'k, this is going to be my last response this morning, more later...
No, you are completely misunderstanding my point. I have never said or implied that not knowing something makes it unknowable, only that not knowing does not magically alter the truth of an objective statement.
I'm not sure that makes much sense to me here, for if your saying what I think your saying, I agree.
So far, you have failed to define this "third value" in a meaningful and consitent way for anyone but yourself.
huh? I define it how it is commonly used, as in 'niether true and niether false'.
"Certainty" is a description of personal knowledge. No, it doesn't have a clear value at all, and is highly subjective.
of course it is highly subjective, it merely states the viewpoint of the observer! However, we depend upon 'honesty' to be certain, right? I can be certain that I am alive. YOU can be absolutly certain that the word at the end of this sentence is the word 'this'.
So even though it is a subjective signifier, it needs objectivity to be verified.
First off, "bivalent" is a chemistry and genetics term, it is totally meaningless here.
we have already covered that, eh? So you made an error, you admit to it, but I also request that you re-evaluate your usages of the word 'meaningless', as it appears to be a word that your're throwing around to make my arguments magically disappear everytime you use it!
I will assume you are misusing the word to mean something like "bifurcated".
bivalent is fine, no?
Randi making a claim that Steorn is a fraud doesn't affect in the slightest whether or not they really are.
agreed and irrelevant to my argument
Randi could be wrong, or they could actually be a fraud. Randi's opinion won't change that, nor will his perspective of them as a company.
Randi places himself at the VERY CENTER of the critical thinking movement, so when he makes a claim that was not derived from critical thinking, don't you think that most people who follow him will assume that it is a result/example of critical thinking? His opinion holds absolutly NO critical value, yet he convinces all of you that it does, right? What a fabulous magician he is!
If you're a critical thinker, you should know that there is a difference between opinion and fact. carl sagan, one of my heros, was very careful about that, I admire him deeply. To me, he is the real deal, and Randi is the charlatan.
If you're only claiming that his opinion can shape whether they're seen as a fraud, that's fine. But remember, being seen as something and actually being something are different.
not only am I aware of that, but i am also aware that most people are NOT aware of that, and guess what? SO ARE MAGICIANS! <and political strategists>
If you want to claim that whether or not they really are fraudulent is affected by Randi's opinion, you'll need to provide some kind of evidence.
It's all about perception, my friend. What we believe to be true is true or functions as true, all magicians know that.
You have consistently misstated my position on various matters.
I dont think so at all, I follow your argument very clearly, that is how I am able to refute it.
It simply does not matter what any of us thinks. Steorn is either fradulent or non-fradulent. Details and opinions may color the context of this, but will not affect whether or not they are fradulent.
once again, agreed, and irrelevant to my point. It 'colors' our perceptions (which is a mix of three truth values) and misleads and decieves, just like a magician always does.
We invaded Iraq for many reasons that I won't get into here, because this isn't the politics forum. Please choose another, simpler example.
jonny, you cant ask me to remove my example when it perfectly addresses my argument and you can't refute it! That's simply not fair and not intellectually honest.
If they are simply a tech company that legitimatly believes they are able to build what they claim, that makes them non-fradulent. No opinion needed, it's true because of the definition of the word "fradulent".
Once again, agreed, but irrelevant to my point.
They might still be mistaken about their technology, but they wouldn't be frauds.
agreed, but irrelevant to my point
Now, if they then found out they could never make the device work and still tried to sell it, they would be fraudulent. Again, this is a question of definitions.
This is a question about a claim that Randi made that was decieving and misleading, that is what this is about, not Steorn, Steorn is an innocent bystander.
Actually, NDAs are designed to counter such hostile tendencies, as they are legally binding documents.
ahh, but any good attorney or magician can find a way out of that one, eh? happens all the time, trust me, I work in hollywood.
You haven't shown any change. Either they are frauds or not. Either their device works or it doesn't. Those two things aren't necessarily linked, but they are either true or false. They can't both be frauds and not be frauds at the same time, and their device cannot both work and not work simultaneously.
well first off, they could be both frauds and not frauds at the same time, look at Randi! is he not both a fraud and not a fraud at the same time?
And I have shown a change that could have occured, certainly within reason. If you cant argue my point without just making a reassertion, I dont need to either.
So what? What does this have to do with anything? If Randi wants to say something, he's free to say it. He can also feel however he wants about himself, or anything else for that matter.
It still doesn't make Steorn one grain more or less able to produce what they claim.
of course randi is 'free' to make any claim he wants, just like any other person, and critical thinkers like myself are also free to deconstruct and expose their deceptions or delusions.
and it does effect Steorn! Think about this critically, I challenge you. Think about what Steorn is claiming to have, and think about what positive impact that could have in the world if true. It would transform our civilization in the most positive of ways. Randi is a leader, and Randi had a choice, he could approach Steorn critically, and if he did, he could have actually HELPED this technology be available faster. Instead, he spread deception, he distracted all of you like a good magician, he misled you into percieving one thing whilst another thing was occuring.
I am calling a spade a spade, my friend, and I think you know it just like everyone else reading this.
I'm sorry, but the things you say indicate you misunderstand key points of my argument.
I think that is a projection, as i understand your arguments, they are just not relevant to mine, meaning to me that the things you say indicate that you misunderstand key points of my argument.
But hopefully through continued exchange, we will clear all of this up and have almost perfect agreement.
Now you're talking about using this "third value" as if its a tool. I thought it was a value of "truth", not something you can use. You will have to define your "third value" more distinctly, please.
all three values are natural tools we have in our minds that help us integrate reality. There is no 'truth' out there, only in here.
Again, my claim is either true or false. I cannot both move metal and not move metal at the same time, so where is the "third value"?
Once it is determined, it is either true or false. Until I determine it, your claim is both true and false at once. I cannot distinguish what your really doing (true) from my own interpretations (false) of what your doing. If your delusional, either can you. If your intentionally misleading, then you can distinguish and your a magician or a sociopath, or both a magician and a sociopath (yikes, what a frightful combo, wouln'd that make for a great thriller?)
It is the duty of every person on this planet to look at what is said critically.
absolutly true !
If they trust Randi blindly, that's their own problem.
yes, and since he is a self proclaimed leader of the critical thinking movement, that's a very big problem to have.
Saying that someone's claims are unlikely and asking them to prove it or shut up isn't libel or defamation.
referring to them as fraudulent is however. Again, Randi's honest perspective is that he is skeptical about their claim. I am skeptical too about Steorn, notice the distinction? I am applying critical thinking, and Randi isnt.
Again, I must question your education: Have you ever taken a law class?
I argue with attorneys all the time, no I am not an attorney, but yes I am familiar and understand legal arguments and claims more than the average layman. I negotiate my own contracts, and I also deconstruct legal arguments with just as much ferocity or more than many attorneys. I havent studied law, but I certainly do understand dialectic, and attorneys use dialectic.
I know enough to say that if Steorn wanted to, they could make a libelous case against Randi. I'm not saying that they would win, that's too difficult to predict, but I am saying they could make a reasonable legal argument.
Do not insult me, am perfectly capable of understanding your arguments, I simply do not agree with them. Do not mistake these two things.
I am sorry, but I do not mean to insult, only challenge and at worst tease. I assume you dont understand my argument when you counter with an argument that doesnt relate to mine.
No, you are misunderstanding terms.
Objective:
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object;
existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
My usage is in supreme harmony with this definition that you linked to.
Subjective:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).
My usage is in supreme harmony with this definition that you linked to.
An objective statement is either objectively true or false.
huh? if it is false, how can it be an objective statement?
A subjective statement is neither objectively true nor false. Subjective statements are not "'false' relative to the true", they are simply subjectively true or false.
well I am sorry you are most certainly mistaken, they are most certainly and always 'false' relative to the objective, always, under all circumstances, all the time, until you reach paradox, when the statement is both true and false at once, yet still perfectly true distinguished and perfectly false distinguished. We dont have time to cover paradoxes in this exchange.
Your understanding of these terms is not elegant, it is invented. If you choose not to use the commonly accepted definitions for these words, discussion is going to be difficult.
again, I am not insulting you when I say you dont understand my arguments, and when you write something like that, you're telling me you dont understand my argument.
And does not critical thinking prescribe us the neccesity to question when we do not know? Why all the fevered attempts to make me wrong? You have swung blindly on all occasions, and I point this out only to assist you in the same manner I request you assist me.
Bubblefish
).
