Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

But that's the crux of it, and what I and others have alluded to. There really is no topic here. Your third value is a trivially true assertion dressed up in garish emperor's clothes, but is really buck-assed nekkid. Any arguments built on it are therefore nonsense on stilts. But if we point this out we're "off-topic?" Why should we be forced to argue on your terms, against vapor?

Threads evolve. Get over it.

if your making a claim that 'there is no topic here', and my arguments are 'nonsense', then i expect you to argue that within reason to someone whose sole interest is seeking truth and crititical thinking, not with opinion or blanket assertions thrown out of left field that to me just look like your being defensive, not critical. If you cant do that, then i assume that my opening statement 'most arguments crumble into nothingness' is therefore true when applied to you.

 

[WWHP]

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!

it is the point being made, and yes, it does crumble many arguments from my personal experience of arguing inside the third value for over four years. I have a personal interest in such a framework, I have been developing such an online framework for discussion that is now in a critical phase of being applied in many practical applications. at first, I thought it was the most obvious and simple thing in the world, and was surprised at how many critical thinkers failed to consider it on many occasions.


BF

 

[WWHP]

more posts later. I admit this is addictive! yikes, I am falling way behind in work.

I would like to thank everyone who has participated, I appreciate all comments and encourage everyone to be very skeptical about what i write, but also consider rationally what I write and help me find my own flaws and delusions as I do with you. I am not a perfect communicator, and struggle with communication just as much as any human being.

 

[Basilio]

it is the point being made, and yes, it does crumble many arguments from my personal experience of arguing inside the third value for over four years. I have a personal interest in such a framework, I have been developing such an online framework for discussion that is now in a critical phase of being applied in many practical applications. at first, I thought it was the most obvious and simple thing in the world, and was surprised at how many critical thinkers failed to consider it on many occasions.


BF

But, I'm sorry, a true statment, that is, one backed up by facts and reality, cannot be a thought experiment like Schrödinger's cat. Life and the real world are not a thought experiment, and true statements and physical constants are just that. Your perceptions, colored by opinion, friends views, or lack of sleep, does not make a fact less a fact or the truth less true.

A dead horse is still a dead horse, even if you dress it in a tutu and put point shoes on its hooves and call it a "ballerina"

with all due respect,
Basilio

 

[JonnyFive]

it is indeterminate about the true or false value, but it IS determinate about it being 'unknown', as 'unknown' is a powerful piece of information that can directly influence strategy, opinion, and critical thinking, i.e. the war in Iraq as an example.

But something being unknown isn't a determinate value. It simply means that you don't know about its truth. You can be certain that you don't know, but not knowing something still doesn't change underlying reality.

As an ancedotal side bar. How many critical thinkers on this forum, Randi included, agreed with the decision for war in 2003? You dont have to answer that with me, just think about it, and if many here agreed, was that an example of critical thinking producing an effective result or decision?

I have no idea, but I'm not sure it's all that relevant to our current line of discussion.

It describes the point of view of the person making the statement critically. It is not 'useless', it is the most valuable consideration when we are faced with any 'unknown'. and we are faced with a gazillion unknowns personally and collectivly on a daily basis.

I'm saying that calling uncertainty a "third value of truth" isn't useful. It adds nothing in terms of understanding. Uncertainty remains, and the underlying truth of various statements remains unchanged. Please indicate how calling uncertainty anything else changes anything, or adds to our understanding of this.

Johnny, in all respect, and perhaps this is my fault, explaining this soley using text is challenging at times, but your misinformed about the third value. I am NOT referring to various probablity statements, i am referring to a determined statement, as in 'I DONT honestly KNOW, or WE DONT honestly KNOW'.

Again, there is a difference between a determinant statement about your own views and a determinant statement about the underlying truth of a claim.

If I claim to have the power to move metal with my mind, I am lying and my statement is false. You might be uncertain about it (assuming I never said that it was a false statement, as I just did), but that still doesn't change the underlying falsity of the statement.

You can make determinant statements about your uncertainty all day long, but that doesn't bring a third value to the truth of my statement into play. The statement is still false. It will never be true, and it cannot be "unknown" except to you.

Imagine if the Bush administration said "we honestly dont know about WMD in iraq" Tell me or argue how that would have been a useless statement in 2002, because if what your saying is true, then it would have been a useless statement in 2002, right?

No, that isn't what I said at all.

I have said, repeatedly, that your calling uncertainty/lack of knowledge something else is what is useless. The acknowledgement of uncertainty is critical to skepticism and rational thinking. No one sane and honest would say they're certain of something they are not certain of.

not in this framework that I'm using. in this framework that I outlined a few posts back, "oranges are awesome" is a 2 value, false, subjective,opinion, true to the experience, false to all objectivly.

Something cannot be "false to all objectivly". A statement like that is simply not objective: there is no underlying truth or falsehood to it, only personal opinion.

However, an objective statement does have an underlying truth or falsehood, hence the reason we bother to differentiate subjective and objective statements.

A statement being subjective does not make it false, it makes it non-objective, and hence lacking any underlying, intrinsic truth or falsehood.

pretty much yes, my point was that skeptics question statements, this is true, and question them using either two or three values.

Got it.

by skeptic I mean what the dictionary means. I dont believe I have an unorthodox view of skepticism, I consider myself a skeptic in the standard sense of the term, i just include it to be skeptical of ALL claims, including those made by scientists, other skeptics, academics as well as mystics, poets, or charlatans. I believe I am consistant with that, but if I am not, will you please explain to me where i am not so i dont make the same mistake twice?

I agree with you on this.

Have you taken any classes that involved formal logic? If so, could you possibly state your concepts as some kind of logical formula? I think it might help hammer out exactly where you're coming from.

 

[JonnyFive]

But, Im sorry, a true statment, that is, one backed up by facts and reality, cannot be a thought experiment like Schrödinger's cat. Life and the real world are not a thought experiment, and true statments and physical constants are just that. Your perception, colored by opinion, friends views, or lack of sleep, does not make a fact less a fact or the truth less true.

A dead horse is still a dead horse, even if you dress it in a tutu and put point shoes on its hooves and call it a "ballerina"

with all due respect,
Basilio

What he said.

 

[Buckaroo]

if your making a claim that 'there is no topic here', and my arguments are 'nonsense', then i expect you to argue that within reason to someone whose sole interest is seeking truth and crititical thinking, not with opinion or blanket assertions thrown out of left field that to me just look like your being defensive, not critical. If you cant do that, then i assume that my opening statement 'most arguments crumble into nothingness' is therefore true when applied to you.

Defensive? About what? I have nothing to be defensive about. How are my statements "blanket assertions thown out of left field?" You have proferred an idea that I find, for perfectly legitimate reasons that I have stated, to be uncompelling. Quite a few others who have posted are in agreement with me. I don't see any fundamental flaw in my criticism.

You seem to have a lot invested in this idea, so much so that you reject out of hand perfectly reasonable arguments against it, and accuse us, in effect and in so many words, of being failures as skeptics and critical thinkers. Now who's being defensive?

 

[WWHP]

hey all, just a quick note. Picked this up on a blog and I consider it worth spreading to other blogs. if you agree and could assist, please do so. I checked the wiki link, and it appears valid.

I dont post at badscience any more, so if any members are reading, I think it's worth a post there too.

http://digg.com/health/Support_the_miracle_drug

From the article:
"Here's the deal. Researchers at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada found a cheap and easy to produce drug that kills almost all cancers. The drug is dichloroacetate, and since it is already used to treat metabolic disorders, we know it should be no problem to use it for other purposes."

Article goes on to talk about why it isn't being picked up by drug companies, which is because it is unpatentable and therefore no good way to make tons of money off of it. The R&D is going to have to be picked up by Universities and Private institutions, but they'll need money from people. So the hope is that if it gets some attention by the media, this will happen.

Here's an article on the drug from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetate

 

[sinnikal]

Hi guys, I'm visiting from BadScience, and I'm sorry to see that Bubblefish (or TM as we know him over there) is now wasting your time too.
You may as well let him have his 'win' now as all your mighty arguments will crumble to dust once they feel the force of his paradigm-busting dialectic!
Bandwidth thief.
He's posted hundreds of pages of his 'third way' over there but we're all so stupid we still don't get it.

 

[WWHP]

But, I'm sorry, a true statment, that is, one backed up by facts and reality, cannot be a thought experiment like Schrödinger's cat.

I'm not comparing it to Schrodinger's cat. Although I will address your non sequitur here none the less.

Life and the real world are not a thought experiment, and true statements and physical constants are just that.

true statements and our ideas about the laws of the universe are all thoughts, however, and more specifically, they are our ideas that we prescribe to things that we can distinguish. We can only analyze and understand reality through our ideas about it, that's just natural thinking, and nothing more. There is nothing esoteric to it. Your reading into it more than it is.

Your perceptions, colored by opinion, friends views, or lack of sleep, does not make a fact less a fact or the truth less true.

what fact am I arguing against? that's another non sequitor.

A dead horse is still a dead horse, even if you dress it in a tutu and put point shoes on its hooves and call it a "ballerina"

agreed, so?

with all due respect,
Basilio

respect returned, and also a request to continue to this discussion reasonably and honestly, which it appears both of us are willing to do.


BF

 

[WWHP]

He's posted hundreds of pages of his 'third way' over there but we're all so stupid we still don't get it.

well, we almost agree here, yes, I too have thought that all of you we so stupid you couldn't get it, but that's too harsh, I just think all of you are irrational and fake-o's. but your mistaken, I did not post 'hundreds of threads', rather ALL of us did over there. over 30 of you engaged me in debate, you all kept the discussion moving foward. It was my thread you came in on, if you didnt want to discuss, you could have ignored it. and anyone can see for themselves how you all simply forfieted our discussion after 70 pages, you could not continue. I was begged to stop!

I really enjoy how they say I wasted all of thier time. I wasted their time? How did I do that, I never asked anyone to discuss anything with me that they didnt wish to discuss first. See how irrational values get misplaced/projected onto others? Do not critical thinkers take responsibility for thier own actions and not blame others for them?

 

[WWHP]

But something being unknown isn't a determinate value.

Your confusing the thing with the point of view, i.e. the person who makes a claim or assertion. If I say that dark matter is currently very mysterious, that means that currently we dont understand dark matter, and nothing more. You are arguing, it appears to me, that the third value implies that dark matter would be an unknowable object, and that's not what the third value is suggesting at all.

It simply means that you don't know about its truth.

exactly, and nothing more

You can be certain that you don't know,

EXACTLY! We can be more certain about not knowing than we can about knowing. 'Certainty' has a very clear and understood, honest value here, no?

but not knowing something still doesn't change underlying reality.

of course, but I dont see what this has to do with my argument here, your simply pointing out the flaw of using two values, not three.

My argument is SHOWING how the bivalent perspective DOES force the underlying reality to be something, i.e. Randi making a claim that Steorn is a fraud/hoax.

I'm saying that calling uncertainty a "third value of truth" isn't useful.

Thank you for re-stating, but I have been quite clear that is your position, i'm following your argument no problem, I understand you.

I dont think you understand me, yet.

It adds nothing in terms of understanding.

It IS the understanding of the self in relationship of the thing, it is NOT the knowledge of the 'thing'.

For example, I place the third value into consideration regarding Steorn, and when I do, I come to investigate and conclude that there is absolutly no reason to suspect Steorn of fraud or hoax, absolutly none what soever. Yet Randi doesnt apply the third value and makes the claim that they are tricksters, i.e. he prevents himself from not obtaining knowledge about Steorn's device, but rather from understanding Steorn.

Uncertainty remains, and the underlying truth of various statements remains unchanged. Please indicate how calling uncertainty anything else changes anything, or adds to our understanding of this.

for the sake of clarity,allow me to reiterate that I am using two arguments here as examples and per request. The debate over Steorn, and the debate over WMD, so my example will use these two to address your request.

So, if publically and officially in 2002, 2003, the existence of WMD in Iraq was an 'uncertainty' that was declared to be so, it is reasonable to assume that such a public declaration by the Bush Administration would have seriously changed an historic course of events. We did not invade Iraq because WMD were an uncertainty, we invaded Iraq because WMD were a certainty, indeed, certain to 'be around the areas of tikrit, north, east, south, and somewhat'.

In the case of Steorn, the case for uncertainty allows Steorn to simply just be a tech company with a hopeful technology. If James Randi made the claim "Although I am skeptical about Steorn's technology,yet they appear to be a legit company after further investigation, and I wish them all the luck in proving their claim like they request", without posting libelous statements about them, perhaps more critical thinkers would take their claim seriously enough to investigate themselves.

If James Randi actually investigated Steorn critically, James Randi could have proposed that he sign an NDA, go to the lab, observe their technology and claims, view the results from the other scientists, and came back and report to all of you. Now, James Randi has already gone on record as hostile to Steorn, which would completly disqualify him from ever being trusted to both keep an NDA and report back objectivly from such investigation.

That's how including the third value would have changed things.

Again, there is a difference between a determinant statement about your own views and a determinant statement about the underlying truth of a claim.

James randi's personal view is that he is skeptical. James Randi's claim is that Steorn is a hoax and fraud. That's the difference. That's irresponsible of Randi to assume his 'opinions' should hold any sort of critical wieght, that he can mouth of his opinions in public media as if they have stood the test of critical thinking, and they havent, or at least they havent as it appears to me.

If I claim to have the power to move metal with my mind, I am lying and my statement is false. You might be uncertain about it (assuming I never said that it was a false statement, as I just did), but that still doesn't change the underlying falsity of the statement.

jonny, I get your argument, it's not hard to understand, you dont need to repeat it over and over, I get it, I'm not asking questions trying to determine what it is, you have done a good job of explaining it.

You can make determinant statements about your uncertainty all day long, but that doesn't bring a third value to the truth of my statement into play. The statement is still false. It will never be true, and it cannot be "unknown" except to you.

If you make a claim which states that you can move metal with your mind, and your intentionally being misleading, I could use the third value to expose your deceptions within a few passes without offering a prize or an double blind experiment, just simply being skeptical of your claim using three values to determine specifically where your lying.

I have said, repeatedly, that your calling uncertainty/lack of knowledge something else is what is useless.

I'm not calling it something else, I am calling it unknown. Unknown means unknown. It means nothing more than that, it's not a 'thought experiment', it's not esoteric. It's simple. It's natural. It's avoided due to defects in human psychology which benifit from practicing self deception and manipulation of others, delusion, and protection of status.

The acknowledgement of uncertainty is critical to skepticism and rational thinking. No one sane and honest would say they're certain of something they are not certain of.

James Randi made a public claim that Steorn is a fraud or hoax. He is a powerful person in media, and your telling me that thousands of people havent read his words and became 'more' certain about Steorn being a hoax?

James Randi made a claim that can be verified to be either true or false. James Randi frames his challenge to suggest that unless Steorn takes the challenge or publish in a peer reviewed journal, Steorn is a hoax.

That is not critical thinking, that is defamation of character and libel. It's irresponsible, it is not about saving the world from witch doctors, it is misleading and decieving.

Something cannot be "false to all objectivly". A statement like that is simply not objective: there is no underlying truth or falsehood to it, only personal opinion.

Jonny, you dont understand the framework yet, so addressing that I fear at this stage would only confuse you. But to give you a small nug. "Miles David is the BEST trumpet player of all time" is personally true to me, but it is not objectivly true to all. It's really no more complex than that.

However, an objective statement does have an underlying truth or falsehood, hence the reason we bother to differentiate subjective and objective statements.

Exactly, so my statement, "Miles Davis is the BEST trumpet player of all time" is personally true to me, but it is not objectivly true to all is an objective statement that states my personal or subjective point of view just fine.

A statement being subjective does not make it false, it makes it non-objective, and hence lacking any underlying, intrinsic truth or falsehood.

it is false relative to the truth of objectivity.Objectivity gives us truth, not false. subjectivity gives us 'false' relative to the true, yet the true relative to the individual.

1= true, objective
2=false, subjective

It may make your head spin at first, but once you get it it's quite elegant.

Have you taken any classes that involved formal logic? If so, could you possibly state your concepts as some kind of logical formula? I think it might help hammer out exactly where you're coming from.

unfortunatly, all my study in logic has been peripheal relative to this project, I never studied formally on it's own. However, I do know that these three specific truth values, 0=mystery, 1=true, 2= false function perfectly as a formal and self refrential form of logic, here is a link.

http://www.aymara.org/ternary/ternary.pdf

but keep in mind that these values I address inside of a dialectical process is refrential to the self, but the relationship between the values is the same.

I define dialectic by the way as two or more points of view exchanging truth values in rational exchange to determine synthesis and resolution.

Thank you, I enjoyed this last pass.


BF

EDIT:by the way, yes, I do know it's you're not 'your', please all forgive this edit mistake I make quite often.

 

[Basilio]

Im sorry, I still cannot agree that this 3rd value exists or is a valid aspect of truth or a truth. While I was not using quantum physics models as a "non sequitur (you had agreed in our previous post that that was a good analogy for this element of true and factual statments) I was trying to point out that life and fact based truths are not thoretical physics or a coffee house philosopy discussion.
As noted before, while you may not have the knowledge that certain things exist or are what makes a thing true, in the real world they exist. One should never be intellectualy dishonest (and I am not implying you are) but in the case of a person blind from birth denying the existance of the sun because they are not familiar with it (for example) still does not give a 3rd (or duel true or false or mystery) identity value to the truth that there is a sun that warms the Earth. n'est pas?

with dwindling hope that anything but winter exists,

basilo

 

[Curnir]

so your interpretation of the third value means fictional characters can come to life on a discussion board? That's a false claim, not a mysterious one.

Ahhh can you prove that it's false?
While you are at it, please tell me if you truly think that no actual living person can have the same name as fictional persons.

No, i did.

Another false statement, you wrote "Your welcome, little flower".
That clearly states that you think I welcomed someone with the words 'little flower'.
If you wanted to welcome me with the words 'little flower' you would have written "You are welcome, little flower". But you didn't.

no, the fake critical thinking your applying.

Ok that made no sense.
You have evaded a simple question multiple times. And then you gripe about critical thinking?

I think Capt. Blackadder would have put it like this:
You wouldn't know what critical thinking was if it was painted purple, dancing naked on top of a harpsicord, singing Critical thinking is here again.

Let's imagine shall we?
A company claims that they have constructed a revolutionary new boat, the revolutionary thing about it is that there are large holes in the bottom of the hull (below the water line). But they need money (lots of money) to go beyond their prototype stage. And if you if you give them money, you will get a share in the ENORMOUS profits they will make.
If you start gabbing about 'true', 'false' or 'mysterious'. And start making up all sorts of wierd fantasies about quantum mechanics to explain how the boat works.
And not ask the simple question "Does it float?" or "Does it work?"... Then little starfish, something's wrong.

I dont know

But you claimed that you work with that PhD dude. Right?

no, your just annoying me

Oh I am sorry, is my just annoying you?

Wait a minute... I don't have a "just".

thanks for being my entertainment guide, start a blog,

You're welcome. Although it was not for you're entertainment, I was merely correcting your misconception about Mr. Bond.

hoser.

Aww that is just precious. *Curnir hugs Bubblefish* So cute. Cute as a button in fact.

another poem, eh?

No just some good advice, cobras are dangerous.

or I have clues to what a haiku is....

Right.

naturally, I must be wrong for you to be right, that's how your 'critical thinking' operates.

No.
You claim that I have a James Woo.
I don't have a James Woo.
Ergo. You are wrong.

 

[Zep]

Folks, just to let you know that Bubblefish is here simply to promote his own ego. He is obsessed not about any "third value" or related topics but with the ongoing process of having his kooky ideas (from the laughably wonky Dr Lo) being "debated" by skeptics. Like William McGonnagal, he lives vicariously for the notoriety of these encounters, regardless of how hilariously poor his input is.

 

[Mojo]

to know what I 'mean', you simply can ask a question, as in 'Bubblefish, did you mean this when you wrote x?"

But how can you answer my question without relying on your interpretation of the text of my question? Remember:

"0=meaning (mine, hidden)
1=Text (mutually viewable)
2=Interpretation (yours, false, a subjective idea about the text)"

 

[Mojo]

For example, on this thread, I used the word 'self congradulatory' in the standard objective sense of the definition, yet my meaning was discerned to be snide, hence...

By the way, what is the "standard objective sense of the definition" of the expression 'self congradulatory'? I wouldn't want to wrongly interpret what you mean by this.

 

[Flo]

Folks, just to let you know that Bubblefish is here simply to promote his own ego. He is obsessed not about any "third value" or related topics but with the ongoing process of having his kooky ideas (from the laughably wonky Dr Lo) being "debated" by skeptics. Like William McGonnagal, he lives vicariously for the notoriety of these encounters, regardless of how hilariously poor his input is.

He furiously reminds me of a TimeCube disciple gone bad ...

 

[Zep]

He furiously reminds me of a TimeCube disciple gone bad ...

Oui!

 

[Prince of Darkness]

I would like to suggest a forth value.

Beer.

It makes as much sense as Bubblefish's.