You hardly refuted anything, you got attached to words and language and hardly considered the 'meaning' of contradiction in my sentences.
I got attached to words and language? Well yes, in that I responded to what you wrote. You see that's pretty standard practice when communicating, to react to what someone says or writes. Of course that does require that you are communicating with someone who actually says what they mean, uses language in a standard and consistent way, and doesn't require several "passes" just to make themselves clear. I can see that a different approach may be required here, perhaps we should open your head and try to observe directly what you have there in place of a brain.
"All ravens are made of rock" is a subjective statement.
Nope, it pertains to, and deals with, objects and matters external to the mind in terms not dependent on personal preference.
but the statement in full says ravens are rocks, or raven's existence is the existence of rocks, which is NOT mutually observable.
Errrrrm, no. The statement says what it says. To clarify: "All members of the species Corvus Corax are composed of the stratified or igneous mineral constituents of which the earth's crust is composed."
True, such a statement does imply the existence of both ravens and rock but does not say that ravens
are rocks, merely that they are made of rock.
Rather, the statement is a subjective idea, most likely used in poetry or prose, which ORDERS arrangments of shared truths (ravens, rocks (1)) into a SYMBOL, IMAGE, or METAPHOR (2, all ravens are rocks) to communicate a personal truth, feeling, or experience.
Well that's a pretty good refutation of OS012 right there. It's not a subjective statement because we have shared, solid definitions of "raven" and "rock", unlike "beautiful" or "awesome". The statement wasn't used in poetry or prose and certainly did not communicate a personal truth, feeling, or experience. Since it is something that I have never, felt, experienced or considered to be true. So what was your point again?
So, in your words, your meaning of objective is:
Of or having to do with a material object in terms not dependent on personal preference.
So you stating then that an objective statement must contain a truth in content regarding it's signified, i.e. it's signified MUST be some mutually observable object, correct?
I think the first bit about truth value is a straightforward non-sequitur. Remember that none of the defiinitions of "objective" that I put forward include the words truthfully or accurately. You're correct though that an objective statement refers to some observable object.
So therefore, ALL statements are now objective statements, according to your INTEPRETATION of your own definition, which is deviant from it. Again, a contradiction, your own 'meaning' of your 'definition' contradicts the definition you give!
No, "Betty is hotter than Wilma" is a subjective statement because, although it refers to observable objects, it does so in terms based on personal preference i.e., people's individual, subjective perception of "hotness". Where have I contradicted myself?
So now, I can say that 'all girls are really tall boys and all tall boys are really girls' is also an objective statement in your meaning. Right?
Yes, a false objective statement.
Why go back to Jonny? He didnt rebut the arguments which contradicted his, now you are making me do the same work twice!
Yes, you did contradict him: you said he was wrong. Go back to the definition of "contradict" and notice that it does not mean "disprove" or "refute". You didn't prove him to be in error or that his arguments were self-contradictory. In fact, allow me to summarise your arguments that you think disproved Jonny's:
---My definitions are correct, yours are wrong. I'm right. Blah, blah blah... roughly a page of extraneous bollocks... blah blah blah. I'm right---
What's to rebut? You didn't actually create an argument, you just restated over and over again in different ways, and with no reference to external evidence that you were right. Which is exactly what you are doing here.
Crucially, please note that none of these definitions specify that objective statements have to accurately or truthfully describe objects or things external to the mind, just that they have to pertain to or deal with them.
it's assumed that they must be accurate to describe what it is that's prescribed to the word! erf erf erf erf. You get four erf's for that one. You also get a fifth 'erf' for failing to notice that none of those definitions contradict with mine.
Ahhhhh, the root of the problem. This is your assumption Bubb, and just
your assumption. It is the reason that you think I am contradicting myself and it happens to be wrong. Do you deny that the statement "Bubb is wearing a pink frilly dress" deals with something external to the mind (i.e., you) just because it is incorrect?
We strategize in binary, which cannot account for the uncertainty conceptually, so we naturally fail to incude uncertainty into our logic and framework.
Do we? Although statements about the real world are true or false we deal every day with statements whose truth value we don't know, we use a best guess or delay until we have more information. Like Z said to understand the world we probably tacitly use a multi valued logic. I would suggest categories such as "statments whose truth value I will never know", "statements whose truth value I don't need to know", "statements whose truth value I will know in the future", "statements whose truth value I need to find more evidence to discover now" etc.
You said "To refute OS012 is to prove it correct."
Yes, that is my claim
So you're still not going to take it like a man and admit that you're wrong eh? Never mind.
Since "refute" means exactly the opposite of "prove it correct" this is fundamentally logically inconsistent.
Rather, it is logical to account for both of them when both of them apply.
But they can't both apply. They're diametrically opposite things.
any rebut which the framework recieves which proves itself to be logical and more effecient simply gets upgraded into the framework
Care to reveal how Bubb? Or would that involve actually explicitly stating that it's all a load of nonsense.
Nah, just the THIRD OPTION that you missed, simply show where your statements provide contradictions in objective reality.
Where was that again Bubb?
Whoo hooo, now you can upgrade to the dominant and master meme,
What? Idiocy? You see, this is what you just have to be a troll Bubb. Nobody can be as stupid and impervious to reason as you are without real effort.
