Skepticism and The Normal

[aggle-rithm]

I must say, Blubberhead, I don't detect a shred of a discussion or dialogue in any of your posts. And I guess, by your definition of "success", the captain of the Titanic successfully navigated that ship across the Atlantic.

He wouldn't have to! Were Bubbafish there wielding his sword of OS0-whatever, he would have convinced the White Star Line, the insurance companies, and the families of the dead that it had arrived safely in New York! (Just like he convinced us that the laws of thermodynamics were made to be broken!)

Of course, the dead themselves might need more convincing.

 

[Luke T.]

I hope you all will excuse me for not having read the whole topic, and if what I am about to say has already been mentioned:

For one, I dont trust magicians, especially one's who have an air of 'I can fool you but you can't fool me' about them. Secondly, james randi seems to suggest that we can't trust scientists to verify claims, that only a magician can properly determine these things.

Patently false. Randi often consults mathematicians and scientists and such for Challenges.

For one example, see here. He put the million dollars on the line, and left the testing up to scientists.

ETA:

The first stage is to prepare the homeopathic dilutions. We came to the laboratories of University College London where Professor Peter Mobbs agreed to produce them for us. He's going to make a homeopathic solution of histamine by repeatedly diluting one drop of solution into 99 drops of water.

Then we asked Professor of Electrical Engineering, Hugh Griffiths, to randomly relabel each of our 10 tubes.

UCL scientist Rachel Pearson takes each of the tubes and dilutes them down further - to 6C.

To guard against any possibility of fraud, Professor Enderby himself recodes every single tube.

Then it's time for Wayne Turnbull at Guys Hospital, to analyse the cells to see whether the homeopathic water has had any effect. He'll be using the most sophisticated system available: a flow cytometer.

But to be absolutely rigorous we asked a second scientist, Marian Macey at the Royal London Hospital, to perform the analysis in parallel.

JAMES RANDI: We don't actually carry a cheque around. It's in the form of negotiable bonds which will be immediately sep, separated from our account and given to whoever should win the prize.

NARRATOR: We asked the firm to fax us confirmation that the million dollar prize is there.

Now at last it's time to break the code. On hand to analyse the results is statistician Martin Bland.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I hope you all will excuse me for not having read the whole topic, and if what I am about to say has already been mentioned:



Patently false. Randi often consults mathematicians and scientists and such for Challenges.

For one example, see here. He put the million dollars on the line, and left the testing up to scientists.

ETA:

Thanks for reminding us of the original thread topic. Bubblefish promised to be able to address his Randi claims using his groundbreaking new diuretic, but after all this time he still hasn't been able to explain it to us, much less use it to prove that Randi is untrustworthy.

 

[pv+]

Thanks for reminding us of the original thread topic. Bubblefish promised to be able to address his Randi claims using his groundbreaking new diuretic, but after all this time he still hasn't been able to explain it to us, much less use it to prove that Randi is untrustworthy.

But it's a damn good diuretic! I feel like wetting myself laughing every time I read one of Blobby's rambling letters from Bedlam.

 

[WWHP]

I don't see how what you are saying is in anyway new or particulary interesting. So I am assuming for now the fault is with me. If you could explain your OS 0 1 2 thing to me in simple terms, as if I were a child, perhaps I might understand why you seem to be so excited by it.

FSOL,

I dont understand now why people are focusing on OS 012 being 'not' new, who cares if it's knowledge is new or not? It's either true or false, or unknown to be either one. Most of the knowledge in OS 012 was not devised by myself, rather it was adapted into it's framework spontaneously through charged and heated group discussion.

As far as explaining it to you, well, it's simply a form of dialectic for online discussion, a dialectic updated for the internet. It's ternary function of truth values is consistant with dialectic, as dialectic moves in 'triads'(hegel). There is nothing shocking there. The isolation of discussion into text that is mutually observable is an historical novelty, and has many benifits for conflict resolution and negotiation. Online discussion insures more honest communication, and it allows us to isolate how we respond directly to ideas, and not people. This process decontructs, online, the distinctions between our 'conceptual' maps of things, as opposed to the 'things in and of themselves', and shows that even the most educated of us make confuse the two distinctions in problem solving quite often.

The 'map is not the territory' or 'the menu is not the meal' insight is not new or my invention, this is just a process that distinguishes these things for online discussion.

You also say that by accepting there are things that we don't know yet "arguments crumble." in other words people agree to disagree. You can not argue in the absence of knowledge so why argue at all? Hardly profound and not very interesting.

the third truth value, which is not new and perfectly exists in common usuage and language, is shown to be avoided by those engaging in either deception, manipulation, or irrationality in online discussion. When the third value is addressed critically and honestly, a different outcome occurs. There is nothing more to it than that.

So, in simple words with no flowery language or terminology (unless you clearly explain your terms in simple words beforehand), please explain to me what is so great about your OS 012 thing. I really don't see why it needs all of this back and forth.

I personally hold the value that OS 012 is unique because it provides a rational framework that can in princaple lead both sides to win in ideological conflicts. I personally know of no other framework that is rational, logical, and intuitive that allows for that. It's framework allows only the most refined and rational ideas to advance in the discussion, stripping rhetoric and manipulation to it's proper place. It allows an adminisrtative decision to be 'gamed' to insure it's outcome is the most benificial to all involved.

Hope this helps. I am uber cranky today, forgive me if I am short.


BF

 

[aggle-rithm]

FSOL,

As far as explaining it to you, well, it's simply a form of dialectic for online discussion, a dialectic updated for the internet. It's ternary function of truth values is consistant with dialectic, as dialectic moves in 'triads'(hegel). There is nothing shocking there. The isolation of discussion into text that is mutually observable is an historical novelty, and has many benifits for conflict resolution and negotiation. Online discussion insures more honest communication, and it allows us to isolate how we respond directly to ideas, and not people. This process decontructs, online, the distinctions between our 'conceptual' maps of things, as opposed to the 'things in and of themselves', and shows that even the most educated of us make confuse the two distinctions in problem solving quite often.

The 'map is not the territory' or 'the menu is not the meal' insight is not new or my invention, this is just a process that distinguishes these things for online discussion.

So, there you have it. It's a way of talking to people on the Internet that makes people want to strangle you after 20 pages or so.

the third truth value, which is not new and perfectly exists in common usuage and language, is shown to be avoided by those engaging in either deception, manipulation, or irrationality in online discussion. When the third value is addressed critically and honestly, a different outcome occurs. There is nothing more to it than that.

Or, there wouldn't be, if there were any evidence that this actually happens.

I personally hold the value that OS 012 is unique because it provides a rational framework that can in princaple lead both sides to win in ideological conflicts. I personally know of no other framework that is rational, logical, and intuitive that allows for that.

Well, keep looking.

 

[WWHP]

Bubblefish, I'm coming into this thread very late, but after reading through the exchanges that you've had with everyone else here, I need to say that everything you are talking about is something that has been discussed many times before in philosophical and scientific circles, and eventually discarded.

it has been discussed, no it has not been discarded.

I don't know if you've heard of Alfred Korzybski.

I am familiar with his work and have been using e-prime for over 15 years.

He wrote a book called Science and Sanity, in which (among other things) he inveighed against "two-valued logic", which sounds a lot like what you're protesting here. The problem is that every time someone has tried to set up a system of multi-valued logic (i.e., true, false, other), it always winds up being another way of looking at two-valued logic, and that's why it eventually gets dumped: it doesn't tell us anything we don't already know.

Three values don't tell you what you dont know, they tell you that you dont know it. Period. That's it. Three values are not further knowledge, they are for further understanding.

What you are doing is essentially giving Korzybski's arguments a new coat of paint and some fancy new terminology, but it's the same argument, and it's no newer or more useful now than it was back in the Thirties and Forties when he came up with it in the first place.

Not really. I mean, sure, it addresses similar issues, and of course uses the same knowledge here and there, but OS 012 is about 'gaming' discussion, and INCLUDING the verb 'to be', embracing the conflict of idea, and General Semantics tries to avoid the argument or the conflict. Also, OS 012 is for internet discussion. And it's a dialectic in the purest sense.

I'll quote Martin Gardner's discussion of the subject:

"No one has yet succeeded in creating a logic in which the two-valued orientation of true and false could be dispensed with [or expanded on], though of course the dichotomy can be given different names. There is no reason to be ashamed of this fact, and once it is understood, a great deal of general semantic tilting at two-valued logic is seen to be tilting at a harmless windmill."

So?

One of the reasons it's useful to study the history of any endeavor before trying to make your own creative contributions to it is that you can avoid repeating other people's mistakes and going down previously abandoned dead ends.

and the mistakes are?

Nobody today seriously tries to prove the earth is flat, because it's been disproven in so many different ways and to such an extent that if you attempt to argue otherwise, you're not going to be taken seriously except by people who are already delusional (and are probably not worth having as intellectual allies).

so?

The more I read of your posts, the more I get the impression you are simply determined to be right, to be remembered and to be admired at any cost.

then your not critically paying attention to my posts. I am interested in truth, be it mine or someone else's. That's also a strategy for determining what is true.

If the only way for you to feel as if you have accomplished something is to upend something that hasn't been upended in centuries -- and for a good reason -- I'd strongly recommend finding a less quixotic way to prove yourself.

When I need to hire a publicist or strategist, I'll contact you

As someone else once said: "In a fight between you and the world, bet on the world."

I hardly think a community of skeptics and reductionists can be modeled as' the world'. I am here not looking for acceptance, I am here looking for anti-thesis.

If you want to have a critical discussion about this, please feel free to do so, if you want to write OP/ED's, start a blog.


BF.

My demenour today is at cranky level 10, sorry you get this side of my personality at first bat. Dont take it personal. Everyone is getting on my nerves today.

 

[WWHP]

So, there you have it. It's a way of talking to people on the Internet that makes people want to strangle you after 20 pages or so.

no, it's a way to advance truth values through an environment where 20 people want to strangle you.

 

[WWHP]

Stop with the equivocation.

Moot - deprived of practical significance : made abstract or purely academic

That is to say: useless, without value, meaningless, not adding value to the discussion, not worthwhile, etc.

I'm not equivocating, it's a symbolic representation of YOUR logic.

yes, that is your description of the third value-moot.

You used three values to deconstruct, not two. Your three values are true, false, and moot. Gonna tell me you didnt?

 

[pv+]

The problem with with giving Blobbyfish the name of a philosopher or mathematician is he that goes and looks them up in his picture dictionary or Wikipedia, or the National Enquirer, then he comes back and claims a family relationship or lifetime membership of the club.

Btw, Blubberblob, if everyone is getting on your nerves perhaps you should cut down on the meth. Idiot.
And shouldn't you be getting back to your silly little Youtubular projects?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I'm not equivocating, it's a symbolic representation of YOUR logic.

yes, that is your description of the third value-moot.

You used three values to deconstruct, not two. Your three values are true, false, and moot. Gonna tell me you didnt?

You are equivocating as you changed the meaning of "moot" to "mysticism" and then used it to prop up your idea. That is equivocation.

I did not deconstruct your example into three values, I said that if there is additional information than the two claims can be evaluated. If their is not then they can not be evaluated and have no value. If something has no value then it contributes nothing to determining the "truthiness" of the claim. If Claim X or Claim Y can not be evaluated then whether or not Claim X or Y has been made doesn't matter; they may as well have never been made. Nothing is gained by placing them in a third state which indicates nothing more than they have been made and are unevaluatable.

To put it another way, "Can Claim X be evaluated? No? Then who the fek cares what Claim X is?"

 

[pv+]

You used three values to deconstruct, not two. Your three values are true, false, and moot. Gonna tell me you didnt?

More verbal compost!

 

[WWHP]

in principle.

In other words, in reality, you really don't know what comes next.

in princaple, I know what comes next. In practice, I have experienced what comes next, in scientific experiment, it's still an unknown. Thanks for clarifying the third value.

Demonstrate or explain, then, please.

I dont have to demonstrate it, it's irrelevant to me that you believe me or you dont, I'm not here looking for believers, I am here looking for anti-thesis.

Again, not everyone is going to allow equal access to resources.

Ever hear of Open Source or P2P?

Some people'e demand for resources will outstrip their access. Some people's basic human natures will prevent others from gaining equal access.

you're no visionairy. Bucky Fuller was. I follow his arguments, not yours.

I agree it's a good functioning example - page after page, and no one is convinced yet.

who cares? I'm not trying to convince people, I'm here to determine if there is any truth to your anti-thesis. Chances are it will take some of you years to integrate this understanding anyway, it doesnt just *pop* into existence when I have countered all arguments.

An opinion based on the fact that no system of dialectic has resolved any major issue as of yet.

again, a very ignorant and misinformed opinion. The socratic dialectic is used in the court of law, and thus we can say that all conflict resolution has been decided SOLEY on dialectic.

they're more than happy to accept any definition that doesn't cause God to equal nonexistent. Because in their hearts, they're actually still accepting God as an objective truth, in spite of what they may be telling you.

ahh, so now your a mind reader. Hint, what goes on in objective reality in someone's head is an unknown. Your filling in the blanks with your philosophy and assuming it's true.

Anyone can accept God in their hearts as true, that's not a problem. It's a problem when administrative decisions are made with God considered as an objective truth that is

But, just like Christians, not all Muslims are fundamentalist extremists. My example was of a fundie extreme Jihadist Muslim.

How well would OS012 work with them?

In theory, it will make their ideas irrelevant and more difficult to be accepted as administrative decisions. It's not about changing what people believe, it's about altering the environment for discussion.

So, as such, you've had ONE success, versus how many failures?

actually, I could consider the Muslim discussion to be the only failure, as thier behavior was not predicted by this process, i.e. they responded rationally when I predicted they would not. I'm still perplexed by that anomaly.

You have a false idea of what to look for. You're assuming the value is in everyone agreeing, and it's not, the value is in which truths advance and become considered, and which one's don't, and how behavior alters around a win win option when presented to find truth as opposed to a win lose option.

Not surprised, since reductionists are more likely to realize that you're blowing smoke from your wahoo...

dont confuse reductionists as all academics. Reductionism is a belief system and a philosophy.

Religious believers, woo believers, etc. are always more likely to accept any worldview that doesn't openly deny their beliefs. That's why any philosophy that emphasizes the subjective experience over the objective is so popular among that crowd.

Then your not following OS 012. It doesnt value one over the other, that's what believers and reductionists do, it simply relates both values to each other how they are functioning.

Yeah, it's been taken into account. It's been going on for a VERY VERY long time, and conflict resolution still boils down to more deliberate and immediate actions.

the historical dialectic is hieghtend by the internet in ways which are almost impossible to model, I seriously doubt you have given that much consideration

Not really - since in your claims you say that OS012 should result in a win-win - and so far, you haven't won an inch with anyone here. Further, no one here feels they have 'won' a thing yet, until/unless they can either make you go away, or make you start thinking outside your self-imposed triangular prism.

I am winning because I am using OS 012. You are losing because your unable to advance any critical idea past mine, and refuse to accept that truth of that.

Hypnosis doesn't work on people who don't believe that it works. Hypnosis only works on those willing to accept hypnosis. You have to go along with it for it to work, which requires belief and the ability to self-delude.

I think most people here are hypnotized quite deeply. I dont agree with your summation

Which assumes the primacy of the subjective.

it assume the primacy of the objective/subjective.You're not paying attention.

Oh, you're just deluding yourself here. It denies a lot of objective facts.

Like the fact that there's no such thing as an objective unknown.

where is Al-Sadr? What is Dark matter? What am I feeling?[EDIT: You know what I am feeling because I have posted that i am cranky today, not a valid example then] Where is Osama?

[EDIT] What is Osama Bin Laden Feeling?]

If there is no objective unknown, then you have perfect answers regarding the knowledge of all of those questions.

Too bad what you're describing isn't ternary in nature.

It's an accurate, precise, and fully functioning way of describing truth values and awareness values, which are two different value systems. The ternary value you attempt to introduce is a false shoehorning of part of a second value pair into a value pair where it doesn't belong.

now your making stuff up as you go along. What system of logic are you using? A four value logic system to justify a two value system?

We dont need to classify knowledge any further than true, false, or u nknown. You're four values can't even address the questions I wrote above with any certainty what soever. Please do so and prove me wrong if I am mistaken.

No, truth values are binary. The delusion you speak of comes from the values of known versus unknown.

truth values, in reality, are ternary. If you put known/unknown into a binary set, your simply compressing true and false knowns into one category, and then your defeating your own purpose without making a distinction for either one.

In ternary, we can analyze the false ideas to reveal further truth about the person making them. In known/unknown, we dont have anything to play with.

Your oversimplification works only to stultify dialogue, in practice.

I think it's working just fine.


BF

 

[WWHP]

To put it another way, "Can Claim X be evaluated? No? Then who the fek cares what Claim X is?"

No, you can't EVALUATE it with binary logic, which is what your post proved, so you invented another value for truth, 'moot'.

We can, however, evaluatate claim x with a ternary system, YES, and we most certainly care, we can understand the point of view making the statement!

I concide on the equivocation, I confused your post with another person's, sorry.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Thanks for reminding us of the original thread topic. Bubblefish promised to be able to address his Randi claims using his groundbreaking new diuretic, but after all this time he still hasn't been able to explain it to us, much less use it to prove that Randi is untrustworthy.

I have argued randi's false and misleading claim about steorn numerous times to mention on this thread.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No, you can't EVALUATE it with binary logic, which is what your post proved, so you invented another value for truth, 'moot'.

We can, however, evaluatate claim x with a ternary system, YES, and we most certainly care, we can understand the point of view making the statement!

I concide on the equivocation, I confused your post with another person's, sorry.

BF

And we come to the crux of our disagreement. I feel that if a statement, such as the ones in your example, can not be evaluated to True or False, then don't bother doing any evaluation on it. You feel that evaluating it to a third state has merit. While I'll concede this could be of value for philosophical arguments, or perhaps formal logic exercises; I disagree that it can be applied as broadly and have as much value as you claim it does.

So far, it has certainly done nothing to bolster your claims in the OP wrt Steorn or Randi. This is especially true, because in the case of Steorn and Randi's accusations we have outside, objective, verifiable information that can be applied to the two claims and with which we can make a provisional conclusion; that being that Steorn is FOS.

 

[pv+]

I have argued randi's false and misleading claim about steorn numerous times to mention on this thread.

Liar!

 

[WWHP]

And we come to the crux of our disagreement.

Yes, it has become perfectly isolated through the tit for tat strategy I have been using. Thank you for observing that. at this point, my strategy was succesful, yet you could still be correct, and I mistaken, yet my strategy was succesful because of the third value. Interesting, no?

I feel that if a statement, such as the ones in your example, can not be evaluated to True or False, then don't bother doing any evaluation on it.

yes, and please pay close attention to your usage here. You said 'I feel. That's your own personal intuition, your own inner guidance, your own unique point of view.I'm not trying to take that away from you. You can have that, I am not in conflict with that.

I may be mistaken here about my observation, and if so please correct me, but I am being 100% honest in revealing my personal observation. I observe that it is your intuition because you simply have no objective rebuttal logically or rationally, i.e. there is no rational reason to disagree with applying the third value to real world scenarios. There may be philosophical reasons which have rational arguments relative to the philosophy, but they are not relevant nor logical to real world scenarios.


My argument is simply that you can evaluate it, critically, logically, rationally, devoid of mysticism and irrationality, to uncover further knowledge by understanding the relative quality of the third value.

You feel that evaluating it to a third state has merit.

It's first and foremost a logical and rational argument, a product of critical thinking, and an intuitive grasp and surrender to it's open qualities and ease of use.

While I'll concede this could be of value for philosophical arguments, or perhaps formal logic exercises; I disagree that it can be applied as broadly and have as much value as you claim it does.

That's fine Arkan, I can accept that's how it appears to you right now, and that's perfectly understandable. I have spent 4 years in hard thinking/practice on this, and I can tell you from personal experience, the argument doenst come easily at first. But I do believe it's important to make the argument none the less, if not for the simple benifit of advancing clear and rational thinking, which I know we both wish to do.

So far, it has certainly done nothing to bolster your claims in the OP wrt Steorn or Randi.

Can you define in your own words what you invision my claims to be about Steorn and Randi?

This is especially true, because in the case of Steorn and Randi's accusations we have outside, objective, verifiable information that can be applied to the two claims and with which we can make a provisional conclusion.

Arkan, I'm not saying you dont have an argument that you believe to be logical to support your point of view. I'm pretty clear on the logical steps one can take to come to almost any conclusion, that's what i do. I'm saying if we want to be critical thinkers, holding rationality to a very high ideal, then our language and thinking must come to reflect a state of perfect certainty as a foundation.We can only have perfect certainty at the foundation when we accept we dont honestly know for any objective certainty.

We can be certain of the third value in the same sense Socrates said "I know that I don't know". That's the foundation of the Socratic Dialectic, which has been used for over 2500 years right up until today in the Supreme Court. We need to be very very clear and certain where we do not know. We can parse that logically too, we know that three values DO have both a highly mathematical and logical reasoning.

If our personal point of view is founded on anything less in standard, then our philosophy will come to counter extraordinary resistance from both objective reality, and the point of view of others who share it, but that's our choice to make none the less, and I respect you no matter what personal choice you make. And I truly mean that.

Although we had some pissy tit for tats, I appreciate you continueing to challenge and also being honest with me.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Is this clip anything to do with you?

Not in terms of actual production or affliation with the professor of anthropology who created it, no.

It has to do with a point of view that is relevant to this discussion, however, that presents an intuitive way to see a bigger picture in terms of online communication.

 

[WWHP]

Thought experiment.


One honest man, and 100 liars, cheats, and thieves, all in one room negotiating.

Do the 100 liars notice that the honest man is honest?


How can they tell?