Skepticism and The Normal

[pv+]

"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?

Classic Blubberbrain idiocy!!
If that isn't trolling your own thread...

Bubblebottom, do you know the meaning of "tautological" (with one "l")? Or did you just vomit it into the text because it sounds like it should mean something impressive. Is this really the best that a showbiz, no expense spared education can do? What a steaming heap of manure!
And enough with the critical thinking rubbish. You and critical thinking aren't even on the same street, never mind on first name terms. The only thing that's critical around here is the stench of the idiocy in your posts.

 

[Ducky]

Bubble, to respond to this is to rehash many many posts in this thread, so I'll ask outright:

Have you ever taken any advanced logic courses?

 

[WWHP]

I must agree. I have tried to hold a discussion with BF, but it has been made considerably more difficult by the fact that he appears to switch definitions when it suits him. Please see the recent mix of the use of "objective" to refer to an observer with the meaning of "objective" referring to the nature of a statement for an example.

Jonny, please show me where I 'mix' my meaning?

an objective statement can ONLY come from an objective observation, they are completly and always interelated. You can't just seperate them and ignore the one argument that is providing you with contradictions to your 'usage' of objectivity!

I happily conceded the point with my lack of knowledge on the philosophical meaning of "bivalent" (damn you, science education!), but the rest of this just doesn't convince me that there is anything innovative or original at work.

I'm not trying to convince you that i am original or there is something innovative here, I am trying to get you to see what I mean, and when you do, you will see that it is very innovative.

So, you simply dont understand yet, and there is no problem with that, but until you understand it,you cant really look at it objectivly, right?

Until we understand something, we can't look at it objectivly, we are only looking at our own subjectivity.

The third value clears that up

 

[Godmode]

Fuzzy logic does not eliminate subjective bias in logic.

 

[WWHP]

Fowlsound, PV

I understand that tautology is 'true' based on the logic of it's form, not it's content. Tautology is also used as a term in rhetoric.

thus, A=A is a tautology, and so is "air =air". Tautologies tell us nothing about content other than they are content, only form. That's how I understand it, please anyone correct me if I am mistaken.

I cant find it now, but there is an argument somewhere on the net that "all pink elephants live in loaves of bread" contains a tautologically true form.

If I have misused that example, then I retract that example, but that example is far from the foundation of my argument regarding the third value.

My example was meant to relate that in logic, the form may be true, while in reality the content may not be, and I stand by that.

I would imagine my formal education is about as impressive as James Randi's.

 

[Ducky]

So that's a no on the logic classes then eh?

Ok let me recommend a class or two before you continue thinking your theory is anywhere near revolutionary.

 

[pv+]

Fuzzy logic does not eliminate subjective bias in logic.

It might well be fuzzy, but there's no logic within a million miles of Bluebottle's posts.

 

[Ducky]

arguments and examples please, not blanket assertions

I don't make an assertion, it is evident from the post I was referring to:

I have invented no arbitrary meanings, at all, ever, and you are making a false claim. I simply relate those meanings to include the person who uses them to obtain further critical insight.


So, to be clear, and let there be no mistake, this framework that I address INCLUDES the point of view.

Your arguments are NOT including the point of view.

Those are two distinct frameworks.

So your only argument at this point can only be:

1.) it is not relevant to include points of view in detemining objective information or truth, for........and.......then therefore.......

I look forward to hearing it

You are suggesting a framework of 3 values for your logical syllogisms, then requiring a binary response from someone else. You've created a false dichotomy that either the response is wrong or the response is what you expect it to be.

QED.

Take a logic class.

 

[WWHP]

fowlsound, PV,

Please address the argument. I'm not asking for personal advice, I am asking for an argument

 

[Ducky]

I did address it bubble. The problem is you haven't made a coherent argument to start from. As I have pointed out you are continuing to perpetuate fallacy.


Please go back and reread this entire thread. You could stand to learn a lot from it.

 

[Dean Morrison]

Hi Bubblefish/TM

see you've decided to stop wasting space on the Badscience site - and decided to waste Randi's space instead.

You really are a silly troll - glad to see that you are being surrounded by people with brains and pointy sticks here -

- nice to see some of the old Bad Science posters have joined to to watch the fun.

Seriously - have you ever considered getting a life??

 

[WWHP]

I don't make an assertion, it is evident from the post I was referring to:




You are suggesting a framework of 3 values for your logical syllogisms, then requiring a binary response from someone else. You've created a false dichotomy that either the response is wrong or the response is what you expect it to be.
.

once the third value is determined, there is nothing wrong with asking for or using a bivalent response or answer for simplicity's sake, bivalency has a function, and I am not contradicting myself

 

[Ducky]

once the third value is determined, there is nothing wrong with asking for or using a bivalent response or answer for simplicity's sake, bivalency has a function, and I am not contradicting myself

Please explain how a 3 value syllogism yields a binary response. Have you figured out why I brought up programming earlier?

 

[Katana]

 

[Dean Morrison]

Actually Bubblefish/TM - I've just noticed you posted this on the Badscience forum:

Anyone can read how Dean Morrison brutally and violently attacked Rupert Sheldrake for proposing ideas outside of his paradigm.

- very courageous of you to do so in the knowledge I had no opportunity to reply...

All I did was to call Sheldrake a 'pseudoscientist' - which I think you'll find is a rather commonly held view on the JREF forum - at least amongst those who have ever heard of the guy. Ben was annoyed because another poster had contacted Sheldrake and told him there were libellous posts on his forum in an effort to censor me.

Sheldrakes latest effort is to band together with some chums to re-brand 'skepticism'. Sheldrake now claims to be a 'real' skeptic - while Randi, and anyone who has doubts about CAM are now 'media' skeptics i.e. not skeptics at all.

If you don't believe me check their latest website:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org

There is even a guide on "How to become a media skeptic":

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/secrets/media_skeptic.htm

Starts off with this:

Secrets of the Skeptics

How to Become a Media Skeptic

by Guy Lyon Playfair






Need a second income? Then why not become a Media Skeptic, one of those who pop up on our screens almost daily to assure us that "the paranormal" (or psi, as it is known in the trade) doesn't exist? You don't need any qualifications, though it helps if you have a degree in psychology, Just stick to these guidelines:

1. Make it clear that psi (which includes telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and precognition) doesn't exist, because it is impossible. It is "bad science" to claim that it does. You can quote such respectable authorities as the following:
* Professor Peter Atkins. "Serious scientists have got real things to think about - we don't have time to waste on claims which we know both in our hearts and heads must be nonsense." ( Counterblast, BBC2, 23 April 1998).
* Dr Susan Blackmore. "I think we have strange experiences we can't explain and jump to the conclusion they're paranormal." ( Desert Island Discs, BBC Radio 4, 3 May 1998).
* Professor Richard Dawkins. "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans." ( Sunday Mirror, 8 February 1998).
* Professor David Deutsch. " The evidence for the existence of telepathy is appalling...Telepathy simply does not exist." ( The Observer, 30 September 2001).
* Professor Nicholas Humphrey. "The idea that quantum physics explains the paranormal is an unnecessary idea, because there's nothing to explain... We haven't got any evidence." ( Today, BBC Radio 4, 2 October 2001).
* James Randi (a conjuror). "There is no firm evidence for the existence of telepathy, ESP or whatever we want to call it." ( ibid. )

So I'd suggest you go over to join them Bubblefish/TM - they'd no doubt find you fascinating...

 

[WWHP]

I did address it bubble. The problem is you haven't made a coherent argument to start from. As I have pointed out you are continuing to perpetuate fallacy.

are you actually going to BS me and say that you dont understand my examples regarding Randi and STeorn, and WMD in relationship to the third value?

are you?

Those are my arguments, if you pick up sub arguments in my exchanges replying to other posters, then your reacting, not thinking.

Please, stop trying to mislead everyone. I state my arguments in simple and commonly used language. Hundreds of people understand me just fine, and some of them have far more impressive academic credentials then I would imagine most of the posters on this thread.

 

[Ducky]

You have not answered my question.

 

[WWHP]

Please explain how a 3 value syllogism yields a binary response. Have you figured out why I brought up programming earlier?

I am not referring to programming, I am referring to dialectic.

 

[The Atheist]

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


BF

And you are posting poppycock masquerading as sensible discussion.

Live with it. You keep coming up with rubbish, I keep rubbishing you - that's how discussions work. You want to try having a sensible discussion; I'm game.

At this stage, your theory of indeterminacy sounds like you're trying to get underpants moving to the left but little else. Sorry, magic not indeterminacy. Or was it mystery?

 

[pv+]

Fowlsound, PV

I understand that tautology is 'true' based on the logic of it's form, not it's content. Tautology is also used as a term in rhetoric.

thus, A=A is a tautology, and so is "air =air". Tautologies tell us nothing about content other than they are content, and only form. That's how I understand it, please anyone correct me if I am mistaken.

I cant find it now, but there is an argument somewhere on the net that "all pink elephants live in loaves of bread" contains a tautologically true form.

If I have misused that example, then I retract that example, but that example is far from the foundation of my argument regarding the third value.

My example was meant to relate that in logic, the form may be true, while in reality the content may not be, and I stand by that.

I would imagine my formal education is about as impressive as James Randi's.

Your example and your understanding were up to your usual execrable standard, and I think I'll decline your kind invitation to correct what any 15-year old should already know.
Your education (both formal and informal), if your contributions here and in Badscience are anything to judge by, was either non-existent or a complete waste of time and money. But we know from the Badscience forum also that so much of your obfuscation is deliberate. This makes you a troll.