Is Alizée a Black Swan?

[Deepwaters]

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. It's the study, or speculation, or reasoning about, how we know things. What are the criteria for knowledge? How do we know that we know something?

Some of the fundamental ideas in epistemology include empiricism (we know through sensory experience, observation), rationalism (we know through pure reason from a priori premises), the scientific method (a blend of empiricism and rationalism with the empirical side dominant), mysticism (we know through direct inner experience -- generally applies only to religious knowledge), and logical positivism (a branch off the scientific method that holds any questions that can't be answerable through objective observation to be meaningless).

Does that help any?

[kdn]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Does that help any?

Nope.
Way too high reading grade especially for a non-native English speaker like me.

[Joey_adore_Jung]

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. It's the study, or speculation, or reasoning about, how we know things. What are the criteria for knowledge? How do we know that we know something?

Some of the fundamental ideas in epistemology include empiricism (we know through sensory experience, observation), rationalism (we know through pure reason from a priori premises), the scientific method (a blend of empiricism and rationalism with the empirical side dominant), mysticism (we know through direct inner experience -- generally applies only to religious knowledge), and logical positivism (a branch off the scientific method that holds any questions that can't be answerable through objective observation to be meaningless).

Does that help any?

ok thx i just learned a little no i don't feel as much as an idiot as i did before.
helped plenty

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by kdn

Nope.
Way too high reading grade especially for a non-native English speaker like me.

OK, let me try again.

Epistemology tries to answer the question of how we can know anything. When we are trying to discover the truth of something, how can we best do that? What constitutes proof?

Do we know something because we see it, feel it, hear it, etc.? That's what empiricists believe.

Do we know something because it makes logical sense, or follows logically from premises that we know are true from the first (a priori)? That's what rationalists believe.

Do we use a combination of those two, taking data from sense perception, and then reasoning from those data through logic and mathematics, then go back and check our reasoning by observing some more? That's the scientific method.

Do we contain knowledge within ourselves, hidden, and discover it by achieving certain states of consciousness? That's mysticism.

Most people believe some mix and match of the above.

One of the basic truths of epistemology is that no epistemic system can prove itself in its own terms. You have to assume the system is valid in order to prove anything (e.g., if you're working scientifically, you have to assume that the scientific method is valid in order to accept its proofs), so any proof using that system of the system itself becomes circular.

The "black swan" idea that OGRE presented in the OP is an epistemic notion, the idea that we sometimes perceive events as significant and non-random when they are really random, but rare. He was suggesting that Alizée might be such a phenomenon. I disagreed, and still do: I think she's genuinely awesome.

[kdn]

Thanks for the explaination, I ate every word of your post(s).

Originally Posted by Deepwaters

The "black swan" idea that OGRE presented in the OP is an epistemic notion, the idea that we sometimes perceive events as significant and non-random when they are really random, but rare. He was suggesting that Alizée might be such a phenomenon. I disagreed, and still do: I think she's genuinely awesome.

Yup, I agree. And the system which was used must be "Mysticism".

[Roman]

Originally Posted by RMJ

You haven't seen this performance ?
I think she was just lovely in it.

LOL! That's our talented RMJ at it again!
To go with Deepwaters' line of thinking, I would put it this way:
Alizée more represents the culmination of evolutionary forces - that is, the success of Nature in giving us the most naturally appropriate (desireable) example of her "species", rather than being an abberation, albeit a beautiful one if that was the case.
Ok, Deep also helped me understand the question better anyway. As for the "non-random" and significant events that are actually random and rare, I find that a lot of people have this sense or belief (everyone that believes in God?). As Lili has claimed to be rather superstitious, I suppose that means she's one of them. Sorry, I'm not, though, I must point out that it can become a difficult question and the degree to which it is true can make the difference in an argument because in fact everything is physically connected in the continuum that is the universe we know. The same wind blows on us all.
Hence, the holistic force of Nature produces an Alizée whose characteristics are only surprising in the degree of their obvious desireability, though, like a rogue wave, one may not see it coming and its impact can be massive. A "black swan" may seem to be the evidence of ramdom events occuring in nature, yet, it is itself not unusual in the sense that Nature achieves its evolutionary change via random fluctuations (of course, to what degree ramdomness actually exists is another question, or perhaps the whole point).
Ok, now I'm just babbling. Did any of that actually answer Ogre's question?

[OGRE]

Keep in mind the "Black Swan" need not be random. It can be completely deterministic. It's more of a "surprise" factor than a random factor. The term "random" used in the original question can reflect an "unpredictable" non-random (in the traditional sense) event. Or, in the words or Taleb and his definition of Epistemic Opacity: "Randomness is the result of incomplete information at some layer. It is functionally indistinguishable from "true" or "physical" randomness".

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by OGRE

Keep in mind the "Black Swan" need not be random. It can be completely deterministic. It's more of a "surprise" factor than a random factor.

Yes. The main thing about the Black Swan phenomenon is that it doesn't mean what we think it means. It's an illusion, really: the perception of meaning in an unlikely and unexpected event.

Are we getting back now to that same old question of exactly WHAT the Alizée phenomenon or Alizée effect consists of?

"Randomness is the result of incomplete information at some layer. It is functionally indistinguishable from "true" or "physical" randomness".

Pretty much. The only distinction is that in true or physical randomness, the incompleteness of the information is inherent in physical law, and can never be remedied even in principle. As far as we're concerned on a level of ordinary observation, the two are the same.

[MiamMiam]

Geez again, you guys like overly analyze one person, it's kind of dumb imo. Anyways swans are mean animals, beautiful but mean...I doubt you'd want to compare her to that.

[Deepwaters]

Originally Posted by MiamMiam

Geez again, you guys like overly analyze one person, it's kind of dumb imo.

Shh. We're having fun. Leave us alone.

Anyways swans are mean animals, beautiful but mean...I doubt you'd want to compare her to that.

That's true, but we weren't. The comparison was to a BLACK swan, not a black SWAN, if you get my drift. It's not that it's a swan, but that it's black when white is expected and normal. The beauty of the bird is actually irrelevant here.