Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Only using one definition of the word "objective". If you use another definition, one which is also quite common, it is objective: not being influenced by personal feelings or bias.

I dont agree with that either, for if one makes an error, are they not being influenced by their internal mechanism, intuition, frustration, what have you? You cannot 'think' in the strictest definition of the word and produce 2+2=5, rather, your 5 is a reaction, not a result from a thinking process.

It's also objectively false.

exactly it is FALSE objectivly, and no more false objectivly than " Oranges taste better than apples" subjective statements are FALSE objective statements, which is what I am saying

 

[WWHP]

To the delusional, other delusionals are hysterical ...

then you and everyone and badscience.com finding me hysterical means......?


either kindly participate in the discussion, using reason to show your point of view, or gracefully back out.

I dont mind teasing, poking, even being rude when you can at least articulate your argument, but clearly you are not.

thanks


BF

 

[The Atheist]

PV, I have reported you to the moderator of this forum.

 

[WWHP]

I blame AOL. Does babblefish use aol perchance?

can you kindly explain to me how my 'netiquette' is inappropiate on this discussion?

Thanks, if you are correct, i will change my behavior. If you are not, then please disavow your comment in a place of public media, it's simply not appropiate 'netiquette'

BF

 

[WWHP]

I gave two examples of arguments in this thread, per request, of how the third value was not included and how those arguments crumbled into nothingness.

If some of you cannot address my examples critically, using only ad hom, insult, and flamming, then your not using critical thinking, i dont know how much easier I can put it.

I bet those who are using such tactics are exactly those whose arguments would crumble into nothingness.

By nothingness i mean 'absence', as in your argument is 'absent' in the discussion.

I am making a CLAIM, my claim is that many arguments crumble into nothingness when the third value is introduced.

That is my claim, calling me names does not refute my claim

 

[WWHP]

Awww. A little starfish trying to portray himself as superior to the posters in this forum.

Well isn't that precious?

Go forth and multiply little starfish!

Curnir, either address my argument and my examples relating to my OP, or kindly stop trolling my discussion.

your not even that funny, and your getting too excited


BF

 

[Curnir]

I am making a CLAIM, my claim is that many arguments crumble into nothingness when the third value is introduced.

That is my claim, calling me names does not refute my claim

And your CLAIM, is silly silly silly.

Oh and starfish, throwing stones in a glass house is not such a good idea.

 

[JonnyFive]

I dont agree with that either, for if one makes an error, are they not being influenced by their internal mechanism, intuition, frustration, what have you? You cannot 'think' in the strictest definition of the word and produce 2+2=5, rather, your 5 is a reaction, not a result from a thinking process.

In this case, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it. There is a definition and it's possible to construct arguments using that definition. If you don't like it, unfortunately that's too bad.

exactly it is FALSE objectivly, and no more false objectivly than " Oranges taste better than apples" subjective statements are FALSE objective statements, which is what I am saying

No, the statement you list is subjective: it deals with the perception of the subject, not with the objective quality of the object. Apples do not possess a measurable quality of "taste", that is a subjective experience caused by the perception of sugars, acids, texture, etc. on the part of the eater of the fruit.

A claim like "oranges have more fat than apples" is objective because it deals with a measurable property of the objects that exists independent of subjective experience. It is also a false statement, as neither apples nor oranges have any fat.

Again, the definition of subjective does not, as far as I know, include "false objective statements". If you can point me to a definition of a "subjective statement" as "an objective statement that is false" then please do.

 

[WWHP]

I have just read 171 posts about somebody using the phrase "third value" instead of "unknown value".

The Internet has a lot to answer for!

the unknown value and the third value are one in the same in logic. an internet search easily reveals that.

 

[Curnir]

Curnir, either address my argument and my examples relating to my OP, or kindly stop trolling my discussion.

your not even that funny, and your getting too excited

I thought you said you were not going to reply to me anymore.

Oh well.

*Curnir hugs the starfish*

 

[The Atheist]

Now, we've had the crying, over to the mystery....

 

[WWHP]

How is it that so many posters are addressing their assumptions about me instead of my argument?

Age doesn't really matter. A lot of people reach a point in their lives when they think they have figured out all the mysteries of the universe, all by themselves. People who make it past their first year of college usually figure out that what they thought was so ground-breaking has actually been thoroughly analyzed by others long before they had ever thought of it.

where did I make the claim that I know all the mysteries of the universe? What claim did I make that even alluded to that?

I know I stated that I am only interested in truth and removing my own delusions preventing me from seeing it, and your surely not helping me here.

Others never make it past that stage, and avoid trying to learn anything for fear that they will discover they are really just intellectual hacks in the grand scheme of things.

I suspect you may fit into one of these categories, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

You can prove YOURSELF wrong by using critical thinking and reading my posts!

I am not here to prove i am right, I am here to find where I may be mistaken. I am making a claim. That claim can either be true or false, and until you or anyone else can determine that using critical thinking against my arguments, it's an unknown.

Your interpretation of who I am is irrelevant to my argument. If I claim to know all the mysteries in the universe, that does not make 2+2=4 incorrect when I say it.

address the idea, not the person. I am not the third value


BF

 

[WWHP]

Now, we've had the crying, over to the mystery....

atheist, you are now trolling this topic of discussion and being disruptive, I respectfully and politely ask that you refrain from doing so.


BF

 

[WWHP]

In this case, it doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it. There is a definition and it's possible to construct arguments using that definition. If you don't like it, unfortunately that's too bad.

I could say the same to you, eh? Are not my usages also consistant? Either way, you are mistreating the definition you mentioned, i.e. it's not appropiate to use rationally in your argument without creating confusion

No, the statement you list is subjective: it deals with the perception of the subject, not with the objective quality of the object. Apples do not possess a measurable quality of "taste", that is a subjective experience caused by the perception of sugars, acids, texture, etc. on the part of the eater of the fruit.

exactly, and 2 things plus 2 things do not produce a quality of 5, ever, under any circumstances. 2 + 2 = 5 is a subjective interpretation of addition, not an objective one!

A claim like "oranges have more fat than apples" is objective because it deals with a measurable property of the objects that exists independent of subjective experience. It is also a false statement, as neither apples nor oranges have any fat.

we cannot measure 2 + 2 and come to 5, we can only measure 2 + 2 = 4

you cannot be objective and come to 2+2=5, and that is what you're trying to argue, and to me, that is an absurd argument.

Again, the definition of subjective does not, as far as I know, include "false objective statements". If you can point me to a definition of a "subjective statement" as "an objective statement that is false" then please do.

Jonny, first off, I am relating this to a framework that can be very useful in critical thinking, I am not having an argument over definitions in the dictionary, rather I am having an argument about a framework that defines objective and subjective into a repeating and reoccuring pattern in human perception that does not contradict the dictioniary.


So, consider. We all have information running through our heads, right? thoughts, ideas, feelings, images, etc etc. Let's place all that information into a set and call that set 'enviromental information'.

Let's make a clear distinction between our environments. We all have one shared environment we participate in, which is objective reality, the world that appears 'outside' of us, the environment that we all can agree on. and each of us in turn also has a unique environment, our internal process, our 'subjective environment', feelings, intuitions, etc etc, right?

so in this model, which is a perfect and simple one, all information can only be either objective or subjective information, and nothing more. INformation is either mutually agreed upon and viewable, or it's unique to the point of view, or some combination of both.

So, both objective and subjective information can be incorrect when misappropiatly placed. It's not that difficult.

2 + 2 = 5 is false objectivly, yet it may appear 'true' to the moron who believes his own subjective process.

5 in and of itself is true, it's a true distinction we all can agree on, yet it's FALSE when applied to 2 + 2, and TRUE when applied to 2 + 3

 

[WWHP]

And your CLAIM, is silly silly silly.

.

My claim may be silly to you, but that is a subjective impression your having. Claims are not distinguished by silly and not silly, except on monty python and badscience.com, they are distinguised objectivly by being either true, or false.

I can argue my claim of them being true, and you can argue your claim of them being false. calling them silly is not an argument, and now you're trolling this topic, and I request that you kindly stop that.


BF

 

[pv+]

PV, I have reported you to the moderator of this forum. Please remove my name from your post, as that is in violation of forum ettiquette, and kindly stop following me around and trolling, flaming, and insulting.

You are just as welcome to address the topic of discussion as anyone else, which is the third value, but your behavior is inappropiate. I tolerated it on badscience, I wont tolerate it here.

Bubblhead, there is no topic for discussion here. You are a fraud and a troll, and anyone who cares to follow your demented meanderings around the Internet can see it for themselves. All I am doing is pointing it out. You were thoroughly dishonest about your presence on the Badscience forum and insulted every member into the bargain - particularly the female members, one of whom you chose to identify by name.
The films you allude to on occasion are made by yourself but you don't declare your interest in making such films. It's only fair that forum members know who you are and what your interest is, don't you think?
You argue by prevarication and insult anyone who has the temerity to point out the vacuousness of your ramblings. Are you upset that this obvious trait of yours is highlighted?
As for tolerating anyone, you were in no position to either tolerate or not tolerate me on the Badscience forum. If I wrote anything about you in that forum that was against the rules I would have been banned. I know that such language isn't allowed in this forum, more's the pity because it is colourful, and I have no intention of using it (anyone who wants to read how you were insulted, justifiably, on Badscience.net is welcome to go and see). The fact is you were revealed in that forum as a deliberately provocative, ill-mannered troll and all you received from me was benefit in kind.
You were very lucky indeed yourself that your arrogant antics were put up with for as long as they were.
Now I suggest that fun loving Bubblefishbrain sticks to the topic, if he can remember it, and stop indulging in spurious semantics to try and disguise the fact that his "idea" (if that's what it is) is nothing but a device for him to irritate forums such as this and to keep his silly self at the centre of attention.

Best,
fun loving pv

 

[sinnikal]

Ok Bubba, we've had the report to the mods, we've had the assertion that everybody is trolling your thread, it can only be a matter of time till you make some oblique reference to legal action. You do it on most forums you go at some point.
You state repeatedly that you're on a forum to get your mistakes corrected then when people kindly do that thing, you ignore them and just get on with your agenda without learning the lesson. You wonder why people instantly get antagonistic with you? It saves time.

 

[WWHP]

The problem we have now is that, if we rely on your little table: then you don't know whether the text of the question I asked is an accurate reflection of my meaning, and I have no idea what your interpretation of the text I posted is, so I can't know what you mean by the word "yes".

mojo, you are way over-thinking and over complicating this issue. my 'table', which is only true to everyone except me, simply notes the three distinctions and environments in an online discussion.

0=my meaning. My 'meaning' is internal to my environment of self. Only I have access to that and only I can verify what I mean or not.
1= Text. this is 'our' environment, we all have access to the text.
2= your interpretation, which is really your 'meaing' and 0 to me.


those are distinctions, not 'steps', an 'approach' or rules of engagment

I am not going to address the rest of your post since it was based on a misinterpretation of my 'table'. if you have questions after this explaination, I will address.

Thank you, by they way, for approaching my argument more critically than you have in the past. I appreciate that.


BF

 

[JonnyFive]

I could say the same to you, eh? Are not my usages also consistant? Either way, you are mistreating the definition you mentioned, i.e. it's not appropiate to use rationally in your argument without creating confusion

Explain how. I use objective to mean "of or pertaining to external reality" and subjective to mean "of or pertaining to internal experience". How does that cause confusion? I've been very consistent about this.

exactly, and 2 things plus 2 things do not produce a quality of 5, ever, under any circumstances. 2 + 2 = 5 is a subjective interpretation of addition, not an objective one!

But the statement attempts to describe external reality, not subjective experience. It describes something that can be quantified. I don't "feel" that a math problem has a solution, it simply does.

we cannot measure 2 + 2 and come to 5, we can only measure 2 + 2 = 4

you cannot be objective and come to 2+2=5, and that is what you're trying to argue, and to me, that is an absurd argument.

No, that isn't what I said at all.

You're using "objective" in a whole new way now. I was just talking about "objective" in the sense of "pertaining to external reality" and now you're using it to mean "unbiased" from a personal perspective.

You've also shifted from talking about the statement's scope to talking about a personal attitude. Thus, you have misrepresented my argument. I feel one should be always remain objective (unbiased) when considering any statement, whether that statement is objective (concerning external reality) or subjective (concerning internal experience). It's the only way we can free ourselves of subjective (subject to internal bias) reasoning and come to some kind of objective (unbiased, accurately describing reality) understanding of the world.

Jonny, first off, I am relating this to a framework that can be very useful in critical thinking, I am not having an argument over definitions in the dictionary, rather I am having an argument about a framework that defines objective and subjective into a repeating and reoccuring pattern in human perception that does not contradict the dictioniary.

So you're going to develop your own structure for the words and what they mean?

All right, but I don't find your structure useful enough to use it at this point in time. I'm already comfortable with the existing methods of quantifying and/or describing uncertainty. If you're unhappy with current constructs, good luck creating your own.

I'm glad you linked to the ternary logic article, it was interesting.

 

[Ducky]

can you kindly explain to me how my 'netiquette' is inappropiate on this discussion?

Thanks, if you are correct, i will change my behavior. If you are not, then please disavow your comment in a place of public media, it's simply not appropiate 'netiquette'

BF

I will disavow nothing. Get a sense of humor. Learn to spell.


ETA:

If you need an explanation, then I shall add that your ignoring of arguments against you, your sophistry in logic and your poor grammar skills mixed in with your seeming need to have your ego stroked by trolling on internet forums is exactly the type of behavior usenet was demolished with beginning in Sept. 93.