Skepticism and The Normal

[pv+]

"Light as a wave" and "light as a particle" are models that we apply to light, each of which is appropriate to use in particular circumstances but neither of which completely describes what light actually is. As Zaay says, it is what it is.

I suspect the late RPF knew more about light than anyone here. Here's a link to the Feynman lectures for anyone who's never seen or heard them: http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8


Bubblefish won't understand any of it, of course. He will say he does, but that word "understand" has other meanings in his delusionary world of "creative" language and tat masquerading as art. In the real world where we agree on language and meanings, and where we use such language to communicate effectively, he is unquestionably far too dense and in love with what he thinks he is to understand any of it.

 

[JonnyFive]

Well of course I do not suggest that addition, multiplication, and division is separate outside of the body of greater mathematics, I hope that’s not what you think I am suggesting here.
I am saying that dividing, adding, and multiplying are the most common usage for numbers amongst all of us, it’s basic to use those distinctions of number to exist. We all add, divide, and multiply all the time, even the uneducated and most deranged individual can still say “I have one foot, and another foot”

No disagreement.

So those simple numbers that we use for those purposes are the beginning foundation of mathematics, I‘m sure it’s reasonable to assume that would be an epistemological correct statement.

Sure, simple math is the foundation of more complex math, no disagreement there either.

It’s the same distinction with the negative numbers if you stay in that direction. I’m simply referring to continual lineation amongst the numbers, nothing more.

Okay, as long as you're not ignoring everything less than 0.

So, let’s be clear on where we agree. I am saying that our must fundament usage of number as human beings, counting and ordering, is a reference to a continual lineation amongst those numbers, and inside of that lineation, although infinite in principle, can be made into three distinctions which are solely unique to each set.

You're going to have to clarify what you mean here. The number line can be broken down into infinite gradations, but counting and ordering is not done using the infinite numbers between each whole number, generally.

Specifically, counting and ordering are done using only the natural numbers. Those numbers only include 0, and all positive whole real numbers after it.

So if you say "continual lineation" to mean the infinite number of values between each whole number, it's not part of counting and ordering at all. If you simply mean that the number line never ends, then I agree with you.

I go on to say that the ‘third’ number in that direct order takes on an entirely different distinction by default, it has to, right?

If 0 is solely unique, and 1 is solely unique, then 2 is certainly solely unique from 0 and 1.

After that , sure 2 is solely unique as opposed to all other numbers that order from it, but it has a similarity to those numbers that it doesn’t have with 0 and 1, and that from the number ‘2’ or –2 up or down, all of those numbers are composed of more than one unit. So not only does 2 represent false in OS 012, and in the relationship to a symbol that represents two things as opposed to ‘is’ two things, but it also is false we don’t need to be accurate about 2 ‘being’ those infinite number of expressions in definition, it just ‘symbolizes’ it because that’s it’s function, it’s the first ‘symbol’ to define more than one distinction.

Could you please provide a slightly more rigorous definition of "distinction" in this context?

Let me be clear: Are you saying that 2 has a similarity to the subsequent numbers because it, as well as the numbers after, can be divided into a number of 1's greater than 1? If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.

If you're only working with natural numbers, then you could make the argument that it's somehow special, but that isn't really based in any kind of mathematics.

if you’re thinking ‘well could not 3 or 4 or 5 be just as equally false by this definition?’ The answer is yes, but two is used for it’s simple common place elegance, you cant have any of these numbers without them, they signify the whole of all relationships conceptually, the 0, 1, and 2.

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by "they signify the whole of all relationships conceptually". Are you talking about mathematical relationships, or something else?

If you're talking about mathematical relationships, you'll need a lot more than three digits. Even using a base three counting system, there are concepts that cannot be expressed simply using digits. I'm going to need a clearer idea of what you mean by this to answer in depth.

Make sure you distinguish the quality false takes on, while still leaving it’s inherent meaning (not true) in this framework.

I don’t mean ‘base of all numbers’, I mean ‘base of all conceptions’

Got it. Again, clarify what you mean by "base of all conceptions". Are you talking about it being the base of all mathematical concepts, or something else?

The ordering of distinctions continues. 0.12 still holds those same distinctions, we are just analyzing the singular unit and deconstructing further distinctions that follow the same pattern.

What is the "singular unit" you're talking about here.

No I haven’t, it’s just redundant to include them symbolically.

Why would you need to include numbers as symbols? Am I misunderstanding your intent here?

Yet you don’t create a new number set when you do that, you keep using 0, 1, and infinity to express perfectly your results.

I'm not sure what definition of "set" you're using here. In mathematics, a set is simply a collection of values. They don't even have to be unique values.

How do you express decimals using 1? If you're going to stretch this to include usages of the digit one in decimal places, then you're not really using "1" at all.

Infinity is not really used to express results, it is used as something that can be approached but never reached. You can't however, assign "infinity" as the value of a variable and have it be meaningful.

That’s irrelevant to what I am distinguishing in number and truth values.

Sure, when you're talking about truth values it's probably not useful, but you at least appear to be making broader claims about numbers in general.

If that's incorrect, then you'll need to be clearer when you state things.

1 is the ‘true’ number because all numbers after one are simply an expression of some amounts of units. 1 is the conceptual base for all higher numbers.

This argument only holds with natural numbers. You could probably make some argument that all natural numbers are made up of units of 1 and all decimals are made up of fractions of 1, but to go from there to arguing that 1 is the conceptual base for all higher numbers might be a bit of a stretch.

I suppose in some kind of train of though way it is, but when thinking about numbers, I doubt many people will reduce everything back down to one. Conceptually, I would venture that anyone comfortable with numbers is also comfortable enough with abstraction to deal with a unit like "10" or "5" or "1 million" as a conceptual basis.

I think a more accurate way of describing the conceptual basis for numbers would be to address the issue of places on either side of the decimal.

Again, you could make the argument that we would see everything in groups of ones at each place, but that isn't really seeing "1", it's seeing "1000", "10,000", "1,000,000", "0.01", etc.

If that is what you're trying to say, then I don't disagree with your conclusion, I just think you need to state it more clearly.

The ‘basis’ of everything is our perception. That is what I base everything on. Inside of the set ‘perception’, there are three unique distinctions that are also found in what we perceive as number, in the order and counting sense. There is continual recapitulation. I dont know how, or if, recaptiulation is addressed mathematically, if you know please share.

You mean "review and summary", correct?

I suppose you could argue that checking equations is a form of review and summary in mathematics. If you mean something more by this, you'll need to further define it.

Yes, and in truth values, mystery is 0 and not FALSE (2)

Depends on the system you're using. There are systems of true/false that use 0 as false, but it really depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to be able to perform logical calculations, the precise values are important.

In mathematics, 0 is not 2, the distinction of 0 is not the same distinction as 2. or 1.

Define "distinction" in this context, please.

What integer is the center of the number line? It’s obvious –4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4

No number is the "center" of the number line, if you mean the infinite number line. 0 looks nice because it's between the positive and negative numbers, but it's not technically the center, because there are infinite values. Any given value has infinite numbers before and after it, and hence cannot be the center.

It may or may not be the center of a given finite number line. If I use 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 as my number line, then 3 is the center.

Those numbers just don’t ‘stop’ somewhere, not conceptually. They are continuous. Don’t confuse my argument as saying that this means objective reality is continuous, it may or may not be, that’s another argument, but in counting, conceptually and abstractly, that number line doesn’t stop, it continues.

I didn't think you were arguing that reality was continuous, don't worry.

Sure, the natural number line continues to infinity, if that's the number line you mean.

It is impossible to add the value of the sum total, there is no sum total, so there can be no number that could account for that sum total. Inside of this infinite set, there are an infinite number of 1’s, and an infinite number of possible combinations of 1’s. 2 and 3 become really arbitrary at this point, there is just as many ‘2’s as ‘12’s.

Again, not sure what you're getting at. There are an infinite occurrence of each digit, but that doesn't really mean anything.

Do you see the subjective to the point of view element of 2 yet?

Clarify what this means.

No, it’s just an infinite environment. Infinity is nothing more than a continuation of finites. There are an infinite number of finites, you cant have a sum by default.

True, yes.

You could use a metaphor and say that finite is the noun and infinite is the verb.

I'm not sure how this works as a metaphor for numbers.

Yes, but in principle it could occur as often as it needed to.

Think about it. Infinite finites. How many ‘sets of 4’ can be distinguished in an infinite number line? There is the set of 1-4, the set of 5 – 8, the set of 9-12, etc etc etc ad infinitum.

Oh, you mean sets of 4 values. It appeared from what you wrote that you believed that the value 4 could occur an infinite number of times, which is simply incorrect.

Yes, there are an infinite possible number of sets of 4 values on any given infinite number line, but that in itself doesn't really do or mean anything. Was there a larger issue there or was that just a statement of fact?

If you're just saying that there are an infinite possible number of n element sets on an infinite number line and nothing more then, sure, you're correct.

Any references I make to ternary logic (specifically the paper I sent using 0, 1, and 2 as truth values in propositions that do not contain Boolean structures), base three counting, or even maybe logic or Taoism simply give you more examples how three values can, and have, significant mathematical reasoning to it’s patterning as well as intuitive adaptation .

No, I agree that three-value systems have a place in mathematics. I don't think Taoism does, but base three and ternary logic have an established place in the world of mathematics.

Base three isn't a very useful system for most people, just like binary isn't, or base 8. All it does is provide another way to express the same values as base 10, but it does it in a way that people aren't comfortable with. Computing has a use for things like binary and base 8, but people generally don't gain much by using it.

Homeboy, if your good enough, I may even hire you at some point! Really, I appreciate this very much, I’m willing to discuss this critically and continually if you are.

Sure, why not.

The paper I sent, didn’t it address propositional problems, however? Can you help me here? That paper, from what my understanding allows, seems to suggest that it is doing things with non Boolean structures, i.e things that cant be done in Boolean, but with 0 =unknown, 1= true, and 2= false.

Boolean logic has a distinct place in the world, but it doesn't work for everything. The ternary logic system appears to attempt to address the issue of uncertainty in a singular logic problem, which Boolean logic ignores, while still allowing set operations using the Boolean logic operations (AND, NOT, OR).

That's why the values are important in ternary logic, it makes working with set operations easier and more logical.

In many ways, it appears to be an extension of Boolean logic.

You claimed one was special the same way I did, we agree about the sole distinction that is allowed to 1 in mathematics.

You mean that I agreed that the value 1 would occur only once? That's fine, every unique value has a sole distinction then, assuming that's what you mean by "distinction."

There can be only one thing in one place at one time, in our basic reality that is, I don’t know if that is true in the QM world, but it’s true here and that is what makes 1 so elegant.

I don't know anything about quantum mechanics, so I won't even get into that realm.

Ahhh, I can’t keep up with the cool kids anymore, I’m trying to keep up with my 1 1/2 year old, and he can't even count!

He'll be solving problems using imaginary numbers before you know it.

 

[pv+]

You, on the other hand posted defamatory and untrue statements about me - in the knowledge that I would be unable to reply.

I have given you the opportunity to either support your assertions with evidence, or to retract these on this board - yet you have refused to do so.

Yes but Dean, dear, Bubblefish is an aaaartist! It was a facsimile defamation. Or maybe it was a compliment even, you understand. Again you have to undertsand how Bubblhead understands things. Not in the way of us un-critical, unthinking non-artist types, you see, but in the way he decides at any ungiven moment, according to how he might or might not feel about any given value of truth, reason and critical thinking. You're obviously not thinking critically there, Dean.

 

[drkitten]

From a theoretical viewpoint, yes it is worthwhile to note the difference between "X doesn't exist" and "there is no evidence for X's existence", but from a pragmatic application, does it really matter?

Absolutely. For example, the FDA and similar drug safety agencies exist more or less to prevent people from saying "there is no evidence for (my snake oil's) harmful side effects -- but of course I haven't really looked, because that's expensive and time consuming."

Statisticians talk about type I and type II errors, or when they're being less technical, false positive and negative errors. Depending upon the situation you're in, if you have little evidence -- or an untestable proposition, one for which no evidence can be obtained -- it may be much more pragmatic to assume that if the evidence against X doesn't rise to the level of effective disproof, we should assume that X exists and plan accordingly.

I have no evidence that I will ever have a fire in my house. And yet I still buy fire insurance. And I will continue to do so until/unless I can design a completely fireproof house.

So the real question comes down to : which is a more serious error regarding the "paranormal," a false negative or a false positive. I am of the opinion that false positives w.r.t. the paranormal do more damage -- for example, people spending money on Sylvia Browne, or wasting their money and time on ineffective healing potions, often making their medical situation worse.

I'm not sure whether false positives or false negatives w.r.t. religion do more damage; I 've certainly seen the negative societal effects of religious schism, so I'd be inclined to lean to the belief that false positives are more harmful. But the religious keep harping on the problems associated with false negatives, such as hellfire, brimstone, and an eternity of disco music....

 

[drkitten]

Dr. Kitten,

You said

I did.

and you can get a very refined objective evaluation for subjective truth by this process I am outlining

No, you can't. Or at least, not by the process as I understand your outline.

Multivalue logics are well-understood by mathematicians, and they simply don't have the magical properties you attribute to them.

 

[JonnyFive]

Multivalue logics are well-understood by mathematicians, and they simply don't have the magical properties you attribute to them.

Especially because set theory is very well developed in modern mathematics, and mathematical logic is all about set theory.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Absolutely. For example, the FDA and similar drug safety agencies exist more or less to prevent people from saying "there is no evidence for (my snake oil's) harmful side effects -- but of course I haven't really looked, because that's expensive and time consuming."

Statisticians talk about type I and type II errors, or when they're being less technical, false positive and negative errors. Depending upon the situation you're in, if you have little evidence -- or an untestable proposition, one for which no evidence can be obtained -- it may be much more pragmatic to assume that if the evidence against X doesn't rise to the level of effective disproof, we should assume that X exists and plan accordingly.

I have no evidence that I will ever have a fire in my house. And yet I still buy fire insurance. And I will continue to do so until/unless I can design a completely fireproof house.

So the real question comes down to : which is a more serious error regarding the "paranormal," a false negative or a false positive. I am of the opinion that false positives w.r.t. the paranormal do more damage -- for example, people spending money on Sylvia Browne, or wasting their money and time on ineffective healing potions, often making their medical situation worse.

I'm not sure whether false positives or false negatives w.r.t. religion do more damage; I 've certainly seen the negative societal effects of religious schism, so I'd be inclined to lean to the belief that false positives are more harmful. But the religious keep harping on the problems associated with false negatives, such as hellfire, brimstone, and an eternity of disco music....

Copy. The part I bolded is to point out that I think this (the bolded part) is what BF appears to be taking exception to wrt Mr. Randi and his work. Mr. Randi stated that Steorn's machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics and, unless extrodinary proof was presented, it was reasonable to assume it is a fraud because of this. BF appears to then argue that since Mr. Randi is erring on the side of false negatives regarding the claim, that he is somehow a horrible critical thinking.


I think we took a long route to get to this, but it was a good journey for me.

What say you Bubblefish? (regarding my main paragraph, not my aside)

 

[drkitten]

Copy. The part I bolded is to point out that I think this (the bolded part) is what BF appears to be taking exception to wrt Mr. Randi and his work. Mr. Randi stated that Steorn's machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics and, unless extrodinary proof was presented, it was reasonable to assume it is a fraud because of this. BF appears to then argue that since Mr. Randi is erring on the side of false negatives regarding the claim, that he is somehow a horrible critical thinking.

Yup. And the possibility exists that Bubblefish is an idiot. The probability rises to a near-cert that Bubblefish and I disagree about the relative severity of false positives and false negatives w.r.t. the paranormal (and things like Steorn's machine).

Mr. Randi is erring on the side of false negatives regarding the claim; if he is making a mistake at all, the mistake is a false negative. So Bubblefish is at least half right. Of course, Mr. Randi is also potentially holding onto a false negative w.r.t. alien abductions and leprechauns with their pots of gold (think of how much money he might be losing by not taking the possbility of leprechaun gold seriously), and most of us don't hold that against him, either.

If all BF were saying is "Randi should not dismiss Steorn's claims out of hand without investigating them more closely," I might even be persuaded to agree with him (although I doubt it). The problem is that this line of argument offers no support to his OS/360-or-whatever trivalent logic. Because the problem isn't one of logic, but of simple risk assessment. I have fire insurance, but not flood insurance, because my house is situated so far above the nearest body of water that the only way it will be damaged by a flood is if Noah builds another ark. Or so I assess....

 

[EternalSceptic]

You know, I never thought that a statement, particularly a factualy true statement, could be considered sort of a Schrödinger's cat, that is, neither true nor faslse. If this is one of the points that is trying to be made, then it spells the death knell for college debate teams!

basilio

Actually this "third value" is nothing but a mix-up of two statements where the possibility to decide the truth of the second depends on the truth of the first, put together in one
Let me give an example:
Statement 1: "We know whether it rains in Sydney just now"[a]
Statement 2: "It rains in Sydney just now"
Connect them: If we know whether it rains in Sydney just now then we can decide the truth of the statement "It rains in Sydney just now"
No mystery, no new special logic, rule of excluded third still valid.

just my $0.02

 

[sinnikal]

Does anyone reading this thread truly believe that Bubba has any interest at all in discussing Randi's skeptic credentials, Dr. Lo's 'experiments' or anything else 'objective'? Of course he doesn't, all he's interested in is proselytizing his entirely useless and misguided BS012. The dialectic that will solve all conflict. Works really well doesn't it. Just check out any thread he's tried to apply it to.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Does anyone reading this thread truly believe that Bubba has any interest at all in discussing Randi's skeptic credentials, Dr. Lo's 'experiments' or anything else 'objective'? Of course he doesn't, all he's interested in is proselytizing his entirely useless and misguided BS012. The dialectic that will solve all conflict. Works really well doesn't it. Just check out any thread he's tried to apply it to.

But it does work!

If everyone uses OS012 (thinks like Bubblefish), then everyone will be deluded about what happens when they are in conflict with eachother. Everyone sees everyone elses behaviour as confirming that they have won the argument. For example, if people continue to debate with me it is because they find my ideas intriuging, and therefore I win. If people refuse to answer me and leave the discussion, or point out what a moron I am, it is because they have no answers to contradict my wonderful ideas, and therefore I win. [For someone trying to convince us of a ternary system, he does a remarkably good job of using a unitary (is that the right word? ternary, binary, unitary) one a lot of the time. There are many occasions where he uses whatever is happening to lead him to only one repeating conclusion - that his ideas are wonderful and will revolutionise the world - when there are so many competing (and much more convincing) explanations of what is happening.]

All he needs to do is convince everyone to think like him, and there will be no conflict in the world, because everyone will be equally deluded and convinced they have won every disagreement, regardless of what happens.

 

[sinnikal]

Don't you mean it would work.......................if only

 

[jimbob]

Don't you mean it would work.......................if only

But it does work!
<snip>
All he needs to do is convince everyone to think like him, and there will be no conflict in the world, because everyone will be equally deluded and convinced they have won every disagreement, regardless of what happens.

Well he is halfway there: Everyone else is in agreement as to the utility of BS012.

Zay- I think this is supplimentary to your post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2317725#post2317725

OK:

Your system confuses several different classes of idea:

Statements that can only ever be subjectively true:

Would you class aesthetic judgments as "mystery"?
"Is Michaelangelo's David the epitome of Renaissance male sculpture?"

Would you class political judgements as "mystery"?
"Was Reagan's presidency better for the US than a second Carter term would have been?"

What about statements that *might* be objectively true, but not known yet:
"Is there an underlying pattern to the distribution of prime numbers, which could be used to predict if a number will be prime?"

And ones that could be locially true but not ever verifiable
"Does god/qi exist?"

Your system also misses out on gradations of truth:

Which of the following statments are true, false, or mystery?



The Sun goes round the Earth.
(False)
The Earth circles the Sun.
(Better)
The Earth orbits the Sun and the eliptical orbits of the planets can be predicted by Kepler's laws.
(Better)
The Earth orbits the Sun and the orbits of the planets can be predicted by Kepler's laws, which can be explained by Newons theory of gravity.
(This is more useful, because it explains more)
Mercury's orbit is better described by a relativistic treatment.
(This is sometimes needed, for better accuracy)

Where is there room in your scheme for such gradations?

If you introduce them, the added complexity would make the scheme unwealdy, and still gain no utility over other ways of thinking.

It is needlessly rigid.


"all models are wrong, some are useful" - George Box

This isn't even wrong, just a waste of mental processses.


Jim

 

[WWHP]

Not so much time right now, but a note:

. So Bubblefish is at least half right.

Hmm, so then if I am half right, then I must also be half wrong, at the same time. Interesting those third values, and how they can crop into our frameworks, eh?

The problem is that this line of argument offers no support to his OS/360-or-whatever trivalent logic. Because the problem isn't one of logic, but of simple risk assessment. .

The Steorn issue is a very critical issue when you consider the state of the world and combine that with the hope of the technology.

I think there is a distinction between cynicism and skepticism, and the essence of cynicism is not critical thinking, the essence of cynicism is resignation, and that's an emotional issue, not a critical one.

We need to apply critical thinking to world events and troubleshooting. We need to have a standard for critical thinking that can produce more accuracy in language.

Randi's claim that Steorn is fraudulent is a verifiable claim. If that claim is shown to be false, then Randi needs to come up with another conclusion. Then only two possible conclusions after that are either Steorn made a critical error, a human error, or they have a violaction of the laws of thermodynamics. It took me two statements to perfectly clarify the environment of Steorn. It took Randi an entire blog entry, and he was led to a false conclusion.

So we can model any set of information, risk assesment or otherwise, logically. I dont find your critique of what I suggest acccurate. We dont toss logic out the window because we have encountered 'risk assesment', we are still going to use a framework that is logical to us whether we acknowledge it or not.

And to clarify, again. OS 0 1 2 is not a system of logic in the self refrential sense of how logic is used. It's an over-arching logic, a meta logic if you will, that includes the point of view of the observer into the framework.

So when I say that ternary frameworks are useful to model, i say they are useful to model because they ARE useful to model. Ternary frameworks have both a hard mathematical reasoning to thier truth value relationship, and a intuitive value to thier truth value relationship. And they keep those relationships intact both logically and intuitivly without producing contradictions, and make perfect statements of determiniation which are logically true in all environments, all the time.

Ternary Logic, maybe logic and taoism all have something in common, three values. Those relationships between the values are the same in all three systems, yet one is intuitive, and the other logical. Wilson's 'Maybe Logic' is both intuitive and logical.

this whole postive or negative true unknown or what have you is useless until after the fact, you can only assign probabilities to those statements until then.

I note that when Dawkins is having a critical argument with a believer, he makes it very very very clear to state that he can't rule out any possibility when it comes to determining the existence of God, rather he makes it clear that it is highly unlikely.

There is no need in your examples to throw hard distinctions (lepracans, the flying spagetti montser) against honest claims of unknown. That's not a fair comparison. In the set of unknowns, we dont know what they are deterministically in and of themselves, but we do know that they are either false ideas soley, or possible true ideas that reflect a discovery. That's just honesty. It's up to the individual to seek the value of each claim with their time. I'm not interested in bigfoot, sure, bigfoot's existence perhaps is a third value, I cant say honestly one way or another, but I really don't care to argue one way or another either, it's not interesting to me.

The claims of WMD in Iraq in 2002, however, was a third value problem, and you can't compare lepracans to WMD, that's irrational.

I can make the statement that Haggert's interpretation of Jesus, his belief, is a false idea, and that statement can have 100% determination inside of this framework, 100%, and I can argue reasonably to the place that Haggart could come to agree with that statement, and he can still keep it as personally true.

dawkins can't do that, I can. We need a framework that in princaple all can come to agree on if they are honest and rational. We are on a critical path, we need to think big, not small.


Bubblefish

EDIT: I assign NO MAGICAL QUALITIES TO THE TRUTH VALUES. That claim that I do is simply false, misleading to others, and deluding to self.

 

[WWHP]

Interesting, the badscience.net folks are STILL discussing OS 0 1 2, after three months, three threads and and numerous attempts to ban me or shut me up. They still are thinking about it. And every single one of thier opinions can be shown to have a contradiction, every one of them.

Master Meme, indeed, eh?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not so much time right now, but a note:

Hmm, so then if I am half right, then I must also be half wrong, at the same time. Interesting those third values, and how they can crop into our frameworks, eh?

Except it didn't. You made multiple statements, some of which were correct, some of which were not. No one is saying that a given statement of yours is both right and wrong.

The Steorn issue is a very critical issue when you consider the state of the world and combine that with the hope of the technology.

Argumentum ad baculum

<snipped irrelevent pontificating>
Randi's claim that Steorn is fraudulent is a verifiable claim. If that claim is shown to be false, then Randi needs to come up with another conclusion. Then only two possible conclusions after that are either Steorn made a critical error, a human error, or they have a violaction of the laws of thermodynamics. It took me two statements to perfectly clarify the environment of Steorn. It took Randi an entire blog entry, and he was led to a false conclusion.

*buzzer*
Wrong. Steorn is making claims. If Steorn chose not to follow proper scientific methodology and/or doublechecking to eliminate error then Steorn is committing fraud, if not business, then at least academic. Additionally, your "two possible conclusions" are a False dilemma as Steorn could be:
* lying
* mistaken
* breaking the laws of thermodynamics
* not breaking the laws of thermodynamics, but drawing energy from an unmeasured source

Your entire tirade on this thread comes of as some sort of schoolyard vendetta against Randi because you don't like his conclusions. But, instead of proving his conclusions wrong through evidence you try to refute his argument through your own personal logic structure. The problem with that is, your still committing an argument to logic fallacy that does nothing to support your claim that Randi's conclusions are wrong.

 

[drkitten]

The Steorn issue is a very critical issue when you consider the state of the world and combine that with the hope of the technology.

Not if there is no rational basis for the "hope." Controlled total-conversion-of-mass-to-energy would also hold out tremendous promise for improving the state of the world, and would also not involve any fundamental violations of the laws of physics. So would the construction of a Dyson sphere around the sun to capture a greater percentage of the solar energy. For those solutions, the problems are "merely" technological, and thus the hope is, literally, infinitely greater.

But the hope is still immeasurably small. No rational observer would sink a dime into such a project.

Randi's claim that Steorn is fraudulent is a verifiable claim.

No, it's not. Not without Steorn's cooperation, and that cooperation is demonstrably not forthcoming. If I claim to have invented fusion in my bathtub, but refuse to allow my device to be tested, it's (self-evidently) impossible to test or to verify.

But it's not impossible to evaluate. And given the fact that if I had invented such a device -- even if I only believed that I had invented such a device -- I wouldn't be messing around the way Steorn is, the conclusion that Steorn is fraudulent. That theory best fits the facts that Steorn has permitted us to observe.

If that claim is shown to be false, then Randi needs to come up with another conclusion.

Of course. But that claim (that Steorn is fraudulent) will in all likelihood not be shown to be false.

So we can model any set of information, risk assesment or otherwise, logically. I dont find your critique of what I suggest acccurate. We dont toss logic out the window because we have encountered 'risk assesment', we are still going to use a framework that is logical to us whether we acknowledge it or not.

Of course not. Logic is a tool that can be used in risk assessment. But the problem with assessing, for example, Steorn's behavior, is not one of the logic used. Plain old biinary first-order logic works beautifully to allow us to infer with confidence that they are frauds.

So when I say that ternary frameworks are useful to model, i say they are useful to model because they ARE useful to model. Ternary frameworks have both a hard mathematical reasoning to thier truth value relationship, and a intuitive value to thier truth value relationship. And they keep those relationships intact both logically and intuitivly without producing contradictions, and make perfect statements of determiniation which are logically true in all environments, all the time.

Unfortunately, not a single claim made in that paragraph is true with reference to the present situation. There are, of course, circumstances in which ternary logics are useful to model, which is why the modelling of ternary logics is a well-studied and well-understood problem, and has been so since probably before you or I were born. There's nothing "hard" about the relationship between truth values and ternary frameworks, nor is there anything particularly "intuitive" about the relationship your soi-disant logic proposes. (In point of fact, it's not only unintuitive, but it's easily demonstrable to simply be wrong. Your statement that "objective falsehood" is the same thing as "subjective truth" is ample demonstration of its inherent wrongness.)

Unfortunately, the set of situations in which ternary logic are useful do not include analysis of Steorn's behavior.

And the final sentence fails to rise to the dignity of error. It's word salad.

Ternary Logic, maybe logic and taoism all have something in common, three values.

So do Goldilocks' bears, the Billy Goats Gruff, and the Stooges. That doesn't make Stooge logic either useful, accurate, or intuitive.

 

[drkitten]

Double post. Forum wierdness. This is not the post you are looking for. Move along. The Force gives me power over the weak-minded.

 

[drkitten]

And every single one of thier opinions can be shown to have a contradiction, every one of them.

I can with confidence state that this sentence is almost certainly false.

 

[jimbob]

Interesting, the badscience.net folks are STILL discussing OS 0 1 2, after three months, three threads and and numerous attempts to ban me or shut me up. They still are thinking about it. And every single one of thier opinions can be shown to have a contradiction, every one of them.

Master Meme, indeed, eh?

No, I just enjoy a pointless argument (see previous image)

I said it then and I will say it agian:

In the jungle of ideas, it is the inbred bambi with two heads.


Jim