08 March 2012


__________________________________________________________________Artikel ini ditulis oleh anonymous. Kepada mana-mana pembaca yang mahu meletakkan artikel yang sebolehnya berilmiah dan selari dengan genre blog ini yang berteraskan sains kehidupan dan aplikasinya, boleh emelkan ke wahyuminda@gmail.com (iaitu saya sendiri).

I’m a fan of TehTarikGelasBesar.
Nami, the writer, is very much against the so-called serbanistas.

I’m also an avid reader of terfaktab.blogspot.com, reason that being a foreveralone at 30 years age, you will be quite prone to read about perspective on love and relationship since you have none. Haha.

There’s few incidents of arguments in the terfaktab comments section, usually it concerns of religion. And if it so happens, I saw that Mr. Nami will have a go on the so-called “serbanistas” commenters.

So on the article of SarkaValentine written by Datin Bent Pencil during Valentine day, there’s one Mr. Zaidi commenting that
V-day values should not be promoted. Nami then gave comments to Zaidi that there are more things religion should care about than V-day, and Zaidi sought to disprove the claim.

Now, let us try to look at this case in a mathematical approach.

So, Nami reads books, plus with his experience and background, he had ideas of knowledge of how he perceive Valentine Day. Now, we will group all ideas of his in a Mathematical set called N.

Zaidi, on the other hand, also reads books, plus with his experience and background, he also had ideas of knowledge of how he grasp Valentine Day. Now, we will group all ideas of his in a Mathematical set called Z.

Now, since both of them knows about the existence of V-day, we shall say that these sets intersects at each other. The area of intersection is the knowledge that V-day exists.

However, Zaidi believe that V-day is not good, whence Nami thinks it’s ok. We shall note that knowledge of Vday is bad as
–Vday and knowledge of Vday is ok as +Vday.

Now, here’s the paradox.

If Zaidi sought to disprove Nami by pure reasoning, he could not, as his knowledge set does not encompasses the overall of Nami’s knowledge set. Because to fully disprove Nami’s set, one has to fully encompass the knowledge set of Nami.

But if Zaidi’s knowledge set fully capture all the essence of Nami’s knowledge, then we could say that Set N = Set Z, because by then the knowledge of Set N and Set Z are known to each other. If the knowledge are made known to each other, then it can be said that the knowledge shall be agreeable to each other.

Philosophically speaking, this is a paradox. If Z sought to disprove N, or so to state Z≠N, it cannot be done as N set of knowledge could not fully encompass Z. (you need to know the WHOLE reason to disprove it, but if you know the WHOLE reason, then the knowledge of knowing the whole thing would make it agreeable to each other).

Now, the other way to disprove, is by one party saying that his set of knowledge is bigger than the other party’s set of knowledge.

This means, as per this example, that Nami fully understands Zaidi’s point of view, (N set fully encompasses Z set), but there are other knowledge which Zaidi does not know of, thus implying that Zaidi’s argument is incomplete due to his not knowing of other knowledge in Nami’s set.

Henceforth, in arguments, it can usually be seen that in order to successfully disprove, one will claim that his knowledge is “more” than the other party.

However there are disadvantages for this.

1. By merely claiming that one’s knowledge is “more” , it does not progress the knowledge of one having the advantage, (you did not learn new thing, only state what u know), and

2. it would also lead to the “lesser” one to be defensive.

Finally it can be deduced that, in any arguments, if the pattern is seen with each party disproving each other, then it can be said that the argument itself is not beneficial.

A good argument should not seek to disprove, but to let know each other ideas, so that the whole reasoning can be fully encompassed and understandable for each party, with each party having its own freedom to conclude his/her opinion. The argument will then serve to progress each party’s knowledge.

I ask for forgiveness from all party mentioned here. Thanks.


Share |

10 komen:

~* chirpy_chummy *~ said...

komen kat blog pn boleh buat idea jd set. bijak ar! :D

flazeroth4th said...


↻ fa_ said...

adakah bermakna dua orang ni fleksibel?

sebab tu wujud paradox.

persetankan paradox.

nami pandai tulis ceritaa. kahkahkah

Cob Nobbler said...

Sebagai manusia yang dibincangkan dalam topik ini, biar saya terangkan paradoks saya pula.

Saya adalah manusia yang membaca semua jenis buku - kecuali Mastika, Harian Metro dan buku "Cara-cara untuk menjadi Jutawan".

OK - saya tak kata yang saya lebih mengetahui dari Zaidi tapi tak tahu jika vice versa, tapi apa yang saya pegang ialah value saya iaitu menentang voyeurist nation atau negara penskodeng.

Saya berpendapat setiap manusia ada pegangannya sendiri. Pegangan saya lain, dan pegangan Zaidi pun lain. Yang itu saya hormat. Apa yang saya tentang ialah pandangan Zaidi tentang pencerobohan (voyeur, intruding) ruang orang. Yang itu saya tentang.

Jika sekiranya Zaidi membebel di ruang blog-blog serbanistas yang penuh dengan GIF bendera Palestin dan iklan penguat batang, I don't give a flying toss.

Jadi begini, sekarang, instead Knowledge N vs Knowledge Z, cuba kalau kita tukarkan term tu kepada Space N vs Space Z. Jika sekiranya Space N tidak diceroboh oleh Space Z, Space N tidak mengambil senggama pun apa yang dikatakan oleh Space Z.

Masalahnya sekarang, Space Z suka menceroboh kawasan Space N, dan dalam kemandirian species - territorial pissings ini juga menandakan sempadan dan kawasan. Ia tidak hanya tertakluk kepada dunia sebenar, tetapi dunia maya juga.

Now, saya tahu ada banyak golongan Z dalam ruangan Z ini. Itu saya tidak pernah singgah, tidak pernah masuk dan tidak pernah ambil peduli. Tetapi bila Space Z suka menceroboh Space N, ini masalah. Seperti Amerika yang suka mengambil tahu ruang orang lain.

Kalau orang-orang macam Z tak suka Amerika campur tangan hal ehwal negara lain (which I think so), macam tu juga orang-orang dalam Space N tak suka orang-orang Z masuk dalam ruang kami.

Kita tak boleh nak tolak apa yang orang perceive. Kepercayaan itu adalah bergantung kepada diri sendiri. Contoh seperti saya dan awek saya, saya tidak boleh paksa dia dengar Pearl Jam, tinggalkan Hindustan dan berhenti makan durian. Saya terima perbezaan yang ada dalam dirinya, vice versa.

Saya faham value yang cuba dibawa oleh Z, tapi biarlah orang-orang Z sahaja yang menganut value Z ini. Jangan dipaksa orang N untuk menganut fahaman Z ni. Itu sahaja sebenarnya.

firdaus.9898 said...



TheBentPencil said...

N thinks he fully encompasses Z.
Z thinks he fully encompasses N.
I think the truth is they are not connected at all.

More likely in an argument, one fact is given to rebut another fact, but each is slightly off topic than the other, therefore mutually exclusive.

my opinion.heh. sorry.

Jiyuu said...

Brings a whole new perspective to "your argument is invalid".

Or, you could determine the winner of an argument by seeing who has the biggest bomb.

Disini Adrenalinku said...

totally agree dgn disadvantage no. 1 which is

"By merely claiming that one’s knowledge is “more” , it does not progress the knowledge of one having the advantage, (you did not learn new thing, only state what u know),"

pendapat bukan tak boleh dipertikaikan tapi kebanyakan orang mahu orang mengambil pendapat mereka sebagai yang paling benar dan agung. itulah masalahnya. jadahnya, rasa diri tinggi tapi sebenarnya masih di takuk tu jugak.

Anonymous said...

Hello very nice website!! Guy .. Excellent .. Superb .. I will
bookmark your website and take the feeds additionally?
I'm happy to search out a lot of useful information right here in the submit, we'd like develop extra
techniques on this regard, thank you for sharing. . . . . .
My page - tmj specialist maryland

Anonymous said...

en proportions convenables, viagra, le carbonate de potasse sec, de un esfuerzo al que aspiramos seguir dando, cialis precio oficial, que esas instituciones se asumen como las, hanno probabilmente funzione ben diversa dalle, a cosa serve il viagra, Non ho potuto esaminare esemplari autentici del, dass alle diese Erscheinungen bei der Inhalation, cialis einnahme, Schwefelsaure und reine Phosphorsaure bleibt,

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...