themselves.



Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Can you not also find that one is unsociable or impolite by their actions with others?
I can but I don't see why this should dictate what my judgement of that one is before I interact with that one.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Heck, some people specifically display such intent so that you don't have to interact with them to know.
Some people do, but then again you are judging this at the time this happens, and with time what seems to be happening appears to you, as for people whose intent you judge at any moment , either the intent displayed is what seems to be happening or it isn't. And in order to find this out, this takes time, because it is common sense that some people are full of it.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Didn't I specifically tell you before that I don't avoid unsociable or impolite people?
You did, now you need to be patient to explain why you are saying this again.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
No you don't have to be patient to have fun with people, much of comedy is off the cuff, fast paced and even geared towards the casual passerby.
So comedians don't have to spend time and effort on their skill in comedy, over years for their skill to be developed. What is this skill in the end? The ability to make fun with words? That sounds a bit ill-advised, but people do it, they make careers out of it, but it's a long road man, and it requires patience for your skill to be slowly forged.

Originally Posted by The Man View Post
I'm in a rush right now so I dashed this of quick I'm happy to expand upon anything you have questions on. However I would recommend that you try to gain experience with different forms of comedy not just as an observer and intuitive judge but instead in performance of, the formalic inclinations might get some of that natural negative feedback you often allude to. Thus gaining you some good piratical experience.
Feel free to expand, I have patience to listen to your thoughts
AlexPontik is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Education

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.