Scrutable

An assessment of impacts of the proposed change is required if the anticipated impact is negative (i.e. an increase in dangerous emissions). If the anticipated impact is positive, a qualitative assessment is adequate.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:36 pm

Yes, its striking how the graphs show the positive effect on inequality of direct taxes and benefits as the coefficient is cut from 50.3 to 32.4, and the negative effect of indirect taxes which increase the coefficient back up to 36.2 (all from 2013/4).

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:03 pm

There are loads of words for "good" and "bad".

OED wrote: positive adj and n
d. Consisting in or characterized by constructive action or attitudes; inclined to hope for the best or to ‘look on the bright side’, optimistic; good, beneficial, advantageous

OED wrote: positive adj and n
5. Of liberty, freedom, etc.: facilitating personal development or self-realization; characterized by the empowerment of individuals to fulfil their potential, rather than simply by the absence of constraint.

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:03 pm

By god I hate it when people use "positive" to mean "good", especially in quantitative contexts, and especially especially when low numbers are better. The most common example is "positive feedback", which any engineer will tell you is a bad thing unless you're trying to catastrophically destroy something.

Exhibit 2:

An assessment of impacts of the proposed change is required if the anticipated impact is negative (i.e. an increase in dangerous emissions). If the anticipated impact is positive, a qualitative assessment is adequate.

If the second half of your sentence is having to explain that the first half of your sentence means the opposite of what it actually means, maybe you should fix the first half of your sentence so that it isn't bollocks.

Example 3:

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 05, 2019 2:36 pm

Yes, its striking how the graphs show the positive effect on inequality of direct taxes and benefits as the coefficient is cut from 50.3 to 32.4, and the negative effect of indirect taxes which increase the coefficient back up to 36.2 (all from 2013/4).

I think this gibberish is using "positive" to mean "good", but since I'm not sure what the numbers mean it's impossible to be sure. Maybe higher numbers are good, or maybe the author thinks higher numbers are good and I think higher numbers are bad. Who knows?

Look. There are loads of words for "good" and "bad". Good, beneficial, favourable, improving; bad, adverse, unfavourable, worsening; loads more. Don't abuse words by giving them their opposite meanings. People who do that are literally worse than Hitler.

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:50 pm

Hmm. I actually think it's a bit off to use someone on the forum as an example. Unless you're actually trolling.

Woodchopper wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 10:05 pm

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:50 pm

Hmm. I actually think it's a bit off to use someone on the forum as an example. Unless you're actually trolling.

I don't mind but other people might have.

Bewildered wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:03 pm

While I agree with the responses so far, as I also didn’t really get the point beyond the fact that the dual meanings of positive and negative can cause confusion sometimes* , I think you are all missing the big picture. The OP violates all reasonable counting conventions by starting with exhibit 2. This is then followed by *example* 3. Maybe they meant to start with example 2 and thought feedback loop was an implicit example 1? That would be less of a crime, but still a very negative thing .

*and to be fair,though it’s a bit mean to use it, woodchoppers post is an example where it would be easier to parse if good and bad had been used instead.

Stephanie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:05 pm

This was why I questioned whether it was trolling.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 11:41 pm

Is positivism good or bad?

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:03 pm

By god I hate it when people use "positive" to mean "good", especially in quantitative contexts, and especially especially when low numbers are better. The most common example is "positive feedback", which any engineer will tell you is a bad thing unless you're trying to catastrophically destroy something.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:07 pm

I can see that logically there is a possible ambiguity in talking about a positive effect on an undesirable situation (i.e. might you be describing a positive increase in the harmful effect itself rather than a positive improvement in the situation?) but I hadn't imagined it might actually cause real uncertainty as to the intended meaning.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:39 am

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 09, 2019 9:03 pm

By god I hate it when people use "positive" to mean "good", especially in quantitative contexts, and especially especially when low numbers are better. The most common example is "positive feedback", which any engineer will tell you is a bad thing unless you're trying to catastrophically destroy something.

Well, not necessarily. Compound interest is an example of positive feedback. In an engineering context, desirable processes like galvanisation involve positive feedbacks just as much as undesirable ones like rusting do.

Martin Y wrote: ↑

Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:07 pm

I can see that logically there is a possible ambiguity in talking about a positive effect on an undesirable situation (i.e. might you be describing a positive increase in the harmful effect itself rather than a positive improvement in the situation?) but I hadn't imagined it might actually cause real uncertainty as to the intended meaning.

Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning). Also called verificationism, this would-be theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful. Starting in the late 1920s, groups of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians formed the Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle, which, in these two cities, would propound the ideas of logical positivism.

bmforre wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:53 am

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

Logical positivism, later called logical empiricism, and both of which together are also known as neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy whose central thesis was the verification principle (also known as the verifiability criterion of meaning). Also called verificationism, this would-be theory of knowledge asserted that only statements verifiable through direct observation or logical proof are meaningful. Starting in the late 1920s, groups of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians formed the Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle, which, in these two cities, would propound the ideas of logical positivism.