Okay, but then I don't know what else to say about your OP other than "Yes. Sometimes we don't know things."
well, always, not sometimes, we dont know things! And 'things' we don't know, we do need to dress with 'ideas' that signify that which we dont know, so please consider, a third value is a neccesity when considering the value of truth in the objective sense of the word.
That was my suspicion, hence my calling it a meaningless label.
yes, and this is my critique, if you dont mind me addressing it directly. I find that calling the third value 'meaningless' isnt rational, we dont know what meaning it could or could not have to determine that, and thus I find many critical thinkers making an error here, and dismissing a huge chunk of information as 'irrelevant' since it is natural that 'irrelevance' would follow from something that is 'meaningless'.
Make sense?
It's not a value at all. The item in question to which you assign the third value either is or isn't true regardless of our knowledge of which.
when you say the third value is not a value, from which point of view do you address that from? In logic there are three values, I can provide you with a link to a ternary logic paper which shows the functionality of the third value in selfrefrential logic here.
http://www.aymara.org/ternary/ternary.pdf
So in logic your statement is not true. Perhaps you mean philosophically? Again, well, this is certainly not true as in the whole of philosophy, although one could argue that aristolian logic guides much of western thought and many forms of reasoning or hueristics, and there certainly is no third value there, but it certainly exists in philosophy.
Only if you are also willing to say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither true nor false.
Well, from this point of view that I address things from, it [flying spag. monster] is clearly false, it is a imaginary construct and parody constructed by Bobby Henderson, there is no mystery there.
But you just associated it with "supranatural" which is not merely an idea, is it?
Of course supranatural is merely an idea, if it wasnt, then it would be supranatural, right? Just in case, I am using supranatural, not supernatural.
Supranatural is a mysterious idea that serves as a placeholder/signifier for unknown phenomena in universe, no?
Without wanting to get into a battle of semantics, I don't think you are correct. It is a claim, i.e., that entities and/or abilities exist which either contravene all that is known about nature or which act in such a way as to be indetectible and therefore indistinguishable from nonexistence.
Or can you lay out the precepts of this construct for me?
again, my exact term is 'supranatural' not 'supernatural'. supranatural phenomena is phenomena that is currently unobserved. For example, dark matter i would imagine would perfectly qualify as supranatural phenomena. It's currently very very mysterious, no? We cant seem to directly observe the majority of our universe, and we are not quite sure how to yet account for it, so we come up with a term 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', although we havent determined yet what it is composed of for any objective certainty.
Anyone who has not been presented credible evidence, even admitting that there is a spectrum from incredible to credible without a clear dividing line. i.e., me.
question then. What do you do if direct experience contradicts either evidence or the conclusions of lack of evidence?
Just as I can say there are no invisible, undetectable rhinoceri in my desk drawer.
yet, you cannot say if there is or not dark matter in your desk drawer!
Then I suggest that simply saying there are times when admitting we do not know is the most honest, logical, defensible stance. Few here would disagree.
yes, but this forum is a collection of people interested in claims regarding the 'super-natural', and I find from experience that many preclude that no such phenomena could exist, yet I find that what they are really saying is that no phenomena as they understand the term 'supernatural' to mean could exist, and they are unable to distinguish between three truth values we all use naturally to understand.
for example, supernatural phenomena could simply be a phantasm of subjective experience, meaning that it is 'real' as an experience internally, with an effect on the objective world, involving simply a psychological mechanism or possibly involving a mechanism which is supra-natural phenomena that we currently do not observe.
make sense?
Saying "I don't know" is fine in every field.
including and most importantly philosophy, no?
Now we could get into a never-ending list of definitions. There is nothing wrong with either intuition or creative thinking so long as they are not the endpoints in research or discovery.
well here we most certainly agree 100%. Intutition is the inspiration, it is not the result.
Pro or con? (edit:regarding qi discussions on badscience)
They were 'con', me, I am skeptical about both pro and con, and there you see my point I hope.
So what does one do when their personal experience provides one set of truth value, and critiques of the experience another?
I have been a practioner of internal arts, relating to tai ji chuan, qi kung, nei kung, for over 10 years. I have had numerous personal experiences within the practice where using the terminology of 'moving energy' seems appropiate. Yet I dont know if it really exists objectivly or not, qi, I only know I have one set of value on one side, experience, and critical thinking and rational thought on the other, and surely one must include experience when determining the truth, no?
