New Manager Poll "Without Rafa"

[kingfunk]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...wigan-athletic

:lots of smoke:

[Exiled_red]

I sort of agree mate. I'd have him over Rodgers and the like.

But I want a Rafa, Guardiola, Capello, Klopp - and dare I say a Mourinho.

I don't see any of those coming to us Rafa aside.

[Neil Young]

Dont ever forget the best managerial appointments are not the most obvious choices.

That's not really true though. Obviously it is in some cases but not all.

That's the trouble with a rule-based approach to understanding reality. Rules don't always hold in practice.

Social science

[kingfunk]

That's not really true though. Obviously it is in some cases but not all.

That's the trouble with a rule-based approach to understanding reality. Rules don't always hold in practice.

Social science

I actually did mean to say "not always the most obvious" anyway what will be will be and all that jazz.

[Neil Young]

Fair enough. Life on Est would be dull if we had to add all relevant qualifications to every post.

Wait, we do. And it is.

In my time away I've been doing a lot of reading on issues of a philosophical, epistemological and, one might say, phronetic character. I apologise as it sometimes slips out, but that's these trousers.

[Kenneth]

[Frenchie]

Edmund Gettier is remembered for his 1963 argument, which called into question the theory of knowledge that had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of years.[5] In a few pages, Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge. That is, Gettier contended that while justified belief in a true proposition is necessary for that proposition to be known, it is not sufficient. A true proposition can be believed by an individual but still not fall within the "knowledge" category .

According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases," as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge.

One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he also has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong.

Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Jones's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job."

These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true by virtue of luck. In other words, he made the correct choice (in this case predicting an outcome) for the wrong reasons.

[Neil Young]

So you're saying that appointing Martinez might be a Gettier case, yep?

[kingfunk]

Fair enough. Life on Est would be dull if we had to add all relevant qualifications to every post.

Wait, we do. And it is.

In my time away I've been doing a lot of reading on issues of a philosophical, epistemological and, one might say, phronetic character. I apologise as it sometimes slips out, but that's these trousers.

I think this view of mind makes a lot of sense, and does not require some abstract non-physical world where minds exist separately, which brings up problems of how something non-physical could cause physical things (like body movement), and other similar dilemmas. One could say it's best to keep your cock in in public.

[Kenneth]

Edmund Gettier is remembered for his 1963 argument, which called into question the theory of knowledge that had been dominant among philosophers for thousands of years.[5] In a few pages, Gettier argued that there are situations in which one's belief may be justified and true, yet fail to count as knowledge. That is, Gettier contended that while justified belief in a true proposition is necessary for that proposition to be known, it is not sufficient. A true proposition can be believed by an individual but still not fall within the "knowledge" category .

According to Gettier, there are certain circumstances in which one does not have knowledge, even when all of the above conditions are met. Gettier proposed two thought experiments, which have come to be known as "Gettier cases," as counterexamples to the classical account of knowledge.

One of the cases involves two men, Smith and Jones, who are awaiting the results of their applications for the same job. Each man has ten coins in his pocket. Smith has excellent reasons to believe that Jones will get the job and, furthermore, knows that Jones has ten coins in his pocket (he recently counted them). From this Smith infers, "the man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket." However, Smith is unaware that he also has ten coins in his own pocket. Furthermore, Smith, not Jones, is going to get the job. While Smith has strong evidence to believe that Jones will get the job, he is wrong.

Smith has a justified true belief that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job; however, according to Gettier, Smith does not know that a man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job, because Smith's belief is "...true by virtue of the number of coins in Jones's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief...on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job."

These cases fail to be knowledge because the subject's belief is justified, but only happens to be true by virtue of luck. In other words, he made the correct choice (in this case predicting an outcome) for the wrong reasons.

ah gettier's new riddle of induction. (now quite old)

It's weak though, as it relies on a very generous interpretation of the concept of 'justified'.

[Frenchie]

So you're saying that appointing Martinez might be a Gettier case, yep?

yep

[BobTheCharmer]

Those that were wanting kenny replaced should be pleased we're close to naming a replacement.

[Kenneth]

Seeing as we have no manager, everyone should be happy we're close to naming a replacement, assuming its true.

[BobTheCharmer]

Seeing as we have no manager, everyone should be happy we're close to naming a replacement, assuming its true.

I'd rather we didn't have one. Retire the managers jacket as a mark of respect. We could have a weekly guest coach similar to 'have I got news for you'. That way it would keep things fresh.

[kingfunk]

Or guest owners?