huh? You are actually telling me that 'the moon is made of mozzerella" is NOT a poetic or prosaic phrase about the moon? The 'moon is made of cheese' is a creative statement, poetic, highly subjective and yielding to the authors intent.
Good blather by the way, "yielding to the authors intent" = top hand-waving. However, you're still wrong. The statement may be all of those things (whatever you mean), but it is still objectively, factually incorrect (false).
If I have a set of objectivly true statements, then the statement 'it is false that the moon is made of mozzerla' goes in that category with that description.
Yes, that statement is simply the
negation of "the moon is made of cheese". All you are saying is that "it is not the case that the moon is made of cheese" or simply "the moon is not made of cheese". However if your first category contains only objectively true statements then you still need to know what the moon is made of to categorise that statement.
It's obvious when the statements are simple examples, yes, but not so obvious when we consider statements like "WMD are being manufactored in Iraq,therefore, we must immedialty invade Iraq"
Yes it is obvious that the first part of that statement is objective (proper use i.e., theoretically confirmable falsifiable) but we come back to the fact that what we need is irrefutable evidence for or against to prove it true or false. Then we can consider whether the first statement necessarily implies the second.
Sorry, how I use objective is CONSISTANT with logic and EXPANDED to include metalogic. Don't try and convince me, rather point out contradictions, as I have with you.
...
You tell me so by repeating it over and over again, and without considering the contradictions I am pointing out to you.
What contradictions? All you have done is pitted your definitions of "objective" and "subjective" against everyone else's.
An objective truth is a truth value by default because an objective statement is, or is believed to be, a true statement.
"Believed to be, a true statement" yes but not necessarily a true statement, what I believe does not necessarily reflect the way the world is. So an objective statement that I believe to be true can actually be false. So which is it? Are all objective statements true, or can they be false?
How's that for a contradiction within your system? Incidentally, nice reversion to the Socratic dialectic (identification of inherent contradications) to try to refute my point.
This is not a formal presentation of OS 012. This is a discussion where I am testing the methodology of OS 012 and seeking anti-thesis.
...
Well, I am certainly showing that when truths are contradicted, it will piss people off, and when they get pissed off, they will communicate irrationally, and when we tit for tat with them when they are pissed off, it will lead them back to the considerations.
YOU ARE PROOF OF THIS.
...
Flim, the tit for tat strategy is used because it WORKS to keep people in the discussion until there is agreement, and YOU are an example of that working perfectly.
What complete, utter, iredeemable, total, olympic-standard bullsh1t! I, Jonny and zaay are about the only people who have managed to stick to this discussion. Everyone else is convinced that you are a a boneheaded, self-important ignoramus who is simply posting to shore up his ego. The number of people who have dismissed you are a troll far, far exceeds the number of people with whom you have reached any sort of understanding. I'm still undecided on the matter, but troll or not, I can't say that I like, agree with, or even particularly understand you. What is your problem with accepting the the empirical evidence that, if this is a test of OS012/tit-for-tat in internet discussion, it does not work!
If you or ANYONE would have asked these questions back at badscience.net, then you would have gotten this back then. Instead, you all called me troll and did not respond critically, but rather REACTED to the images in your head of what you think OS 012 is.
...
Your close, but your not quite there yet. And yes, that is a breakthrough, considering that it took you so long to actually ADDRESS your concerns regarding it.
...
...if the individual is rational, then it would only take a few exchanges to glean meaning.
It took me this long because you have not presented it so badly. The same as at badscience, you presented it so badly that the only thing that people could do was respond to your completely inadequate description of it, which they did. Only now has it become (vaguely) understandable, the meaning shouldn't have to be "gleaned" it should be clear. What is clear is that by my "getting there" you mean "agreeing with you". I doubt that the concept that I might understand it and completely disagree with it or dismiss it as worthless hasn't really entered your head. Of course not because for me to do that would be "irrational"!
My knowledge of logic and philosophy is all relative to OS 012, and I claim no knowledge of logic and philosophy outside of OS 012. If it were not for OS 012, I would not be discussing logic or philosophy, previously, those types of discussions bored me through the roof.
I think that pretty much says it all. You didn't like or understand the logic that everyone else uses so you invented your own one. Along the way you have hijacked the terminology to try to make it look as if it actually has the same level of validity. Now you're simply adopting a boneheaded refusal to see anything wrong with it or just claim that everything mentioned supports it.
As far as OS012 as a dialectic goes, the last 5 paragraphs of your post are straightforward, content-free blathering. Honestly it sounds like it was randomly generated. Since there is nothing in there to actually discuss... I won't.
