Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

You are still a liar, and to assume deception on your part is merely a sober and sensible observation.

Three values of possibility here, PV.


1.)If your statement is objectivly true, that means you could take every assertion I have made, including the dominant argument, and have evidence of contradiction. Without evidence of contradiction, there is no evidence of deception, nor rational reason to suspect them as such.

2.)If your statement is believed to be true by yourself, then you have a very difficult time honestly integrating reality, i.e. self delusion.

3.) If the statement is KNOWN to be false by yourself, then you are obviously projecting your own stategy for discussion onto me, i.e. your being deceptive and misleading.

 

[WWHP]

Cmon bubble let it go....these people, in general, are not ready for this kind of conversation. To the vast majority of them, the simple point of expanding consciousness to non-ordinary states is a stupid, woo-woo kind of attitude, you know. Coincidently or not, this is precisely Randi´s opinion about the subject.

Thanks for the support, omega. Although I want them to win and evolve into higher and more rational thinking, you may or may not be correct. Perhaps they can't get it, perhaps they just can't be honest. I choose to stand in the possibility, even though perhaps small, that they can.

But please dont interpret this as me making a sacrafice for the sake of them winning. I too am winning immensly. This discussion is part of my research into online dialectic. It's a pretty big project of mine.

I seem to try to find where it is flawed, and so far, I can't seem to find the flaw, no matter how hard I try, and no matter how hard I goad my opponents into finding them. I have achieved perfect success so far.

Thanks again for the support

Best,
Bubblefish

 

[WWHP]

Whoa, anybody know anything about this claim?

The way Stephens sees it, the scientific method is coded right into our DNA. It's even evident in other species - for example, when chimpanzees turn twigs into tools to fish termites out of their mounds.

If the scientific method is encoded into our DNA (god I love that idea, I wonder how true that is as science as opposed to philosophy), what does that say about my argument that supports OS 0 1 2, the distinctions of ordering and counting?

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/02/09/53659.aspx

The blog is about 'Darwin Day', so his claim is ancedotal. I have never come across this claim til now. If anyone can point me to a paper, I would love to read more on this.

 

[fsol]

20 pages now eh? Let's see.

True, false, don't know.

Is that about it?

 

[WWHP]

20 pages now eh? Let's see.

True, false, don't know.

Is that about it?

pretty much, although it goes further to show that arguments that dont include the third value completly crumble into nothingness after logical and rational evaluation. Twenty pages later and many arguments have indeed crumbled. Success is your proof.

 

[omegablue]

Coming from a guy whose own thread is all about constant failure to provide evidence for your statement, , I'm sure your input is appreciated.

I actually can't figure who's the funniest, this bloke, you or buzzlightyear.

Ahh, you again kiddo. You are deliberately lying right now. I did provide back up for my "claim" and you acted as if I did not. Perhaps you are too stupid to realize so. As a matter of fact, in the thread you mentioned, people with way higher intelligence, education, knowledge about what is being discussed recognized that there was in fact a huge amount of evidence in favor of ESP, which even Carl Sagan did recognize also (although he didn´t say that there was a huge amount), and that was the point of the whole thread. What seems to vary is the opinions about the acquired evidence. Some mock them , some not. Although some nice arguments were raised against the quality of the evidence, it is still too far away from debunking them...just too far away.

You can whine and moan a lot , but this is the way it is. But in no way, people would be so idiot in order to disagree that there is a huge amount of evidence in favor of ESP. It will require for them being cynical and stupid as you are. There´s still no scientifically accepted PROOF for it. I just mentioned it just in case you were trying to say that evidence is proof. So ,what is your point kid? Just plain trolling? Why are you nit-picking on me? It seems you´re being silly and idiot keep acting like a Randi pup pretending you are debunking something when you in fact is just showing your endless hypocrisy, ignorance and idiocy about what is being discussed. Get a life will ya kid?

p.s: sorry for posting this here, as this is out of context, but sometimes this hypocrisy goes too far to be left alone

 

[WWHP]

Conflicting truth values in current history.

the war in iraq.

Not only was bivalent thinking and logic completly useless regarding WMD in 2002, 2003, but also in regards to the newest expansion of activity in Iraq.

Note the argument now.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L10734546.htm

BAGHDAD, Feb 10 (Reuters) - The new U.S. military commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, warned on Saturday that failure to stabilise the country would condemn Iraq to continued civil strife.
"The prospects for success are good," he said, referring to a new crackdown to curb sectarian violence in Baghdad. "Failing that, Iraq will be doomed to continuing violence and civil strife and surely that is a prospect all must strive to avoid."
"The stakes are very high," he said, after taking over command of America's 130,000 troops in the country from General George Casey.

the idea of sectarian conflict causing disaster is now acknowledged to be true idea.

In 2002, that was also a mysterious idea, an unknown, but with probability applied, it certainly seemed reasonable to consider as a possible outcome.

Yet it wasnt considered as an unknown. It was considered as a false idea. And what was pitched as a true idea was that we would be greeted as liberators.

If everyone was using ternary logic and open thinking, then all of the mess would not have occured.

 

[jimbob]

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

I have said that I thought that you were probably not a troll, but that your tatcis were sometimes trollish, which I admit did contain an idea about you.

However, I have *mostly* been arguing against your *ideas*, with only passing insults directed at your standard of knowledge, writing, and thinking, and which I have based on the evidence of your posts.


I do freely admit to being rude about your "master meme" idea, because the crap presentation makes this watching the master meme's attempts to procreate "like watching an infertile gander trying to mate with a bucket" (to quote myself)

Here is the webshite:

The Human Union/OS 0 1 2 is a call for humanity to build, via the internet, the first honest method of administering ourselves that transcends the human political process. Online public discussion for all of our government and corporate leaders strategizing in a win win dialectical framework.

In this sense, OS 012 and the Human Union is a defiant anti-thesis to the Global War On Terrorism. OS 0 1 2/Human Union is a thoughtful, rational counter-argument that addresses the objective problems we all collectively face as a species.

Human Union is about creating an online system where individual human beings around the globe can be made wealthy by solving problems for human being. Non Zero Sum economics exalting into an 'all sides win' foreign policy. Complete and utter world peace. Billionaire ascension. True success for all of humanity, completing the dream of inventor and designer R. Buckminster Fuller who made these suggestions almost a generation ago at the United Nations.

Oh yes, I also pointed out that I couldn't see how this would work in politics, as it requires that there are *no* megalomanicacs in positions of power anywhere. If there are any, their response would probably be along the lines of "but a win for me would be watching you being tortured to death, and all your children working as my slaves". You never pointed out how that can work as a win-win for both parties, when one side can only hope for survival and slavery without mutilation.

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

I refer you to the response attributed to Thomas Huxley.

You might notice that *I* tend mirrror your tenor of responses, and have done so from the start. Whilst you seem to start agressive, and then become more concillatory.

OK, bantering aside.

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)

As we are now being polite.

I can probably say with a fainr degree of confidence that you view the world in terms of three values, and that any statement you make is either T/F/M to you.

Is this correct, and am I understanding what you are saying?

In my case I do not assume that, as I do not think things are that simple.

I tend to view all ideas as models with varying degrees of falsity. Aesthetics is a differnet matter, but though I do discuss aesthetic judgements, they are only subjective, and to me that is obvious.

I do have subjectively true ethics and morals, but I can accept that other people have different values to me, and they may or may not be sincere, just as I may or may not respect them.

Was that waht you meant by T/F/M in respect to the person making the statement?


If so I'd still disagree with you.

Jim

 

[WWHP]

On Steorn.

If Steorn has what they say they have, can prove they have, and declare truthfully that they have, there may be physics models in existence for it. -String Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_monopole

I say this in terms of a maybe. I'm not a physicist, but I do know that no physicist can say that the laws of thermodynamics could never change.

 

[WWHP]

Steorn has updated thier webpage, and call their technology 'Orbo' now.

http://www.steorn.net/

THe claim about the technology

http://www.steorn.net/orbo/claim/

Steorn on thier validation process,with video

http://www.steorn.net/orbo/validation/

 

[Z]

Why, the only distinction between Isaac Azimov and myself here ...

... is that he could SPELL HIS GRODDANMED NAME!

ASIMOV, for cryin' out loud!

Just do us that one favor, please?

 

[WWHP]

I have said that I thought that you were probably not a troll, but that your tatcis were sometimes trollish, which I admit did contain an idea about you.

Jim bob, my 'tactics' are to mirror the tactics of those whom I discuss with. I said that a gazillion times. It's okay, we dont have to belabor it.

I do freely admit to being rude about your "master meme" idea, because the crap presentation makes this watching the master meme's attempts to procreate "like watching an infertile gander trying to mate with a bucket" (to quote myself)

Why comment on the intuitive introduction? Why not attack 'OS 0 1 2 in Theory?'

Jimbob, dont let words like *world peace* mislead you.

Oh yes, I also pointed out that I couldn't see how this would work in politics, as it requires that there are *no* megalomanicacs in positions of power anywhere. If there are any, their response would probably be along the lines of "but a win for me would be watching you being tortured to death, and all your children working as my slaves". You never pointed out how that can work as a win-win for both parties, when one side can only hope for survival and slavery without mutilation.

Jim, that's not true, I outlined a number of things. I also requested you stay inside of the tit for tat format with me until there was mutual understanding. You didn't. You left it a number of times. Now you're still asking questions about it!

I can probably say with a fainr degree of confidence that you view the world in terms of three values, and that any statement you make is either T/F/M to you.

yes, but these values are mutually shared amongst all of us, and any statement can only have those three values in meaning.

Is this correct, and am I understanding what you are saying?

In my case I do not assume that, as I do not think things are that simple.

I tend to view all ideas as models with varying degrees of falsity. Aesthetics is a differnet matter, but though I do discuss aesthetic judgements, they are only subjective, and to me that is obvious.

Jim, there may be varying degrees of truth, falsity, and mystery, so? It is natural that one would be able to make distinctions based on each's combination or possibility. That doesnt refute anything about OS 012 at all.

I do have subjectively true ethics and morals, but I can accept that other people have different values to me, and they may or may not be sincere, just as I may or may not respect them.

yes, this is natural. There is only conflict when we confuse our subjective moral value as an objective ethic!

Was that waht you meant by T/F/M in respect to the person making the statement?

yes, if I understand you correctly.

If so I'd still disagree with you.

Jim

well I can assure you that your disagreement is more than likely a subjective argument, not an objective one.

Care to have a go?

 

[Z]

Steorn has updated thier webpage, and call their technology 'Orbo' now.

http://www.steorn.net/

THe claim about the technology

http://www.steorn.net/orbo/claim/

Steorn on thier validation process,with video

http://www.steorn.net/orbo/validation/

Um.... Capofit, those pages almost perfectly demonstrate that they have nothing legit, and I have a feeling that at the end of first quarter, 2007 - there's not gonna be much different on the Tech page.

 

[Mojo]

Don't you mean where badscience.net misrepresented MY argument in thier heads?

What, you mean all those "we agree..." statements?

It's interesting that you didn't bother to reply to this, but seemed to prefer to reply only to what you perceived as personal attacks.

 

[Mojo]

My old friend from badscience.net, JQH, is a drunk. And he posts drunk.

It's a sad indictment of "OS 0 1 2", and of your debating technique, that you feel the need to come up with this sort of thing.

In any case, I've met JQH, and I suspect that JQH drunk is a better man than

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Name removed.

the person whose brother Will links to his website here sober.



ETA: mods, delete the name if you must, but please bear in mind that this is in response to an ad hom attack on someone I know, so I therefore consider that the identity of the attacker is relevant.

Please, stop posting this Bubblefish's real name.

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

 

[Mojo]

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.

huh? I have been consistantly arguing the third value with you shmoos for over 3 months now, and offer reasonable rebuttals to each argument given.

Please stop projecting, Mojo

Would you care provide evidence to back up this claim?

That is quite an assertion (regarding QM on Qi). Has Dr. Lo published any evidence for the actuality of Qi in any peer-reviewed journals. If so, please provide references. If not, why not?

Dr. Lo has published his evidence in peer reviewed journals.

Or this claim?

You know, there is a Chi Kung master here in Los Angeles who can project so much heat from his hands that you have to tell him to stop because it burns like a match. I have experienced him doing this.

Or this claim?

In the next three months, we are going to be publishing some results in an online peer-respected ("sorry then, let me clarify. a peer REVIEWED") journal about this study.

Or this one?

After this, we will move forward with the challenge.
...
Both myself and Dr. Lo look forward to the coming Randi challenge, and we also hope to make a documentary of the event as well.

All claims taken from this thread.

 

[Mojo]

cuz the last thread isolated the arguments, that's why! THOSE ARE THE ARGUMENTS!

No, the last thread presented the arguments as they seem to have appeared in your head.

 

[fsol]

pretty much, although it goes further to show that arguments that dont include the third value completly crumble into nothingness after logical and rational evaluation. Twenty pages later and many arguments have indeed crumbled. Success is your proof.

So it's true, false, don't know, lets agree to disagree?

 

[Pragmatist]

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?

Bubblefish is not a newbie. Here is just one example of his previous efforts: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41989

And I think it should be pointed out that most of us have no problem with opinions no matter how strange they may be. What we have problems with are claims, and particularly those which are not supported by any evidence...

So it's true, false, don't know, lets agree to disagree?

I've quoted an actual example of how BS 0 1 2 actually always "wins" according to Bubblefish (from the thread referenced above):

you can blow me

Love,

Bubblefish

I mean, with rational arguments of that calibre how could anyone possibly defeat it?

You won't get a straight answer out of Bubblefish, but it doesn't take much to realise that all he's doing is engaging in sophistry and labelling it "OS 0 1 2"

 

[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

Hey if thought that really was your kid rather than something you'd found on youtube then I'd congratulate you..

...but I'm more inclined to think you're a fantasist...