another cherry picker. sheesh, i imagine if some of you were in power in 2003, and had to argue with me about the existance of WMD claims, we would have invaded Iraq simply on my spelling errors alone!
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
another cherry picker. sheesh, i imagine if some of you were in power in 2003, and had to argue with me about the existance of WMD claims, we would have invaded Iraq simply on my spelling errors alone!
hehe, when constructing statements that can stand the test of hard legal debate in courtroom dialectic, you should know that you didnt define what you meant by 'here', and you would have noticed that I dont know what it means!
by the way, I have emailed wholly about your claim
aint it touchin'? Ol bubblefish brought some old pals and chums together, such love I have for all of you!
BF
Dean Morrison
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 54
Well done for taking the bait there stupid troll.
Glad I brought it to your attention....
yes, exactly and thank you
not neccesarily in princaple, but it is the only objective thing that can communicate meaning and interpretation. Meaning and interpretation are internal events, and text is the external event. It is the only event that is mutually viewable, thus 'objective'. we can agree the text states what it states, A=A, we may not agree that the text means what I say or someone else.
We can decontruct a sentence objectivly by using strict prescriptions defined in the dictionary, which is the meaning we 'all can agree on'
yes, exactly
wish I saw this post earlier!
Buckaroo
Graduate Poster
Jesus, this is getting tedious. Right, I'm off.
Basilio
Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 139
From Bubblefish:
>no, the main point of my original post is that many critical arguments crumble into nothingness when considering the third value, that is my main point, not an ancedotal comment about randi.<
Yes, and I believe that 100% of us critically disagree with you and your assumption that the "third value" can be considered to function in the real world. We won't play ball, and we won't say "gee wiz" to self deluding Philosophical legerdimane (sp). You can't show off your superior weaponry in a war that no one come to, let alone cares about, even if you having the cannon with the "odd sized" round.
Look, you seem a decent enought fellow, so if you only want to win at any cost (warping language and logic) rather than learning, please, continue on your lonely and self rightous path. Me, I'm willing to admit when Im wrong and try to learn from it. Why don't you take a break, maybe go play in the "what if the South won the Civil war" thread?
I withdraw from the field with my head unbowed.
Basilio
>no, the main point of my original post is that many critical arguments crumble into nothingness when considering the third value, that is my main point, not an ancedotal comment about randi.<
Yes, and I believe that 100% of us critically disagree with you and your assumption that the "third value" can be considered to function in the real world. We won't play ball, and we won't say "gee wiz" to self deluding Philosophical legerdimane (sp). You can't show off your superior weaponry in a war that no one come to, let alone cares about, even if you having the cannon with the "odd sized" round.
Look, you seem a decent enought fellow, so if you only want to win at any cost (warping language and logic) rather than learning, please, continue on your lonely and self rightous path. Me, I'm willing to admit when Im wrong and try to learn from it. Why don't you take a break, maybe go play in the "what if the South won the Civil war" thread?
I withdraw from the field with my head unbowed.
Basilio
Jonny, I think I missed this post of yours!
they may be distinguishable, but they are not inseperable when you include the observer, which is all this framework i introduce does.
Jonny, the statement 2+2=5 is an attempt to describe something objective, I agree with that, however, it doesn't describe something objective, it is describing a subjective event.
To me real is something mutually observable or mutually experienced, and only those things can be determined objectivly.
I believe that's my argument against you here. Again, words are prescriptions, not descriptions, of things. Objectivity to be distinguished needs subjectivity to relate it against, otherwise, we could not make the distinction, and again, how the distinctions of objective and subjective are used are not contradictory to what is in the dictionairy.
well, this is philosophical here, but yes, at a certain point, all information is purely subjective in that regard. So out of the set 'information' which can only be processed internally, in the mind, there exists distinctions in side of that set between objective and subjective.
then we mean the same thing!
it is for me if it is for you!
it doesnt fit, however, when you include the person who said it into your examination!
I think our argument boils down to this. Your saying statements with the intention of refrencing external reality are all objective statements.
I'm saying that for critical thinking, only statements that actively prescribe non contradictory truths to external environment are objective and true statements.
How much do you disagree with my proposition here?
My example to refute yours was the statement "Reptelians rule the world", I asked if that was an objective statement, because based on your argument, it's intentions were refrencing external reality, and that's all we need for an objective statement.
you said:
then you must agree with my proposition "only statements that actively prescribe non contradictory truths to external environment are objective and true statements" then, right?
can you see how applying the term 'objective statement' to 'reptelians rule the world' can lead to confusion and destroys elegance?
I think perhaps we are coming to agreement over all, no?
Not skeptics per se, but rather critical thinkers whom I have encountered or their arguments which I have encountered, and I havent modified that position yet, indeed, my experiences here so far confirm much of it.
really good question! My argument is about the ability to make critical distinctions in truth, and that these distinctions are natural, not created by myself. those three distinctions are our 'meta-program', and therefore all of which we can percieve naturally contains their signature. that's a pretty big claim, yes, I know, but those three numbers are the signature of those values in math, in how we use numbers in the ordering and counting sense.
There exists three basic distinctions of number in the order and counting sense. 0, the non additive integer, 1, which is the base value of a mathimatical distinction, and 2, which represents the first possible combination of the base value, or, as a mathmatician would put it dividing number sets into three categories: the null set, non null finite sets, and infinite sets, and that this number system is based on their respective cardinalities.
012 is also base three counting in mathematics, called 'the lovliest set of numbers'.
Stan Tennen used base three counting to discover higher mathmatical abstractions in the book of genesis. http://www.meru.org/. I dont think that bit of information is appreciate here though!
fair enough
because three values perfectly and precisely relates all environments comprehensivly, simply, and elegantly.
this is a dialectic. dialectic naturally comes in threes. Hegel called it the 'triads'. I dont know, it's just there naturally, it's not a forced framework, rather, a framework we have forgotten about.
You cannot get this or understand this without having a 'ah-ha!', a profound insight into yourself and how you view reality or simply what I call 'environment'
Best
BF
they may be distinguishable, but they are not inseperable when you include the observer, which is all this framework i introduce does.
Jonny, the statement 2+2=5 is an attempt to describe something objective, I agree with that, however, it doesn't describe something objective, it is describing a subjective event.
To me real is something mutually observable or mutually experienced, and only those things can be determined objectivly.
I believe that's my argument against you here. Again, words are prescriptions, not descriptions, of things. Objectivity to be distinguished needs subjectivity to relate it against, otherwise, we could not make the distinction, and again, how the distinctions of objective and subjective are used are not contradictory to what is in the dictionairy.
well, this is philosophical here, but yes, at a certain point, all information is purely subjective in that regard. So out of the set 'information' which can only be processed internally, in the mind, there exists distinctions in side of that set between objective and subjective.
then we mean the same thing!
it is for me if it is for you!
it doesnt fit, however, when you include the person who said it into your examination!
I think our argument boils down to this. Your saying statements with the intention of refrencing external reality are all objective statements.
I'm saying that for critical thinking, only statements that actively prescribe non contradictory truths to external environment are objective and true statements.
How much do you disagree with my proposition here?
My example to refute yours was the statement "Reptelians rule the world", I asked if that was an objective statement, because based on your argument, it's intentions were refrencing external reality, and that's all we need for an objective statement.
you said:
then you must agree with my proposition "only statements that actively prescribe non contradictory truths to external environment are objective and true statements" then, right?
can you see how applying the term 'objective statement' to 'reptelians rule the world' can lead to confusion and destroys elegance?
I think perhaps we are coming to agreement over all, no?
Not skeptics per se, but rather critical thinkers whom I have encountered or their arguments which I have encountered, and I havent modified that position yet, indeed, my experiences here so far confirm much of it.
really good question! My argument is about the ability to make critical distinctions in truth, and that these distinctions are natural, not created by myself. those three distinctions are our 'meta-program', and therefore all of which we can percieve naturally contains their signature. that's a pretty big claim, yes, I know, but those three numbers are the signature of those values in math, in how we use numbers in the ordering and counting sense.
There exists three basic distinctions of number in the order and counting sense. 0, the non additive integer, 1, which is the base value of a mathimatical distinction, and 2, which represents the first possible combination of the base value, or, as a mathmatician would put it dividing number sets into three categories: the null set, non null finite sets, and infinite sets, and that this number system is based on their respective cardinalities.
012 is also base three counting in mathematics, called 'the lovliest set of numbers'.
Stan Tennen used base three counting to discover higher mathmatical abstractions in the book of genesis. http://www.meru.org/. I dont think that bit of information is appreciate here though!
fair enough
because three values perfectly and precisely relates all environments comprehensivly, simply, and elegantly.
this is a dialectic. dialectic naturally comes in threes. Hegel called it the 'triads'. I dont know, it's just there naturally, it's not a forced framework, rather, a framework we have forgotten about.
You cannot get this or understand this without having a 'ah-ha!', a profound insight into yourself and how you view reality or simply what I call 'environment'
Best
BF
Jesus wont help you , you can do it yourself!
Too much to think about, eh?
isnt that what 'woo's are said to do? or those that wish to hold on to supernatural ideas in place of doing some cold hard CRITICAL thinking?
well guess what, you have already been *kissed* by the third value, and if I understand psychology like I think I do, you're going to be thinking about this for awhile, whether you admit it or not!
Toodles buckaroo, fun chattin witcha!
BF
Last edited:
yes, and your making the critical error in assuming that since numerous people provide an anti-thesis, which is natural when confronting any truth, then that means the thesis is false because there is an anti-thesis.
that's irrational, your basically arguing that my arguments are wrong because of a consensus, not critical, view. that's politics, not rationality.
All you have to do is think, I'm asking nothing more. you're not thinking, you're reacting.
umm, in case you're not paying attention, I am 'showing off' my weapons in the conflict of idea in this forum, and my arguments continue to advance,I feel refreshed and alert, and you ladies are leaving.
I win when I uncover truth. I am a human being and truth is covered by my delusions. I know enough that I can only uncover my delusions through critical thinking with other honest reasonable, and thoughtful human beings.
So when I am 'wrong' I win. When I am 'right' I win. When your sole value is truth, which is should be if you are a critical thinker, then so too will you win.
Perhaps, I havent seen any evidence of this yet
drain my blood, please.
and with your arguments crumbled in nothingness, thus, the young poet Basillo wanders away, his internal thoughts turning over, and over, like the fallen leaves in the november fields...
There is no truth but truth!
BF
Z
Variable Constant
Yet you were the only person to notice it...
Oh well. I guess I'm not a great thinker, after all.
The Atheist
Psychopath
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 38,167
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Actually, the rest of the post was a suggestion that because the only way you can possibly express your meaning on this forum is by posting text, you should try to make sure that your text accurately reflects the meaning that you intend to convey, and to express yourself clearly and unambiguously using generally accepted (i.e. dictionary) definitions of words.
Dean Morrison
Scholar
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2006
- Messages
- 54
God you are dumb Bubblefish/TM - as dumb as the fake 'skeptics' on that site - if you admit to a phenomenon being 'perinormal' then all you are saying is that you've found an interesting conventional phenomenon we haven't got around to explaining yet. Before you decide to re-define the word to suit your own purposes remember that it was a neologism created by Dawkins with the express intent of exposing loonies like you - it's just that you dullards are so eager to use what sounds like a cool new addition to your 'vocabulary' you fall straight into the trap of appropriating it.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
I'll repeat this question, since the first time, I threw it out rhetorically, and not directly at you.
How does it help in solving conflict to treat demonstrably false statements (ones that we would call objectively false) as if they are the same as subjective statements of opinion.
And how is it helpful to call both of them false? I notice that even you do not use the word false in that way generally. When someone has made a statement you think is demonstrably untrue, you say that it is false, you don't seem to point out that all sorts of other statements are false by your definition, by way of being subjective.
To conflate the two categories as you would like to do simply obscures meaning. If I said "I like ice cream" and someone told me "that is a false statement", I would assume that the person thought I was lying because of the commonly agreed definition of the word false. If the person concerned meant that I was giving my subjective view of ice cream, then they should say so, and there would be no misunderstanding. If you deliberately use words with a differentmeaning assigned to it than everyone else does, you are never going to be understood.
I think I now understand why you call both categories non objective. You are not looking at whether the statement can be objectively verified, but whether you consider that the person making the statement is being objective when they make that statement. If you are being perfectly objective, you can only make completely true statements (in your way of looking at things).
The fact that it has taken me (and presumably everyone else here) so long to work this out, is not down to our intelligence, but simply that the way you express yourself makes it very difficult to understand what you mean. And it doesn't help when you start deliberately using words in a manner contrary to their commonly agreed definition. Because then we don't know what you mean, whether you mean something else deliberately, whether you have made a mistake with your words (as you frequently do) or whether you do not understand what you are talking about.
How does it help in solving conflict to treat demonstrably false statements (ones that we would call objectively false) as if they are the same as subjective statements of opinion.
And how is it helpful to call both of them false? I notice that even you do not use the word false in that way generally. When someone has made a statement you think is demonstrably untrue, you say that it is false, you don't seem to point out that all sorts of other statements are false by your definition, by way of being subjective.
To conflate the two categories as you would like to do simply obscures meaning. If I said "I like ice cream" and someone told me "that is a false statement", I would assume that the person thought I was lying because of the commonly agreed definition of the word false. If the person concerned meant that I was giving my subjective view of ice cream, then they should say so, and there would be no misunderstanding. If you deliberately use words with a differentmeaning assigned to it than everyone else does, you are never going to be understood.
I think I now understand why you call both categories non objective. You are not looking at whether the statement can be objectively verified, but whether you consider that the person making the statement is being objective when they make that statement. If you are being perfectly objective, you can only make completely true statements (in your way of looking at things).
The fact that it has taken me (and presumably everyone else here) so long to work this out, is not down to our intelligence, but simply that the way you express yourself makes it very difficult to understand what you mean. And it doesn't help when you start deliberately using words in a manner contrary to their commonly agreed definition. Because then we don't know what you mean, whether you mean something else deliberately, whether you have made a mistake with your words (as you frequently do) or whether you do not understand what you are talking about.
Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
This is the exact same tactic Bubblyboy used in the bad science thread, when he was asked whether he knew what double blind meant. When pressed, he said he knew exactly what it meant and had done for years, when his errors were pointed out, he said he was using a "layman's definition" (apparently that means a completely incorrect definition). I think we can draw our own conclusions about whether he knows what boolean means.
sinnikal
Muse
Bubba, while you're in contact with Woolly (Wholly to you), here's a bit of his wisdom from BadScience, originally addressed to another poster, it may change your life.
Have you ever considered Invariantology? They could do with you on the team.
Whether or not you take this advice is, of course, entirely up to you.
Have you ever considered Invariantology? They could do with you on the team.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
This possibly applies to some of the statements that Bubblefish has made, for example his statement back in 2005 that Dr. Lo would be publishing his evidence for the existence of qi in a peer-reviewed journal in a few months time, and that when this happened Bubblefish would provide a link to the paper:
By the way, Bubblefish, has it been published yet or did it just get totally shredded in the peer-review?
But what about his repeated statements that Dr. Lo had already published his work on qi in peer-reviewed publications? For example, here:
That is an objective statement about something that had either happened or had not happened. It is a statement that he himself later conceded was not true.
It may be that at the time he made the statement Bubblefish honestly didn't know whether or not Dr. Lo had published his evidence in peer-reviewed journals, or it may be that he didn't know what "peer-reviewed" meant, but in either of those cases the honest answer for him to have given would have been "I don't know". Is his "third value" nothing more than an excuse for not checking his facts?
Last edited:
Mangafranga
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 222
I'm not sure if I was as clear as I could have been here.
The claim here is of statements about (at least some) future events. The claim is that some future events can still go either way. On the 2nd of Febuary 2007, the proposition "On the 3rd of Febuary 2007 Mangafranga buys an iced-coffee" could not sensibly be said to be either true or false. Because on the 2nd of Febuary 2007 it has not yet happened and in fact could either occur or not occur. The proposition on the 4th of Febuary 2007 "On the 3rd of Febuary Mangafranga buys an iced-coffee" can be given a value of true or false.
The point is that this argument has nothing to do with knowledge. It is not a question of if a person has access to knowledge, or if such knowledge is easily, or even possibly accessable. The claim is that at the time before some events have happened a proposition about said events cannot be said to be true or false because either, at that point in time, could happen.
To relieve the suspense, I did in fact buy an iced-coffee.
Wotcha Fishbrain, how goes it today? Still trolling along in your own mess here I see. You seem to have a bit of post to prevaricate over.
I must say, it's remarkable how much in these Internet forums you resemble someone who lives in their own cesspit and enjoys it. You sort of dig a little hole by starting a thread like this one and depositing rather large turd in it. Then you sit in it and invite the world to come along and inspect it and if they feel so inclined to defecate all over you. And there's you sitting in the middle of this steaming, pullulating mess, shouting to the world hysterically, "Wot, me? I don't stink!".
Surely Los Angeles must have an annual village idiot contest for you to enter! It's not like there's a shortage of pin-brained, half-witted loonies in your neck of the woods, so there can't be any reason why not and the competition should be fierce. But I'm sure you'd win it hands down every time. One could almost say you're overqualified. I mean your handiwork here and over at Badscience is peerless. First class idiotic drivel! And you manage to churn it out effortlessly, post after tedious post, like a demented verbal diarrhoea machine.
And, btw, the more you post the more you stink.
Best,
pv
I must say, it's remarkable how much in these Internet forums you resemble someone who lives in their own cesspit and enjoys it. You sort of dig a little hole by starting a thread like this one and depositing rather large turd in it. Then you sit in it and invite the world to come along and inspect it and if they feel so inclined to defecate all over you. And there's you sitting in the middle of this steaming, pullulating mess, shouting to the world hysterically, "Wot, me? I don't stink!".
Surely Los Angeles must have an annual village idiot contest for you to enter! It's not like there's a shortage of pin-brained, half-witted loonies in your neck of the woods, so there can't be any reason why not and the competition should be fierce. But I'm sure you'd win it hands down every time. One could almost say you're overqualified. I mean your handiwork here and over at Badscience is peerless. First class idiotic drivel! And you manage to churn it out effortlessly, post after tedious post, like a demented verbal diarrhoea machine.
And, btw, the more you post the more you stink.
Best,
pv
Last edited:
All idiocy passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly it is violently opposed. Thirdly it is accepted as being self evident.
Attributed to pv
Who in this forum isn't at stage three yet?
Whoever you are, get a move on!
Last edited: