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.
my statement was in response to yours, which was "There is a definition and it's possible to construct arguments using that definition." I assume you meant your listing of the definitions, no? Well, my arguments are also using those definitions, hence your argument would apply to me just as much as you, thus, I suggested that you are mistreating the information, i.e. you're using the same definitions as me, yet when i apply those definitions consistantly to your arguments, we get things like "objective thinking can produce 2+2=5"
now, perhaps that's not what you 'mean', but it is what your arguing if I take your text at face, i.e. objective, value. I am finding contradictions in your arguments,i.e your argument is producing contradictions.
Please clear this up for me if I am mistaken.
But the statement attempts to describe external reality, not subjective experience.
so? since when does "Opps, sorry, I meant to be objective" define objectivity or produce an objective answer?
It describes something that can be quantified. I don't "feel" that a math problem has a solution, it simply does.
but if you arrive at 5 instead of 4, where you being objective or going with intuition or frustration?
No, that isn't what I said at all.
it's what your arguing based on the objective value of your argument, if that's not what you 'mean' then your simply mistating your argument, right?
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.
Here is how I am using it
1.)Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
3.)
Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic.
so again, are you or are you not arguing that if someone arrives at 5 instead of 4, they are being objective?
Jonny, you're trying to negate the role of the human being inside of this process. 2 + 2= 5 requires a process to arrive at that, that process can either be objective, or subjective. Objective thinking does not produce subjectivly dominant answers, if it did, it wouldnt be objective, right?
when I take your argument at face value, I get that it does, please correct my argument if I am mistaken.
You've also shifted from talking about the statement's scope to talking about a personal attitude.
how can you not relate them? we didnt just discover text lying around like rocks and trees, we created it.
Remember, this framework is refrential to the self, and when we apply this, it's elegant in all environments. If you dont include that self, then you will get contradictions up the yin yang at some point in your argument, and you will lose the elegance.
"all pink elephants live in loaves of bread" is a tautologicall true statement, yet pink elephants do not exist, in loaves of bread or otherwise, so are you going to argue that is true, or simply tautologically true and irrelevant to critical thinking about elephants and a novelty of logic?
Thus, you have misrepresented my argument.
or perhaps you have misrepresented it, or not have yet to consider mine, mine is the third value, which
depends upon the observer's honesty. two values are not dependent upon the user's honesty, and thus we can get things like pink elephants living in loaves of bread being 'true' tautologically.
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).
I not only agree but also believe that you really do 'feel' that way, but if you want to be objective here, shouln't you 'think' that way instead of 'feel' that way? or both think and feel? I am making a petty point, but it is relevant to my higher discussion regarding objective meaning of text.
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.
I agree and hold that same value as you do. Hence, this particular framework that I am introducing.
So you're going to develop your own structure for the words and what they mean?
now who is misrepresenting? did I not say that this framework is NOT contradictory to the definitions in the dictionary?
When you have a framework, it is neccesary to define your words relative to how they are applied inside of the framework, right? And how they are applied does NOT contradict the dictionary.
This framework does expand on the meaing of 'false', however, since this framework is almost perfect objectivly, or about as purely objective as one can get. As far as I know, this is the first framework to expand on 'false' philosophically and objectivly in a way that can aide objective thinking.
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.
That's fine, I am not here to find a flock, and this is not a formal presentation of this framework anyway, it is simply an argument over the neccesity of the third value in critical thinking.
I'm glad you linked to the ternary logic article, it was interesting.
no probs.
BF
