Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

By "O/S", I assume you mean your classification of statements as objective or subjective. Correct?

NO, classifications of IDEAS as objective/subjective.

Which definition of "refute" are you using here?

The one which means that your rebuttals were unable to maintain any integrity in the light of reason.

I'm not in Los angeles, and I don't see why anyone should pay out money to support your claim. Can you provide any evidence?

Dude, that was me relating an experience. I am not trying to 'prove' he can do that, I dont have time. I am merely relating my experience. You can find out for yourself, or believe me or not, I dont care.

Actually, he was on 'That's Incredible' in the 70's, but doing something different. He could snap a brick in half with one thin sheet of paper.

I've looked at the evidence. They have chosen a highly unusual means of demonstrating that their device works. They have chosen to advertise for scientists in a financial journal. They have hand-picked the "scientists" to inspect their device. they have those scientists under a non-mutual nondisclosure agreement. They claim to have a working device working at 285% efficiency; why not just demonstrate this to the world rather than messing about with their "validation"?

You can go to thier site and they address those questions. I am not their spokesperson.

But you don't do this: you hang onto your mistakes, or claim that you didn't make them, but that everyone else has misunderstood what you posted.

Please help me then. Please bring to my attention a critical error I am not acknowledging. And I mean a 'critical' error in my central argument, not some ancedotal comment.

That is a definition of "symmetry" (and a subjective one at that).

so dictionary's have 'subjective definitions' of words now?

It doesn't mean that your claim that beauty can be objectively defined as symmetry is true, just as a definition of a duck as a bird doesn't mean that all birds can be defined as ducks.

No, it's not my proof, and I didnt relate it as such, but it does show that symmetry is considered beautiful and related to beauty in the objective sense. If you look at definitions of 'beautiful', you will also find refrences to synonyms of form, such as harmony. In repeating forms of culturally accepted expressions that are considered beautiful, you will see harmony, balance, symmetry playing a role.

Is music not beautiful? Of course music is beautiful to the ear. What is music but syncopation and harmony?

are you going to argue that music's beauty is purely subjective too?

 

[WWHP]

If you didn't mean this, what did you mean by the exact phrase you used above?

Truth is not affected by redicule, it will advance and continue to advance until it is accepted as self evident.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

But you said "only truth" goes on.... Thus implying that anything that went on in the face of ridicule must be truth. Why did you use the word only if that is not what you meant?

Edit - duh, just realised you may have meant only in the sense of but, however etc. If this is the case just ignore my line of questioning!

 

[zooterkin]

Is music not beautiful? Of course music is beautiful to the ear. What is music but syncopation and harmony?

are you going to argue that music's beauty is purely subjective too?

Argument from incredulity.

Yes, beauty is subjective, including the beauty of music. Yes, nearly everybody finds at least some music beautiful (but I wouldn't be surprised to find some who find no music beautiful). Does everybody find every piece of music beautiful? You have a limited circle of acquaintances if you believe that to be the case.

Do you actually understand the meaning of the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? I've not been convinced by the way you've responded to it before. It encapsulates the subjective nature of beauty.

ETA: I'll leave it for others to pick apart your definition of music as merely "syncopation and harmony".

 

[WWHP]

Edit - duh, just realised you may have meant only in the sense of but, however etc. If this is the case just ignore my line of questioning!

Hmm, perhaps this new attitude of yours may make you eligible for employment by the Bubblefish Discussion Managment Agency;-)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Hmm, perhaps this new attitude of yours may make you eligible for employment by the Bubblefish Discussion Managment Agency;-)

What new attitude? I always acknowledge it when I realise I have made an error. Anyway I have never been any good at managment...

 

[WWHP]

Argument from incredulity.

hehe, yours or mine?

Yes, beauty is subjective, including the beauty of music.

Think about what you just said and phrased. If music is not beautiful in and of itself, how can there even be 'the beauty of music' that you refrence to be subjective? I find a contradiction right there. 'beauty OF means a property of. One one hand you are saying that beauty is soley in the ear of the beholder, yet you relate it as an objective property of music.

Yes, nearly everybody finds at least some music beautiful (but I wouldn't be surprised to find some who find no music beautiful).

Again, I find this line of argument irrational. It seems to assume that a small insignificant minority of people may exist who do not share delight in music is somehow proof that it's beauty does not exist.

Just because they, or anyone, cannot 'find' the beauty doesnt mean it is not really there.

Does everybody find every piece of music beautiful? You have a limited circle of acquaintances if you believe that to be the case.

No, of course not, but everybody finds something 'beautiful' in the music they enjoy, and that 'beauty', what ever it is, is rested on the harmony and syncopation of aural structures. All music is a harmony and syncopation, a play of sonic interelatedness which carries mathematical forms that are invisible to the non musician.

Dissonance in music and musical form, which some do find pleasant for it's experimental qualities (such as Miles Davis' "Live at the Philmore" recordings) is merely supporting this argument, supporting the strength that beauty in music is found in it's highest harmonies.

Do you actually understand the meaning of the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"?

Yes, it means beauty is internal.

I've not been convinced by the way you've responded to it before. It encapsulates the subjective nature of beauty.

Yes, it does, and I don't negate that. This argument is that beauty is BOTH objective and subjective, both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL.

ETA: I'll leave it for others to pick apart your definition of music as merely "syncopation and harmony".

Harmony and syncopation is the foundation of music. Music is not 'merely' that, music is founded on that. There are also other factors in music, many which arrive historically as synthesis of other forms combined with music, such as lyrics, tones, textures, etc etc.

 

[WWHP]

What new attitude? I always acknowledge it when I realise I have made an error. Anyway I have never been any good at managment...

me either, that's how I could use some help around here;-)

 

[WWHP]

Which ones?

all of them

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Anyone know any good managment courses that me and bubba could go on?

 

[WWHP]

Here you're using "refute" in the sense that politicians use it: to give their unsupported denials a spurious air of authority.

Hardly.

Look Mojo, I know what to look for in a dialectic argument structure. When I find a conflicting idea, I challenge it, I question it, I refute it if neccesary. If I continue to do that to your or anyone's ideas, they can counter me, and then I can counter back, and then so forth and so on. When you or anyone cannot find a rationalization in this process, you drop the argument and pick up with a new line of questioning so you can keep arguing. That means your argument was refuted and your not continuing to rationalize it.

I am refuting your argument, and my proof is the fact that your argument gets dropped, i.e. you cant continue to make rationalizations, and I can.

False ideas have a limited number of rationalizations in a dialectical form, and true ideas have an almost infinite number of possible rationalizations. That's an algorythm that can be tracked.

Are you going to answer my question about 'Co-Intelligence'?

 

[WWHP]

Anyone know any good managment courses that me and bubba could go on?

does this mean we're dating?

 

[Professor Yaffle]

But that assumes that the only reason that someone would drop an argument is because the opposite side of the argument was obviously compelling. People drop a line of argument for all sorts of reasons - in this thread it is usually because they have stated the argument clearly, but the other party refuses to accept its validity and continues to talk nonsense, so they can't see the point of repeating the same argument over and over. So they just sigh, and drop it and move onto some other egregious error to call you on, which they know you won't accept, but they do it anyway because it is so funny to see what new nonsense you will come up with.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Well if you can find a good managment course, I promise I will go to it with you.

 

[zooterkin]

Think about what you just said and phrased. If music is not beautiful in and of itself, how can there even be 'the beauty of music' that you refrence to be subjective? I find a contradiction right there. 'beauty OF means a property of. One one hand you are saying that beauty is soley in the ear of the beholder, yet you relate it as an objective property of music.

I'd suggest a remedial English course for you. I said all beauty was subjective, including that of music. Which means that any beauty found will vary according to the person experiencing it, and does not preclude the possibility that the amount of beauty found may be zero.

Again, I find this line of argument irrational. It seems to assume that a small insignificant minority of people may exist who do not share delight in music is somehow proof that it's beauty does not exist.

Not irrational at all; it is the nature of subjective experience that it varies between people.

Just because they, or anyone, cannot 'find' the beauty doesnt mean it is not really there.

No, of course not, but everybody finds something 'beautiful' in the music they enjoy, and that 'beauty', what ever it is, is rested on the harmony and syncopation of aural structures. All music is a harmony and syncopation, a play of sonic interelatedness which carries mathematical forms that are invisible to the non musician.

Ah, so you're trying a different tack from physical beauty, where you alleged that Angelina Jolie was objectively beautiful, and are now saying that because the idea of beauty exists, whether musical or physical, it must therefore be an objective quality? Sorry, just because most people agree that the idea of beauty exists, that doesn't make the beauty of a piece of music, or even of all music, an objective quality.

Yes, it means beauty is internal.

Internal in what way? To the subject or the object?

Yes, it does, and I don't negate that. This argument is that beauty is BOTH objective and subjective, both INTERNAL and EXTERNAL.

There's your problem, right there (it shouldn't be a surprise, it's been explained several times by people better at it than me). By definition of the terms subjective and objective, beauty cannot be both objective and subjective, it has to be one or the other.

Harmony and syncopation is the foundation of music. Music is not 'merely' that, music is founded on that. There are also other factors in music, many which arrive historically as synthesis of other forms combined with music, such as lyrics, tones, textures, etc etc.

Syncopation is not an essential for music; nor is harmony, for that matter, though it is more commonly present than syncopation. And back to the English, what you said was "What is music but syncopation and harmony?", which is another way to say that music is just syncopation and harmony.

 

[Z]

Argument from incredulity.

Yes, beauty is subjective, including the beauty of music. Yes, nearly everybody finds at least some music beautiful (but I wouldn't be surprised to find some who find no music beautiful). Does everybody find every piece of music beautiful? You have a limited circle of acquaintances if you believe that to be the case.

Do you actually understand the meaning of the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? I've not been convinced by the way you've responded to it before. It encapsulates the subjective nature of beauty.

ETA: I'll leave it for others to pick apart your definition of music as merely "syncopation and harmony".

zoo, pardon me for quoting your post, but I have Rome on 'ignore'.

There's a fascinating side-note to this line of inquiry - 'flat ear' syndrome. This syndrome comes in several strengths - from simple tone-deafness to more complex hearing anomalies. The movie A Knight's Tale (though pretty lame) had an interesting deleted scene at the dance, when the bad guy leaves the dance and complains to one of his companions about 'that horrid noise'. Where others heard beautiful music, he could only ever hear a cacophany of noise.

This actually exists in a tiny fragment of the population.

Basically, any quality that is proven to be subject to individual tastes is subjective - beauty being the most subjective of all. I find beauty in music by The Art of Noise, but my wife cannot stand it.

Congratulations, by the way, to Rome for drawing me back once more to this otherwise dead thread with more foolish commentary on the nature of beauty.

BEAUTY IS SUBJECTIVE.

YOU ARE WRONG, ROME.

Get over it.

 

[zooterkin]

If you find ONE idea without a conflicting idea to it, I will write you a check for 100 bucks and include a special prize in the package.

"Right now, the Sun is bigger than the Earth"

 

[Mojo]

Pay up, Rome.

 

[JQH]

Did he ever pay up the $100 he lost on the bet on Bad Science?

 

[WWHP]

By "O/S", I assume you mean your classification of statements as objective or subjective. Correct?

I should re-clarify this question here. Earlier is said no, meaning OS is applied to ideas in the dialectic, the 'meaning' behind statements. However, o/s also relates to reality, as in the two dominant distinctions of reality, objective reality and subjective reality, and simply assigning ideas via statements to their proper assignment as relating a truth value in objective reality or relating a truth value in a subjective reality.