Bubb, I really can't be bothered to drag this out. Jonny had the right idea in not getting drawn into a verbal boxing match about the meaning of words, when the basic fact remains that you are wrong.
Oh, so again, all of a sudden once contradictions are pointed out, inconsistancies, our discussion is now a boxing match that you cant be bothered to address.
Look, Flim, you can't make a claim, repeat it over and over, and assume it's true for that sake alone. That's magical thinking. This is a dialectic,not an OP/ED
I've tried to point out that if you use language in a non-standard and, more importantly, unsubtle way people will not take to your arguments.
Yet you fail to list your 'standard' usage, fail link to any 'standard' usage that conflicts with OS 012. You yourself simply have a personal usage of objective, and then you assume your personal usage is standard, even though in many instances it contradicts with reality.
This is not so say that your arguments actually have any value, even if people do understand them they may well still reject them, but that's a whole different area that has been pretty thouroughly done.
hardly even been addressed in this thread. You do know that JREF and BADSCIENCE is not a forum for peer review, right?
Incidentally this is why I couldn't be bothered discussing Wright and Dennett with you.
oh of course, I was able to advance my truth values to an area that you wernt.
It's pretty clear that there are some ideas in there that you have misunderstood.
Yet, you fail to note them or bring them to my attention. You assume your own reaction to my words is your 'clarity'
But to discuss it with you would involve spending a potentially unlimited amount of time working out what you mean by each inappropriately placed word and then convincing you that communication is much easier and more productive with a shared lexicon.
how absurd, that is what I have been struggling with regarding YOU.
I get the impression that you've simply assumed that someone who is being objective (unbiased) necessarily produces objective statements and therefore objective must mean "true".
Once again, your impressions dont serve you. Rather, a true statement was produced by objectivity and honesty, rational thought. If it's a false statement believed to be true, then it was delusion of objectivity.
This is just not the case (and doesn't necessarily follow logically because of the limits of human objectivity). Since you seem to place great stock in Wikipedia I'll draw some phrases from there to try to illustrate why your incorrect and unsubtle language is simply confusing and has probably led you to confuse yourself.
Finally, some examples..
Then I'll stop, because one thing that is clearly objectively true is that you cannot be convinced of something you don't want to be (which appears to be all the time).
I want logical and deductive explainations of TRUTH to me, not opinion repeated over and over like magical thinking.
These are taken from the page on objectivity in philosophy rather than the page on objectivity in journalism (well spotted sinnikal, lovely prevarication Bubb), bolding is mine:
First off, you were speaking of 'objective' in 'common usage', now your speaking of 'objectivity' in philosophy, which STILL DOESNT CONTRADICT WHAT I WRITE, NOR was it what YOU were previously talking about!
Note:The ontological status of a possible objective reality and references towards the objective should not be confused with, or reduced to, the dichotomous relations between object and subject, or subjectivity and objectivity, without considerable qualifications.
OS 012 clearly provides those 'considerable qualifications'.
Secondly, you state that this entry is contradictory to what I write
Objectivity in referring requires a definition of what is true, and is distinct from the objects themselves which cannot be said to be true or false.
and
An object may truthfully be said to have this or that attribute, such as the statement "This object exists", whereas the statement "This object is true" or "false" is meaningless. Thus, only references, or the statements one makes about objects without assigning truth value to the object itself, are true or false.
Indeed, truth relates to an 'existence' of an objective reality i ndependent of our minds, which may or may not be known and defined in our language, it exists 'metaphysically' none the less. 'True' as defined in objectivist philosophy refers to an objective reality which may or may not be known, but is said to EXIST.
None of this is even contradictory. all of it is a strawman, as our argument was not about 'Objectivism' as a branch of philosophy, but 'objective' as a term with an associative truth value in common language and more importantly in application.
And even if our discussion was about objectivism in philosophy, that is FAR from the 'common usage' of 'objective' and unique to OBJECTIVISTS.
That will do, if you want to continue to make yourself unintelligible Bubb that's your choice.
Dude, you have no further argument whatsoever, so if you wish to leave the discussion and claim victory when you are unable to advance your truth value in discussion, then that is not an victory of truth in objective reality, but in your mind, which to me CLEARLY shows you are far from an objectivist in the first place, which then shows that you using an objectivist argument as a last resort, which doesnt even contradict mine, that's irrational.
I think your decision to use language in a way that has made your meaning unclear to everyone that you've encountered says a lot about what you really know, deep down, about the validity of your arguments.
HUMPF! Stop confusing you and a few shmoo's that you are 'everyone', it's simply NOT objective, and a very juvenille way to address a argument.
OS 012 is a framework that is not instantaneously understood by many people, and if you confuse the speed of your own learning process as the fault of the framework, then you my friend are indeed irrational.
It's easier to put on slippers than to carpet the whole world.
BF
