Skepticism and The Normal

[Mojo]

But that's not what the statement says. The statement says she is a dumptruck.

'AJ is not a dumptruck' would be an objective statement that clarifies your point.

Like I said, can you explain this discrepancy?

"AJ is a dumptruck" is an objective (but false) statement because it is false from all viewpoints. There is no discrepancy.

"AJ is a dumptruck" is an objective statement that is not true.
"AJ is not a dumptruck" is an objective statement that is true.

The second statement does not "clarify" the first, it contradicts it.

 

[WWHP]

Ok, so you define objective beauty by symmetry.

To be specific, Perfect Symmetry.

That's all very well and good, but you cannot call that beauty in any meaningful sense.

sure I can, perfect symmetry means beauty.

Your definition is a criterion upon which you base your view of beauty.

Hardly, you asked me to define objective beauty, not subjective beauty.

This, while A.J. may meet the criterion of your 'objective beauty', explains why other might not agree with you.

So you are suggesting that others dont agree that perfect symmetry is beautiful in form naturally? Then where are the arguments against perfect symmetry's beauty? I havent come across one of them yet. can you provide one?

If I judge 'objective beauty' as something else, then I will find other things beautiful, won't I?

No, as you would not be defining objective beauty, but rather subjective beauty.

Or are you telling me that your definition is the only correct one?

To begin with, it's not 'my definition' as it orginated with me, rather, there are numerous others who argue and state the same.

But yes, I am saying that the only objective and mutualy viewed truth about beauty is perfect symmetry, and any argument to the contrary is not valid, and will contain by default repeated contradictions, and simply will be unable to provide rationalizations in tit for tat exchange.


The dialectical process does not lie, it WILL produce the shared and objective truth. If I am mistaken, then the only way you can provide evidence for certain is through dialectic, not through posting commentary regarding your opinion. No offence, but that's called a feel good argument, and feeling good about your argument does not neccesarily a truth make.


BF

 

[WWHP]

by the way, some of you should find this article interesting. It's a short read. The Title is Dialectic and Logic. It's academic so I know that it's true;-)

http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/sawyer/dielectics.html


BF

 

[WWHP]

So anything subjective is false?

One can infer false from subjectivity RELATIVE to it's objective coupling, yes

Tell me, how do you determine the objective nature of something?

Not sure of your question, what are you defining 'objective nature' as? Biology? explain.

 

[WWHP]

"AJ is a dumptruck" is an objective (but false) statement because it is false from all viewpoints. There is no discrepancy.

dude, this argument? DONE. You cant keep refuting an old point that has already been debunked, rather, you then have to debunk the debunking!

So let me state it again. There is a distinction between an objective statement, and an objectively false statement. They ARE mutually exclusive in common usage.

Your contradiction comes in here, so please pay attention. If there is a distinction, then they are not the same thing, if you argue there is no distinction, then the statement "AJ is a woman" is also an objectively false statement as well as an objective statement.

How do you account for that discrepancy?


If you need to add a caveat to objective, then you are making a distinction by default. If you are making a distinction, then clearly they are not the same thing, and you are contradicting reality. If you deny the distinction, then you produce another contradiction.

"AJ is a dumptruck" is an objective statement that is not true.
"AJ is not a dumptruck" is an objective statement that is true.

That's fine if you want to revert your meaning back to something else, but earlier you define objective as 'the same to all points of view'. now you are switching you definition to suite your argument, and your definition is using a rule in grammar applied to bivalent logic in closed statements, which is hardly common usage.

So, can you make up your mind please? Which definition of objective do you wish to use?

The second statement does not "clarify" the first, it contradicts it.

That is because statement 2 is an objective statement.'This statement is OBJECTIVE'. No caveat is need in common language. Objective in this sense is a noun.

Statement 1 is an objectively false statement, and objectively in objectively false is used an adjective to support the noun 'false'.

So both statements have two nouns, both of which are contradictory, so therefore, they cannot possibly be the same thing.

Any further rationalization of this on your end is exhausting, there is no more argument, your confusion has been addressed in the simplist and most logical of language.

If you dont understand, then ask questions, but I think you are out of statements.

BF

 

[Zep]

Hey Satan guy, your doing that manipulative thing again.

Who here does not think she is beautiful?
What are the arguments against her beauty?

Hey bubblebrain.

I do not think Angela Jolie is particularly beautiful at all. Very plain, actually. However I think other women are far more so than her, but some far less so. I also think lots of scenery is extrordinarily beautiful, as are some pieces of art, some architecture, and some extraordinary events and actions.

You know that old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Well, every "beholder" is different from you - it depends on who is viewing the subject. And that explains why beauty is...(wait for it)...

SUBJECTIVE!




Guess that must be another "truth value" for you to consider: 0, 1, 2...up to 6 billion plus.

 

[WWHP]

I challenge everyone reading this to provide soley rational and honest rebuttal from this point on. I ask this, because usually when I have refuted a number of arguments at once, then the attacks of calling me a troll start showing up.

I suggest that any ad hom at this point is telling of lack of argument. I suggest any statement at this point on that does not directly address my language in tit for tat is an avoidance.

I hardly think there are any rational arguments left at this point, and if there is no ad hom, an no rational rebuttal, there can only be humble silence and agreement.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Hey bubblebrain.

Zep, I cant believe you have actually mustered up the courage to take me on in discussion again.

this discussion is a rational argument, and i expect you to hold a standard in this debate.

I do not think Angela Jolie is particularly beautiful at all.

well that is your right to your own opinion, I dont care to argue your opinion

Very plain, actually.

If that is your opinion, keep it, everybody gets the beauty they deserve. If you are saying that objectively, she is a plain looking woman, then let's hear your argument.

This is not a blog, this is a discussion regarding the third value, and how it relates to objective/subjective.

However I think other women are far more so than her, but some far less so. I also think lots of scenery is extrordinarily beautiful, as are some pieces of art, some architecture, and some extraordinary events and actions.

Thank you for sharing. I like dancing, jazz from the fifties and early sixties, smoking a joint before jumping into the swimming pool for a healthy swim, and sunsets. perhaps we can hang out sometime?

You know that old saying: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?

Yes, it's half true for the wrong reasons.

Well, every "beholder" is different from you - it depends on who is viewing the subject. And that explains why beauty is...(wait for it)...

SUBJECTIVE!

Can you provide a better argument please? This is a third value argument, and the third value argument states that beauty is BOTH objective, AND in the eye of the beholder.

So I dont know how to argue with someone who agrees with half of what I write.

Guess that must be another "truth value" for you to consider: 0, 1, 2...up to 6 billion plus.

nah, 2 covers all of that just fine.

BF

 

[sinnikal]

Bubb, it is a well recognised maxim that silence does not constitute acceptance. Except maybe in your head.
Your recent edits are nowhere near as funny as your 'clarity' one. You should have quit while the going was good, now you just make yourself look like a petulant child.

 

[WWHP]

Bubb, it is a well recognised maxim that silence does not constitute acceptance. Except maybe in your head.
Your recent edits are nowhere near as funny as your 'clarity' one. You should have quit while the going was good, now you just make yourself look like a petulant child.

Example 01: Sinnikal.

Human Behavior is left with a limited number of options in the conflict of idea, and each behavior is relative to the truth value in idea of the person reacting.

 

[Zep]

Zep, I cant believe you have actually mustered up the courage to take me on in discussion again.

I can't believe you are still here thinking you have "won". But that's a subjective POV, I guess.

this discussion is a rational argument, and i expect you to hold a standard in this debate.

It is? Could have fooled me...

well that is your right to your own opinion, I dont care to argue your opinion

And right there you lose your own argument. Your opinion is different from mine. Id est: it's subjective. Sheesh, how many more times will you piss in your own nest before you wonder where the smell is coming from?

If that is your opinion, keep it, everybody gets the beauty they deserve. If you are saying that objectively, she is a plain looking woman, then let's hear your argument.

She does not appeal to me. What more need I say.

This is not a blog, this is a discussion regarding the third value, and how it relates to objective/subjective.

It doesn't because your whole idea has been shown to be nothing but your own overactive imagination (or psychotic drugs). I can't fix that for you, or argue against your own imaginings. It's all happening inside YOUR head, not anyone else's.

Thank you for sharing. I like dancing, jazz from the fifties and early sixties, smoking a joint before jumping into the swimming pool for a healthy swim, and sunsets. perhaps we can hang out sometime?

Hang out what? Washing?

Yes, it's half true for the wrong reasons.

And you are going to explain which half and why, aren't you. Give us some warning when you do - I've got sock-drawers to organise...

Can you provide a better argument please? This is a third value argument, and the third value argument states that beauty is BOTH objective, AND in the eye of the beholder.

You've just been swimming, haven't you.

So I dont know how to argue with someone who agrees with half of what I write.

So you only want to argue with someone who agree with EVERTHING you write? Or someone who agrees with NOTHING you write? Must have been a long swim this time...

nah, 2 covers all of that just fine.

That's seems as far as you can count, I guess.

You ever played with one of these?

That's what it is like playing here with you, except you keep on bouncing by yourself, so you're more fun to watch!

 

[Zep]

Example 01: Sinnikal.

Human Behavior is left with a limited number of options in the conflict of idea, and each behavior is relative to the truth value in idea of the person reacting.

Sinnikal: BF obviously has access to GREAT spliff.

 

[sinnikal]

Sinnikal: BF obviously has access to GREAT spliff.

Well it must have travelled a bit then. I've always found SoCal spliff much inferior to herb sourced from north of the Bay Area, although Humboldt can be a little challenging.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Quote:

I do not think Angela Jolie is particularly beautiful at all.

well that is your right to your own opinion, I dont care to argue your opinion

And that neatly demonstrates that beauty is subjective. If someone had said "Horses have five legs", nobody would come back and say "well that's your opinion.....". Because we can demonstrate that a horse does not in fact have 5 legs. There is no way you can prove someone beauty. You can equate beauty with some objective characteristic such as symmetry and then measure symmetry, but the problem is that symmetry doesn't equate perfectly to beauty. Some perfectly symmetric things are not beautiful, and we all differ in the weight symmetry has in our evaluation of beauty. Many people consider Picasso's paintings of women to be beautiful, despite the fact that they are often very unsymmetrical. Then you say that if we think she is not beautiful, we must demonstrate that to be the case. that is the very point, we can't because it is a subjective assessment - true to the beholder.

To be subjective doesn't mean that it has no relationship to the outside world objective characteristics as you keep implying it does. It is subjective if it doesn't correlate perfectly to objective measurements. If we could create a formula which combined objective measurements and characteristics to output a result on a scale of beauty that everyone agreed with 100% of the time, then we could probably argue that beauty is an objective characteristic. But we can't. I know that without even trying, because if that were possible, we would already all be in agreement about who and what are beautiful, in every case. We would be able to take a string of people put them in a line in order of beauty, and nobody in the world would disagree with that. But we can't - so it is subjective. We all use objective, measurable, characteristics which are part of our assessment of beauty, but we all use different ones, with different levels of importance put on them.

 

[Zep]

Think he knows all this, Prof. He's just having a lend of the more serious respondents.

 

[Mojo]

So let me state it again. There is a distinction between an objective statement, and an objectively false statement. They ARE mutually exclusive in common usage.

There is a distinction between all objective statements and false objective statements, because some objective statments are true. But false objective statements are still objective statements: they are statements that are false independently of viewpoint.

Your contradiction comes in here, so please pay attention. If there is a distinction, then they are not the same thing, if you argue there is no distinction, then the statement "AJ is a woman" is also an objectively false statement as well as an objective statement.

No, "AJ is a woman" is an objectively true statement. "AJ is not a woman" is an objectively false statement. Both are objective statements: their truth (or falseness) is independent of viewpoint. But true objective statments are not the same as false objective statements. They are mutually exclusive subsets of the set of all objective statements.

That is because statement 2 is an objective statement.'This statement is OBJECTIVE'. No caveat is need in common language. Objective in this sense is a noun.

No it isn't, it's an adjective qualifying the noun "statement". "Objective" as a noun means something else again, but it's not relevant here, so I won't introduce yet another definition for you to confuse with the ones you already have.

Statement 1 is an objectively false statement, and objectively in objectively false is used an adjective to support the noun 'false'.

In this case, "objectively" is an adverb qualifying the adjective "false". Remember, a noun is a word used to name a thing; an adjective is a word used to modify a noun; an adverb is a word used to modify a verb, adjective or adverb.

Have you ever seen a false?

So both statements have two nouns, both of which are contradictory, so therefore, they cannot possibly be the same thing.

You don't need the word "both" in there, unless you wish to say that they're both contradictory to a third statement. If they're contradictory, it can only be by reference to each other.

Any further rationalization of this on your end is exhausting, there is no more argument, your confusion has been addressed in the simplist and most logical of language.

But unfortunately in terms that appear to be wrong.

 

[Mojo]

ahhh, 50 pages now. and consider that I had virtually 70- 90 pages with the badscience crowd before this. that's almost 140 pages!

And they STILL can't frame my argument properly in their minds. I can understand them, they can't understand me.

Has it occurred to you that an argument that is unintelligible is not particularly useful, your Imperial Highness?

 

[Cuddles]

Well it's a shame this isn't the 2000th post, but as far as I can tell from this thread, if I believe that it is then it will be subjectively true while at the same time being objectively a small slice of melon.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Wow... just... wow. I knew he was egotistical and ignorant, but I never imagined he was also completely delusional.

After 50 pages of his waffling and backpeddling, he claims victory, in spite of his every argument being torn to shreds?

I know, simply mind-boggling isn't it? This is why I've come to the conclusion that Bubb is just a boring troll who has made up OS012 simply as a talking (trolling) point. I cannot honestly imagine that anyone could really believe everything that he writes, nobody could be that stupid. But, then again, the world is an amazing place. Perhaps in a world so diverse, people as honestly daft as Bubb will crop up every now and then. Who knows? More to the point, who cares? If Bubb want's to continue flogging his dead-horse ideas then I hope it makes him happy, his persistant idiocies are just irritating to everyone else.

Speaking of flogging dead horses, let's have one more try...

Your contradiction comes in here, so please pay attention. If there is a distinction, then they are not the same thing, if you argue there is no distinction, then the statement "AJ is a woman" is also an objectively false statement as well as an objective statement.

They can be the same thing but they are not necessarily the same thing, specifying a statement as objectively false, is just a more precise definition than specifying it as objective. You are aware that if you say "Rover is a brown dog" that does not contradict the statement "Rover is a dog". Likewise a dog can be a brown dog but is not necessarily a brown dog. Inferring yet Bubbster?


Just to add another thing to the long list of topics that Bubb knows sod-all about, grammar:

Bubb wrote:

Note how you cannot have a verb function unless it relates to an 'object'. In grammar, the object takes hold as a linguistic struture soley to relate to the verb, it's existence is not in question in grammar.

Ever heard of an intransitive verb?

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

To quote just a little bit:

An intransitive verb, on the other hand, cannot take a direct object:
This plant has thrived on the south windowsill. The compound verb "has thrived" is intransitive and takes no direct object in this sentence. The prepositional phrase "on the south windowsill" acts as an adverb describing where the plant thrives.

Now Bubb's going to deny that he ever meant what he actually wrote. Or possibly he'll stick to his guns and create his own special (and I use the word advisedly) definition of "object" as well.

But then, who cares, he's obviously beyond help, or just a troll.

I now reckon that Bubb is going to simply respond to my accusation of trolling rather than actually address the fact that he's just been shown to be wrong (again).

 

[flimflam_machine]

Well it's a shame this isn't the 2000th post

Ooooh me me! Monument! The classic Wren flanking manouevre!