Skepticism and The Normal

[flimflam_machine]

I shall not refrain from using metaphors, jokes, similies that are not abusive.

Well you haven't refrained from using metaphors, jokes (if that's the right word) and similies that are abusive either.

 

[drkitten]

Well you haven't refrained from using metaphors, jokes (if that's the right word) and similies that are abusive either.

Bubblefish is no longer magically addressing rational statements

Regardz,

Someone-who-wishes-he-was-the-manajemunt-but-can't-spel-it

 

[jimbob]

Grow up.

Gormless recidivists obsessively witter upon "philosophy"

Edit:

Thanks/apologies to AitchJay for this idea, I hope you don't mind, PV

 

[WWHP]

To those whom are struggling with this in argument and producing contradictions to reality, meaning virtually everyone here other than Bubblefish, let's suggest some study in other frameworks which work in similar themes so what is being discussed is more properly understood.

Meta Modeling in NLP is a good place to start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta_model_(NLP)


Then perhaps looking at transformational grammars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformational_grammar

especially

Chomsky argued that the notions "grammatical" and "ungrammatical" could be defined in a meaningful and useful way. In contrast an extreme behaviorist linguist would argue that language can only be studied through recordings or transcriptions of actual speech, the role of the linguist being to look for patterns in such observed speech, but not to hypothesize about why such patterns might occur, nor to label particular utterances as either "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". Although few linguists in the 1950s actually took such an extreme position, Chomsky was at an opposite extreme, defining grammaticality in an unusually (for the time) mentalistic way.[7] He argued that the intuition of a native speaker is enough to define the grammaticalness of a sentence; that is, if a particular string of English words elicits a double take, or feeling of wrongness in a native English speaker, it can be said that the string of words is ungrammatical (when various extraneous factors affecting intuitions are controlled for). This (according to Chomsky) is entirely distinct from the question of whether a sentence is meaningful, or can be understood. It is possible for a sentence to be both grammatical and meaningless, as in Chomsky's famous example "colourless green ideas sleep furiously". But such sentences manifest a linguistic problem distinct from that posed by meaningful but ungrammatical (non)-sentences such as "man the bit sandwich the", the meaning of which is fairly clear, but which no native speaker would accept as being well formed.

OS 012 was not derived nor formed from NLP, Chomskian Linguistics, or Semiotics, yet there are very similar themes expressed and by comprehensive study, and further understanding can be obtained by study thier of comprehend grammar not meaning study.


Regards,

The Managment.


About Bubblefish Managment: Bubblefish managment is the organization arm of Bubblefish, and is not to be confused in any way with the moderation team at JREF. Bubblefish managment is in service to the JREF moderation team. By providing streamlined responses to misinformed, personal, magical, or emotional statements, Bubblefish Managment helps to keep the discussion on topic.

We have asked you not to do this.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[wwitzke]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=10720334&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum

[How do you insert a link with something other than the URL as the text?]

Okay, in the post editor you should see a small globe with a link/infinity symbol in the toolbar. You should be able to highlight your text and then press that toolbar button, and a dialog box will pop up asking for the URL. Just type the URL you want to link the text to into the dialog box and click "OK," and you've got the required link.

If you're using the advanced editor, you can do the same thing with the toolbar buttons, or you can create the URL tags manually. They look like this:
[ URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance" ]argument from ignorance[ /URL ]

Er, remove the spaces after the "["s and before the "]"s to make the URL work.

That'll get you: argument from ignorance

Great post, by the way

Wayne

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Come on then - explain the parallels between Chomskian transformational grammar and OS012.

 

[wwitzke]

Come on then - explain the parallels between Chomskian transformational grammar and OS012.

You'll have to wait for your answer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77143

 

[flimflam_machine]

So Bubb has really been suspended eh? I can't say that I'm hugely surprised.

OS 012 was not derived nor formed from NLP, Chomskian Linguistics, or Semiotics, yet there are very similar themes expressed and by comprehensive study, and further understanding can be obtained by study thier of comprehend grammar not meaning study.

That sentence scores a solid 6.7 Prescotts for incomprehensibility.

It's just struck me that there is a pretty much infinite cycle of prevarication that Bubb can go through. Every time he gets proven to be talking rubbish he can just say:

"Oh but you don't understand it. It makes perfect sense if you understand it, but you will only get it if you place it within the framework of/relate it to/draw comparisons from [insert randomly googled logical/philosophical/linguistic model/hypothesis/woo here]". Quite a scary thought that it could theoretically go on forever.

Thanks for the info wayne, let's give it a try:

Seems appropriate to the forum

Edit: Yay! it works!

 

[jimbob]

Thanks flimflam for reminding me of that, this one is quite disturbing...

And this is for all those people who heve studied electronics...

 

[wwitzke]

Thanks for the info wayne, let's give it a try:

Seems appropriate to the forum

Edit: Yay! it works!

Always glad to help

 

[flimflam_machine]

Although I really like some webcomics (homestarrunner, penny-arcade, RvB etc.) I only heard of xkcd the other day. Actually I think someone from badsci linked to it or t-shirts using the strip. Although I'm by no means a maths geek I've done enough maths (and I'm enough of a science geek) to relate to it.

My faves:

This has happened to all of us hasn't it *ahem*

[url="http://xkcd.com/c203.html"]Not really thought of it this way before
[/URL]

 

[wwitzke]

Actually, this one seemed particularly relevant to the conversation:

Pillar

 

[jimbob]

The author *does* allow hotlinking...

Might make a change from kittens.

 

[geoman]

...

I always find it easiest to cut down on extreme verbosity as the veracity of one's arguments becomes harder to discern, and indeed the train of one's thought might become derailed by seemingly inconsequential, yet initially, though ultimately superficially interesting digressions, which do nothing to advance the cause of the argument, but may provide a false veneer of erudition, and thus permit one to utterly forget the main thrust of any discussion, which in this case is that additional, unnescesary, words act to cloud meaning, rather than illuminate, and may also hinder ones own framing and understanding of the issues involved.

...

Jim

Nominated, as I have the utmost respect for someone who can actually post anything at all 56-odd pages into a BF thread, let alone something like this. Hats off to the rest of you too.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks, and glad you liked it,

I have spoted the odd typo in my post, but my brain was melting whilst I was writing that drivel...

Jim

 

[pv+]

So Bubb has really been suspended eh? I can't say that I'm hugely surprised.

You see! That's how OS012 works.
The real world equivalent is someone gets fed up punches out your lights for a week. Not that Bubble has any lights...


Btw, can anyone translate this piece of Bubblefish prose?

...and by comprehensive study, and further understanding can be obtained by study thier of comprehend grammar not meaning study.

Sorry flim_flam, I see you beat me to it. But it is total pig swill, isn't it!

 

[Mojo]

You'll have to wait for your answer: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77143

Perhaps in the meantime he can get one or other of the two "academics with careers so impressive it would startle [us]" that he has on his "team" to step in for him. At least they should be able to express themselves clearly if they so wish.

Assuming that they exist objectively, of course, rather than just inside Rome's head...

 

[wwitzke]

Perhaps in the meantime he can get one or other of the two "academics with careers so impressive it would startle [us]" that he has on his "team" to step in for him. At least they should be able to express themselves clearly if they so wish.

Assuming that they exist objectively, of course, rather than just inside Rome's head...

Well, if OS911 is just a 3-value logic system (which he claimed some time back), there's nothing new or interesting about that, and I'm sure he could find academics with information to spare. Apparently, there are over 3000 such logics, and with such a rich field I'd expect to find many experts. Heck, I have experience with 3-value logic systems, since they're used extensively by database systems.

Also, if he's talking about providing academics that will argue for the objectivity of beauty, I'd bet that such philosophers exist (Professor Yaffle's link to that fascinating article on objectivity/subjectivity and metaphysics/epistemology even implied that many philosophers make a claim for objective beauty ). It might even be instructive to argue with them, since they might be intelligible and have real, coherent points to offer.

The real question, I think, is if Rome were to produce these academics, would it make the subjects any less tired or mundane?

Wayne

 

[WWHP]

So Bubb has really been suspended eh? I can't say that I'm hugely surprised.

me either.

anyway, flim, again, you are your comrades here have the eye of a turtle and the appreciation for irony of a four year old.

When I made a comparision to the meanings of grammar and ungrammatical, in relationship to 'meaning' and chomsky, I summed it up tongue in cheek, as

OS 012 was not derived nor formed from NLP, Chomskian Linguistics, or Semiotics, yet there are very similar themes expressed and by comprehensive study, and further understanding can be obtained by study thier of comprehend grammar not meaning study.

Apparently the intentional grammatical *spoof* went over your head, with the rest of this conversation.

That sentence scores a solid 6.7 Prescotts for incomprehensibility.

and a perfect 10 in irony. if you can't get the joke, then you can't understand the argument.

It's just struck me that there is a pretty much infinite cycle of prevarication that Bubb can go through. Every time he gets proven to be talking rubbish he can just say:

"Oh but you don't understand it. It makes perfect sense if you understand it, but you will only get it if you place it within the framework of/relate it to/draw comparisons from [insert randomly googled logical/philosophical/linguistic model/hypothesis/woo here]". Quite a scary thought that it could theoretically go on forever.

Bubblefish is no longer addressing magical arguments

regards,
The Agency

 

[WWHP]

Well, if OS911 is just a 3-value logic system (which he claimed some time back), there's nothing new or interesting about that, and I'm sure he could find academics with information to spare. Apparently, there are over 3000 such logics, and with such a rich field I'd expect to find many experts. Heck, I have experience with 3-value logic systems, since they're used extensively by database systems.

ahhh, this old trick. WHen you cant find the contradiction in your opponents argument, acuse them of 'doing nothing new' and then claim that even though it's true, it's not interesting.

Also, if he's talking about providing academics that will argue for the objectivity of beauty, I'd bet that such philosophers exist (Professor Yaffle's link to that fascinating article on objectivity/subjectivity and metaphysics/epistemology even implied that many philosophers make a claim for objective beauty ). It might even be instructive to argue with them, since they might be intelligible and have real, coherent points to offer.The real question, I think, is if Rome were to produce these academics, would it make the subjects any less tired or mundane?

ahh, so when you cant find an argument to refute the claim, just make the claim that it's too mundane to talk about.