Difference between revisions of "Talk:190: IPoD"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
 
: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 
: Perhaps, but I doubt it. [[Special:Contributions/184.66.160.91|184.66.160.91]] 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 
: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke.  It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic.  But it should be mentioned anyway.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 
: Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke.  It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic.  But it should be mentioned anyway.  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.223|108.162.219.223]] 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la [[W:Karl Popper|Popper]], but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation".  —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
+
::I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la {{w|Karl Popper}}, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation".  —[[User:Kazvorpal|Kazvorpal]] ([[User talk:Kazvorpal|talk]]) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:04, 7 October 2019

The joke "IPoD -- IP over Demographics" is referring to the media player from Apple.--Dgbrt (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I doubt it. 184.66.160.91 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course it is, but as just a secondary joke. It doesn't relate to the main point of the comic. But it should be mentioned anyway. 108.162.219.223 19:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I find it boggling how many people are so weak-minded as to feel certain about something based on evidence instead of proof. It is absolutely impossible to rationally state "of course it is" if you lack proof. You are going by the circumstantial evidence of the letters coinciding, and nothing more. It cannot be better than "probably is". Not only is this a logical problem a-la Karl Popper, but this failing also seems to involve a weakly developed theory of mind. The belief that one can know with certainty the thoughts of another in a case like this shows that while they may understand the basic premise of "that person can't always see what I'm seeing", they don't fully grok "I don't necessarily know his thoughts, based on my external observations and speculation". —Kazvorpal (talk) 16:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)