Skepticism and The Normal

[Z]

To be fair, there are other statements i.e. aesthetic/moral judgements, that are also poorly covered by BS012. Especially when lumped with all other ideas too.

e.g.
Hemmingway's "For Whom The Bell Tolls" is the funniest novel in the English Language.

It is more carp than you are claiming "Z"

That's actually another misstatement. According to whom? Complete the thought.

Once you do, it becomes either true or false.

"It is my opinion that 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' is the funniest novel in the English Language."
or
"The majority opinion is that 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' is the funniest novel in the English Language."

Those are complete statements, and are either true or false.

One clear problem with how Rome applies his theory is that he has no system for recognizing a misstatement from a valid statement. He has offered a number of misstatements as if they were valid, in attempts to support a mystery value, yet fails to recognize their improper structure.

 

[WWHP]

What's that got to do with mysticism?

A mysticism is a mind created reality. Many of you use mysticism unaware. unknown=false is a mysticism.

 

[WWHP]

OS 012 is dependent upon a POINT OF VIEW,

and is therefore subjective.

Then you are arguing that there is no objectivity. Everything is based upon our 'point of view', science, philosophy, math, everything.

There is your point of view, there is my point of view, and for sure, these are subjective.

However, this is distinguished by objective reality, which is OUR point of view, and all points of view share common information. The common and shared information is evidence of 'objective reality'.

OS 012 distinguishes points of view into 0, 1, and 2.

There is no 'objective' machine that records 'objective' reality into an omniscent point of view, unless you are Phillip K Dick and percieve 'VALIS', which to me seems to suggest that is what you are modeling in your head as objective.

Mind created realities are mysticisms. Material or physical realities are objective.

 

[WWHP]

Wrong. Anomalies are the result of not knowing the truth value of the phenomena in question. Consider: every time an anomaly is discovered in science, the prevalent theory to which the event is considered an anomaly is adjusted to include the anomaly, rendering it non-anomalous. Anomalies are, therefore, an objective truth that proves the subjective truth that scientists thought most likely, was actually objectively false.

.

Therefore, anomalies are objective unknowns, as in 'we don't understand them'.

Anomalous Phenomenon: Definition

An anomalous phenomenon is an observed event which deviates from what is expected according to existing rules or scientific theory. Sometimes the anomalous phenomenon is expected, but the reason for the deviation is unclear (See section on anomalies in science). The study of spontaneous or hard-to-reproduce anomalies may be considered pseudoscience.

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

 

[WWHP]

That's what happens when you fail to rebut a basic flaw of your system. You think you've moved on, but in fact, you've ignored a simple fact.

Zaay, you can stay stuck in your dualism all you want and assume OS 012 is subjective based because your world view is admittadly subjective based.

WHy do you waste your time and my time with arguments that A.) you dont even believe in, and B.) that dont align with objective reality?

Why this charade of empiricism and objectivity? You are admittadly a human being who shuns objectivity on a whim to suit your belief systems. You appear to have no educated or academic training/serious study in many of the topics we have discussed, including logic and dialectic.

She may come, she may not come. An unknown statement.

Besides, I already explained why that one doesn't work. Is it that you have difficulty reading, or is it a lack of memory?

huh? In formalized ternary logic, that statement is an UNKNOWN. You may have explained it in your mind 'why that doesnt work', but it doesn't hold in logic, or philosophy, or this discussion.

Your bivalent modeled universe is a subset of ternary, and ternary is a refined and elegant mathematical and logical reasoning.

It's like your trying to disprove Einstein using Newton's laws of gravity.

 

[WWHP]

Objectively, there are only truths, if you really want to get technical about it.

Yes, there are only truths objectivly. agreed. and those truths are deconstructed into three observable and objective categories, 0, 1, and 2.

Considering it's likely never to appear in any classroom - aside, perhaps, from some of those strange universities that teach you how to open your chakras and expound upon the virtues of inner light - I guess that's out of the question.

zaay, your inner contradictions are truly astounding. You are an admitted mystic and pagan priest, yet you have all of this hostility to those ideas and experiences in others, and you have no real personal truth for objectivity. INdeed, why bother with this discussion? You dont believe half the things you write.

I actually find it amusing, some of the badscience crowd were cheering your earlier posts, little did they know that a wiccan priest was making better critical arguments than they were as scientists.

 

[WWHP]

another fine example of unknown=false bivalent mysticism, stuck in the illusion of duality. For zaay to be right, all the scientists must be crooked. Yes, that must be what it is then. If you say it 25 times before during the waning of the moon, then for certain, it shall be true.

No, all the members of their jury simply have to be a) gullible; b) crooked; c) desperate for recognition; or d) incompetent.

sorry, I didnt realize the full complexity of your mysticisms. So, for Zaay to be right, all 12 scientists and engineers have to be a) gullible; b) crooked; c) desperate for recognition; or d) incompetent.

unknown = false is surely a funny mystical notion, look how it gets the mind turning!

BF

 

[jimbob]

That's actually another misstatement. According to whom? Complete the thought.

Once you do, it becomes either true or false.

"It is my opinion that 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' is the funniest novel in the English Language."
or
"The majority opinion is that 'For Whom The Bell Tolls' is the funniest novel in the English Language."

Those are complete statements, and are either true or false.

Isn't the statement "in my opinion.." *implicit* in every statement?


However I can argue, and enjoy arguing about politics, and ethics, but still be aware that the the positions are all subjective i.e. can't move beyond "in my opinion..."

BTW, it isn't a funny novel. But, in my opinion, one of the more moving novels that I have read...

T
One clear problem with how Rome applies his theory is that he has no system for recognizing a misstatement from a valid statement. He has offered a number of misstatements as if they were valid, in attempts to support a mystery value, yet fails to recognize their improper structure.

Yes.

What is your opinion about "more true or less true"?

"The Earth *circles* the Sun" is more true than "The Sun circles the Earth"

It is less true than "The Earth orbits the Eun in an elipse"


There are several similar types of weaknesses in his system.


But it doesn't matter, as beyond the actual problems of theory, I have not seen any convincing explaination of why two opponents would adopt the system, and what how the system would work if one doesn't.

THere are perfectly good strategies for negotiation, trade is founded on it. Chimps demonstrate negotiation skills.

They are innate, and Rome's system is not needed.


Jim

 

[WWHP]

One clear problem with how Rome applies his theory is that he has no system for recognizing a misstatement from a valid statement. He has offered a number of misstatements as if they were valid, in attempts to support a mystery value, yet fails to recognize their improper structure.

OS 012 is not for statements, OS 012 is for ideas, which we 'crunch' into statements relative to our meaning.

 

[Mojo]

She may come, she may not come. An unknown statement.

Nope, it's a true statement about something that is unknown. Either she will come, or she won't. In either case, the statment will turn out to be true. As those are the only two options, the statement as it stands is true.

 

[WWHP]

But it doesn't matter, as beyond the actual problems of theory, I have not seen any convincing explaination of why two opponents would adopt the system, and what how the system would work if one doesn't.

I'm not providing that commentary in detail. That's irrelevant, you cant see the application, that's fine.

THere are perfectly good strategies for negotiation, trade is founded on it. Chimps demonstrate negotiation skills.

They are innate, and Rome's system is not needed.

Clearly you havent heard of John Nash or the internet yet.

Jimbob, if you cant invision the application, that's fine with me, that is not with this argument is about. OS 012 in princaple can include all logics, fuzzy or what have you. You're attempts to contrast and compare are not valid, it's like you are trying to rule out calculus because of algebra.


BF

 

[Mojo]

OS 012 is not for statements, OS 012 is for ideas, which we 'crunch' into statements relative to our meaning.

The only way to transmit ideas via the internet is in the form of statements. If OS 012 is a means of transmitting ideas via the internet it must use statements.

 

[Z]

Isn't the statement "in my opinion.." *implicit* in every statement?

Even the statement 'in my opinion' is itself a kind of misstatement.

But the implication of the subjective is implied, yes. And within that implication is the additional information needed to judge a truth value.

However I can argue, and enjoy arguing about politics, and ethics, but still be aware that the the positions are all subjective i.e. can't move beyond "in my opinion..."

Of course. In fact, any knowledge at all is from the subjective. We can have a sufficiently large shared subjective experience to infer a probable objective truth, which is what science is really all about, but even scientists, when they actually think about it, have to admit that our most fundamental principles and laws boil down to an extremely consistent and very large shared subjective experience.

BTW, it isn't a funny novel. But, in my opinion, one of the more moving novels that I have read...

I know. I was just rehashing your sentence . It's actually rather touching.

What is your opinion about "more true or less true"?

More or less true is part of the common language, and really has no place in determining truth values - if you're going to use any categorization system like this at all.

"The Earth *circles* the Sun" is more true than "The Sun circles the Earth"

Neither is true.

It is less true than "The Earth orbits the Eun in an elipse"

This isn't true either.

But for common conversation, even "the Earth circles the Sun" is sufficiently similar to the truth for general purposes.

Our language, unfortunately, developed in an environment that was not conducive to clear, precise communication. It has grown and festered, and carries the boils and scabs of dualism, deism, anthropomorphicism, and mysticism. It tends to be very difficult for modern Man to parse and restructure statements into valid forms for proper analysis without some practice and experience. Rome demonstrates this difficulty quite well.

There are several similar types of weaknesses in his system.

But it doesn't matter, as beyond the actual problems of theory, I have not seen any convincing explaination of why two opponents would adopt the system, and what how the system would work if one doesn't.

THere are perfectly good strategies for negotiation, trade is founded on it. Chimps demonstrate negotiation skills.

They are innate, and Rome's system is not needed.

Jim

Agreed. Simple sophistry.

 

[Z]

Let me ask you BadScience.com alumni and skeptic posters who are, for some unknown reason, still following this discussion:

How does the fact of my personal religious, philosophical, and spiritual beliefs affect my statements in this discussion, in your opinions? Is it any better or any worse than the admissions of drug use from Rome here? Does being a stoner degrade or improve what he has to say, any more or any less than being a woowoo degrades or improves my statements?

For it seems to me that Rome, faced with arguments that he can either not comprehend, or not defend his theory against, resorts to finger-pointing and name-calling. He's now several times stressed my priesthood in Wicca as if it has some bearing on the discussion at hand. He's flustered, apparently, by my ability to maintain a discussion about one belief system while holding another.

Is there any actual problem with being able to experience multiple conflicting points of view?

I'd seriously like your thoughts on this. If it's too off-topic, Mods/Admins, feel free to split, relocate, etc. to your hearts' delights.

 

[jimbob]

Z (may I call you "Zay")?

As far as I am concerned, it doesn't affect your arguments at all.

If your arguments were about a position of authority, then ad hominem information about the authority figure are valid...

e.g. Ted Haggard's opinions about personal morality would be harmed by his actions.

Your arguments seem coherent, and interesting.

If you argued for a point of view and the evidence was *because* of your position in your religion, then it would be a differnet matter.

You are not a demiglot.


Jim

 

[sinnikal]

Z, I followed your arguments from the getgo with no idea of your personal beliefs and found them interesting, having recently been appraised of them hasn't altered that. If I'd found out you were a stoner, that wouldn't have altered it either, the arguments are sound so there's no conflict. I'm not going to comment on Bubba's admitted drug use.
I lurked round this site for quite a while, looking at it with more intensity when Bubba brought his nonsense over to BadScience and I realised he'd been spreading it all over here. I confess I registered in order to carry on where I'd left off back at BS. Since then it's been a combination of watching a car wreck and enjoying reading your input and that of Jonny, Dr. Kitten and others, noticing how Bubba took entirely different meaning from the posts than that which I discerned. Seems I understood them better

 

[WWHP]

No, the writer didn't. These experiments are by no means verified.

Then you have an argument with Madeleine Ennis, a pharmocologist from Queen's University and Professor, Medicine & Therapeutics. She is a scientist who is highly skeptical about Homeopathy. Her experiment has been 'debunked'? In science, you debunk an experiment by repeating it's exact steps and come to a different result.

You are a wiccan priest, and have no academic scientific background, so you dont conduct experiments, rather, you find evidence of your point of view from the ideas of other scientists, and then repeat what you here them say. Then, you 'bash' woo's for believing in such things, afterwards, you go conduct a full moon ritual and pagan mass with your followers.

It's like you a reverse born again christian who says one thing and does another. It's ok for you to h ave your woo beliefs, but when SCIENCE conducts an experiment and reports an anomaly, suddenly, *poof*, your a fundamentalist disbeliever.

In fact, IIRC, the cold fusion ones were completely debunked, and the homeopathic ones have only ever been accepted within the homeopathic community, as their procedures were shoddy and their results suspect.

I hardly think you know what your talking about.

There you go with the ad homs again. What is it with you, Rome?

You are the one who claims to be a wiccan priest, so therefore, reffering to you as a wiccan priest is not an ad hom, it's an observation about your belief system, which influences your point of view.

I have no problem with pagans, I even know a few myself. In the 90's, members of the OTO invited me to one of their weekend 'festivals'. There were a few scientists and mathematicians, as well as artists, who were OTO members, I thought they were all neat, and had a great time.

Why can't you just discuss the topic without bringing up utter irrelevancies and outright lies?

I am providing no deceptions what so ever, and I am discussing the topic. I also note that you like to waste my time and others with arguing things that you personally do not believe, nor understand.

Heck, for all you know of the writer, he/she could be a Wiccan priest, a Satanist, an avowed atheist, or whatever.

a science writer has a professional responsibility to report science accuratly, and so far, from experience, you have reported very few 'accurate' scientific or logical analysis, yet you claim to 'debunk' all sorts of logical systems.

never once do you honestly share with us your own world view, wicca, or seek to engage us with thoughtful consideration you beliefs and how they affect your opinions.

He/she could be riddled with inner contradictions.

Most likely, but his/her report was an objective analysis of scientific experiments. New Scientist/Space is hardly a woo journal.

It's pretty clear that he/she is willing and eager to embrace every 'edgy' scientific and pseudo-scientific subject out there.

Your practicing mysticism again. The report is on 13 mysteries in science. It is not about philosophy.

Heck, for all we know, YOU could be the writer.

gee, do we have a mystery here or what??

As for me, my membership as clergy with the Correllian Nativist Tradition has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, nor does your own incorrect belief that I suffer from 'inner contradictions'.

Your inner contradictions are all over the place in your own words.

Stick to the topic, and try using the ol' grey matter for something besides absorbing THC.

The topic of discussion is the third value. In the past, you tried to negate the existence of the third value, and then left the discussion when your points were rebutted, then revealed you dont even believe in any logical values whatsoever, as in 'reality is too complex for two, three, or four values of logic'.

Then, you come back to the discussion with your same TWO VALUED logic and same argument.

I think that's odd, that's a fair observation. I think it's odd that a man who does not believe what he writes, to his own admission, will continue to argue for it's truth value regardless.


BF

 

[Mojo]

Your inner contradictions are all over the place in your own words.

Can you identify some of them for us?

 

[WWHP]

How does the fact of my personal religious, philosophical, and spiritual beliefs affect my statements in this discussion, in your opinions?

They effect this discussion because they are your beliefs. Yet your beliefs, what you believe to be true, is in conflict with what you argue to be true.

Is it any better or any worse than the admissions of drug use from Rome here?

it's equally irrelevant, however, my earlier experimentation with entheogens is hardly contradictory to my logic, and many scientists, from Francis Crick to Carl Sagan, have also claimed thier experiences with entheogens have expanded their awareness and scientific discovery.

Does being a stoner degrade or improve what he has to say, any more or any less than being a woowoo degrades or improves my statements?

The contradiction is in YOU disprove your own statements, there is a difference there.

For it seems to me that Rome, faced with arguments that he can either not comprehend, or not defend his theory against, resorts to finger-pointing and name-calling.

what argument? what argument have I ignored or failed to comprehend? This is a misleading statement.

report and argue such argument with me, go ahead.

He's now several times stressed my priesthood in Wicca as if it has some bearing on the discussion at hand.

It has bearing on the discussion, it just doenst have any bearing on the ideas in the discussion.

YOU DONT BELIEVE YOUR ARGUMENTS. YOU ARE HIDING YOUR REAL ARGUMENTS THAT YOU BELIEVE. YOU ARE NOT DEFENDING LOGICALLY OR CONSISTANTLY THE ARGUMENTS YOU ARE PUTTING FORTH.

He's flustered, apparently, by my ability to maintain a discussion about one belief system while holding another.

hardly flustered, I simply note that your INNER Contradictions are also contained in the logical value of your arguments, which is how your arguments produce contradictions and fail to be consistant.

Is there any actual problem with being able to experience multiple conflicting points of view?

at the same time, yes there is, it's called irrationality. at different times, no, it's not, yet that in and of itself is evidence of a higher truth and argument THAT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING FOR, rather HIDING and AVOIDING.

Now please, kindly bring to my attention what 'argument' I am missing, failing to rebut, etc etc, that is related to the topic of this discussion.

Can't wait.

BF

 

[WWHP]

Can you identify some of them for us?

I already did that pages back, listed them almost in order. Go dig it up. your good at that.