Skepticism and The Normal

[Curnir]

then you're still making the same critical errors. You're putting multiple theories as the foundation of your knowledge tree!


Love, Bubblefish

pst.....as critical thinkers, we want ' multiple theories' at the top of our knowledge tree, not at the foundation! and if you meant to use 'theory', then YOU were wildly misusing the word!

Still don't get it do you?

Oh well.

what an elmer....

Why thank you.

btw have you firgured out if I live in Canada or the US yet?

 

[WWHP]

Here's ol' elmer PV, with his irrational and contradictory values.

Why come here everyday and read this thread?

I see loads of potential for a master polisher such as Bubba!
Watch this space.
PS. It will either be like watching paint dry........... or watching paint dry.

surely you have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, eh?



Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

btw have you firgured out if I live in Canada or the US yet?

you could live anywhere the internet extends for all I know, and for all I care.

 

[WWHP]

Jimbob! Finally, a question without ideas about me insenuated into the statements!

I think, ladies and gentleman, we may have proof for the creationists that monkies are evolving! (yes, but that is a playful insenuation;-)

So *I* think *your* evaluations of a position are T/F/M?
or
One's evaluations are TFM
or am I still missing what you are saying?
Jim

I think you are still missing something I am saying ,because i could look at your statements a number of different ways, how do you mean them?

(I'm giving you an intuitive response here, because I think that is what your missing in understanding, the intuitive irrational element in human being's meaning)

 

[drkitten]

Are you going to address the critical arguments,

Believe me. I would love to address them.

There simply are none. Your entire theory rests on a mistaken understanding of the basic epistemology of the world and of the logical process itself.

As JonnyFive has been patiently pointing out, nothing that you have been claiming to do is especially new. Karnaugh had formalized a version of trivalent logic in the fifties, and of course, Godel had refined a different version in the 20s. There's nothing either new or interesting in the idea of trivalent logic.

However, your suggestion of a trivalent logic where "subjective truth" is equated to "objective falsity" (as you proposed in post #30) is illogical and incoherent. it does not accurately describe the universe.

Furthermore, your assumption that statements can be classified as "true," "false" or "mysterious" is also incorrect, since a statement to which you do not know the answer may nevertheless be known true/false to another observer. The truth of the statement "I have an ace in the hole" is known to me, but not to anyone else at the poker table -- and therefore it is neither "true" nor "mysterious," breaking your trichotomy.

Furthermore, your assessment that statements that are not known to be true or false must thus be identically "mysteriouis" reflects a deep misunderstanding of the state of the world and of the nature of evidence. There are many statements whose truth/falsity cannot be proven but that can nevertheless be assessed, and if necessary acted upon. Steorn's technology provides a good example. Although I cannot prove that Steorn is fraudulent, I can prove that there is no independent evidence that they are not fraudulent, that there is ample independent evidence that their claim is impossible, ample independent evidence that they know its impossible (because anyone with a sixth grade understanding of science knows that), and that they are therefore fraudulent.

My analogy of Tinkerbell was and is exact. We cannot prove the nonexistence of Tinkerbell, but there is enough evidence of her nonexistence that it would be perverse and irrational to continue to believe in the possibility of her existence. And there is still more[/]i evidence to believe that Steorn are acting fraudulently. In terms of probability theory, the probability that Tinkerbell exists is demonstrably much greater than the probabiilty that Steorn's technology does -- because Tinkerbell, at least, does not violate every thermodynamic experiment that has ever been done.

So if you really want a logic that formalizes properties of the unknown -- well, logicians have been working on real-number based "fuzzy logic" (where uncertain propositions are described in numbers representing their degree of support and/or certainty, between 0 and 1) for literally decades. Again, there's nothing new there, except the fact that they are capable of correctly describing the difference between the possible and the extremely unlikely to the point of rejection.

I suspect you're a critical thinker too, and I request you bring to this discussion your honesty and critical thinking, not your poop.

I have. For the same reason, I make the same request of you.

And I point out, in particular, that OS012 is "poop."

There is a rather old and famous book review. The reviewer pointed out "this book is both original and informative. Unfortunately, the part that is original is not informative, and the part that is informative is not original."

That's a quite accurate description of everything you've said about OS012. The part that is useful and informative -- trivalent logic -- is not original; logicians have been using it for decades and have gone far beyond the applications you propose. The part that is original in your thinking is not just uninformative, but actively incorrect when it rises to the level of meaningful.

 

[jimbob]

Jonny,


That relationship, 'one' and 'many', is the same relationship as true and false, objective and subjective. These distinctions are exalted and refined into two major contributions in human culture, art and science.

I only need to make the abstraction that 'one trillion' apples is very very very many apples!

What about "i" (or as I'm an engineer "j"); I will explain further:

Bubblefish, I know that you don't have much background in maths, which is fine, so I hope this is at an appropriate level.

What multiplied by itself makes 1?
The answer is 1 or minus 1

What multiplied by itself makes minus1?
let us call this "i".

What is this number? Not one that I can visualize. In fact you can think of it as at 90° to real numbers.

Is this number interesting or useful?
Yes.

e^2*pi*i-1=0, which relates many of the most famous constants in mathematics.

I could go on but won't for now.

The point I am trying to make is that not all numbers are easy to visualise.


Jim

 

[JonnyFive]

What about "i" (or as I'm an engineer "j"); I will explain further:

Bubblefish, I know that you don't have much background in maths, which is fine, so I hope this is at an appropriate level.

What multiplied by itself makes 1?
The answer is 1 or minus 1

What multiplied by itself makes minus1?
let us call this "i".

What is this number? Not one that I can visualize. In fact you can think of it as at 90° to real numbers.

Is this number interesting or useful?
Yes.

e^2*pi*i-1=0, which relates many of the most famous constants in mathematics.

I could go on but won't for now.

The point I am trying to make is that not all numbers are easy to visualise.

Yeah, I referred him to imaginary numbers. He claimed he was just talking about the natural number line and that he meant 1 was the base of all counting and ordering only, not higher math.

Which is all right, I guess, even though I still disagree that 1 is always the conceptual basis. There's also the issue of irrational numbers, that can't very well be said to "divisions of 1" because they continue into infinity without repeating (and, of course, cannot be expressed as fractions), and thus can only be approximately represented in terms of divisions of real objects.

I'm going to keep going, honest, but I need a couple days to make sure I'm making good points.

 

[WWHP]

Jonny, thanks for giving both of us a vacation! I need to catch up. In my professional life, I have 4 projects open and running, all with deadlines, and I'm in charge of all 4 projects.

 

[pv+]

surely you have nothing better to do than watch paint dry, eh?

Bubblefish

I have rather a lot of bright students at scuola superiore whose immediate future somewhat depends on the marks I give them. You should be pleased to know that you and your drivelling are very useful to show them as an example of what happens when you fill your head with too many narcotics and you mistake your ignes fatui and hallucinations for reality. Your language in all respects is pathetically ignorant and pretentious, and your powers of reasoning in your arguments are for all practical purposes non-existent. If your performance so far in your Internet world is anything to go by, you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag. Brilliant.
Cheers!



PS. We especially like your self-demolition over Aristotle's murder mystery. Excellent!

 

[brodski]

So does that make him Pythagoras, or does it make him Aristotle?

ever mindful of cockney rhyming slang, I'll have to go with Aristotle.

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, I referred him to imaginary numbers. He claimed he was just talking about the natural number line and that he meant 1 was the base of all counting and ordering only, not higher math.

Which is all right, I guess, even though I still disagree that 1 is always the conceptual basis. There's also the issue of irrational numbers, that can't very well be said to "divisions of 1" because they continue into infinity without repeating (and, of course, cannot be expressed as fractions), and thus can only be approximately represented in terms of divisions of real objects.

I'm going to keep going, honest, but I need a couple days to make sure I'm making good points.

I admire your stamina, I find it far easier to read short posts...

Grammar, formatting, and paragraph layout can help.

Jim

 

[WWHP]

INTERIOR: Performers stage with curtain drawn

We hear 'La la la la.....la la la' (sung to the tune of Howdy Doody)


Announcer V.O.
It's time for the Bubblefish and PV show!

Curtain parts.
Enter stage right:
BUBBLEFISH Male, handsome, charming, thin.


Bubblefish
Well tonight, ladies and gentlemen, I'm really excited. This is going to be a good show tonight. Our old friend, PV, has some exciting news he wants to share with us.

Enter stage left:
PV Older male, British, overwieght and overbearing, a british queen trapped into a schoolteacher's frame.

PV

I have rather a lot of bright students at scuola superiore whose immediate future somewhat depends on the marks I give them.

Audience applauses.

Bubblefish
So their future depends perhaps on the quality of the backrubs and reach arounds they give you?

Audience erupts in laughter.

PV

You should be pleased to know that you and your drivelling are very useful to show them as an example of what happens when you fill your head with too many narcotics and you mistake your ignes fatui and hallucinations for reality.

Bubblefish
They should be on to pot in no time then.

Audience erupts into laughter.

PV

Your language in all respects is pathetically ignorant and pretentious, and your powers of reasoning in your arguments are for all practical purposes non-existent.

Audience boos

Bubblefish
C'mon PV, don't take it so hard. I can't be as bad as you claim, can I? We have a mathematician on this thread that is able to parse my meaning into shared agreements and truths.

Audience ponders, reflects...

PV

If your performance so far in your Internet world is anything to go by, you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.

Audience, in unison
Audience
Huh?

Bubblefish
But that's just my point, PV, the dialogue contained in the written exchange is the evidence if we can hold allparticipants at thier truth values. This is the labrotory to a analyze the framework I introduce. The framework I introduce is perfectly reflected in the text of all participants.

Audience in unison
Audience
' Doh!

PV

Brilliant.

Bubblefish
Thanks PV!

PV

Cheers!

Bubblefish
You too PV, I'm glad that not only are you my stage . partner, but you're also a fan!

Audience chimes in

Audience

We especially like your self-demolition over Aristotle's . murder mystery, Bubblefish. Excellent!

Bubblefish
Thanks PV and community. I sure admit it when I make a mistake. But my argument regarding OS 0 1 2 and the third value is untouched by this superficial error, it's irrelevant!

Audience chimes in
Audience
Doh!

bubblefish, keep in mind your membership agreement regarding civility. Keep to the discussion of the topic without personalizing things.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 

[JQH]

Dr. Kitten,

Are you going to address the critical arguments, refined in the exchange between JonnyFive and myself, or are you going to play heckler with the schmoos from badscience.net?

See, they didnt address my arguments critically either, they were like monkies throwing their poop down from the trees, and when I would 'goad' one of the monkey's to come down and discuss, they would jump right back into the tree to throw thier poop after one or two passes in honest exchange.

Now the monkies follow me here, and for THREE months now, are still playing monkey.

I am thier life and excitement, i don't want to be yours. Monkey's love playing with poop, as we all know. They claim I write poop, and for three months continue to follow me around playing with it. I can't wait for them to see that they have really been playing with thier own poop, here and thier whole entire lives, and blame it on everyone else!

I suspect you're a critical thinker too, and I request you bring to this discussion your honesty and critical thinking, not your poop.


Bubblefish

Actually, Bubblefish, posters on badscience.net did address your arguments critically. Your reaction was to say that anyone who didn't agree with you was too dumb to understand the new paradigm. You said the same when it was pointed out to you that an experiment you claimed was double blinded was only single blinded. You the spent several pages accususing your critics of being stupid before finally admitting you do not know what double blinding is.

And as for following you here, I have been a member of this forum for over a year. I've only started posting because I couldn't stand the sight of you regurgitating the same nonsense you spewed over the badscience forum.

 

[Dean Morrison]

gee, which one is more human of a response? I would take the oppurtunity, here, Dean, of being more human and congradulate me. You need the PR!


Bubblefish

Bubblefish - you're suggesting you're actually a filmmaker called R*** V***** by posting that thread, and that that child is yours....


That's an easy thing to check - and since you posted the link yourself - it's publicly available information - and therefore not offensive to the moderators of this forum.

so put up or shut up..

I'll post the author of the youtube item ..

but I'll give you 24 hours to withdraw....

that's decent of me isn't it????

 

[Dean Morrison]

And as for following you here, I have been a member of this forum for over a year. I've only started posting because I couldn't stand the sight of you regurgitating the same nonsense you spewed over the badscience forum.

Diitto JQH ..

note our start dates -

my post count would have been higher if a certain Veterinary Woo thread hadn't been moved behind closed doors....

 

[SamanthaMc]

Bubblefish is a puppy trying to mix it with the big dogs.

Could someone please explain to me why some forumites (not Zep in particular, but this is a good example) feel the need to degrade newbies who express opinions they don't agree with?

 

[Mojo]

Could someone please explain to me why some forumites (not Zep in particular, but this is a good example) feel the need to degrade newbies who express opinions they don't agree with?

Not a particularly good example, actually: Bubblefish has been here since July 2005 and has a track record of making extravagant claims and then refusing to back them up with evidence.

 

[SamanthaMc]

Not a particularly good example, actually: Bubblefish has been here since July 2005 and has a track record of making extravagant claims and then refusing to back them up with evidence.

Point taken. Compared to your thousands of posts, 400 in a year and a half doesn't seem like that many, but I'm sure he's been here long enough to stir the pot a bit.

 

[pv+]

Thanks PV and community. I sure admit it when I make a mistake.

No! This is where you conflate your hallucinations, delusions and reality. You lied and you got caught out, then you claimed it was a mistake. Yet another lie to compound the first one. To claim you admit your mistakes is even yet another lie.
And yes your use of the English language exposes your stupefying ignorance of it, and much else besides. Your use of the word "parse" is but one example of hundreds in this forum of your idiotically inappropriate and pretentious language. You clearly don't know the meaning of this word, just like so many others you freely chuck about like confetti in in your posts. No wonder your powers of reasoning are practically non-existent - you just don't have the intellectual equipment.


PS. Your lying, not once but several times, is "superficial" is it?
"Superficial" is another word you don't understand.

 

[pv+]

Point taken. Compared to your thousands of posts, 400 in a year and a half doesn't seem like that many, but I'm sure he's been here long enough to stir the pot a bit.

Pot stirring (and smoking) is all that Bubblefish does. He can't do anything else.