Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

But it isn't just me, it is the rest of the English speaking world (minus you, and possibly some of your dimmer friends).

you are correct, and thank you for helping me get clearer on this. The mutual distinctions of truth and objectivity are indeed VERY ambigous amonst most of us. And this is so because we do not address our metalogic in language.

Before OS 012, I myself was highly ambigous about them, and didn't realize it until I got OS 012. Consider, our values for 'objective' subjective, and true, false, are exactly how we understand reality privatly. So if our meaning is ambigous, meaning it has no clear objective, logical, or mathematical symbol which can relate it perfectly as math, then our understanding of reality is ambigous, regardless of education.

What sort of statement is this:

Angilina Jolie is an underground station on the Northern line, she is in fact Charing Cross.

It is a false or unknown statement, relatively.

Answer: it is an objective statement, becuase it can be tested objectively (and found to be untrue in this case)

So you define an objective statement to be a statement that can be independently tested to be either true, or false, right?

So the statement "Angilina Jolie is an underground station on the Northern line, she is in fact Charing Cross." is an objective statement in your definition.

But what then is this statement; " God's Love for Humanity keeps us progressing as a species to conclude into perfect liberation"

Is that an objective statement too? can you please provide your evidence of it's true or false nature?

Thanks.

I am boringly using words in their commonly accepted forms, whilst you have become so obsessed with trying to fit everything into a three-valued system that you have forgotten what they mean (or never knew).

dude, using words in their 'commonly accepted forms' does NOT trandscend true or false. Logic is logic, regardless of grammar. You usage of objective is NOT LOGICAL, it is contradictory to reality,a nd I provided an excercise, which you cannot refute logically.

An objective statement can be true or false, but it is possible (in theory) to determinge this. This is not possible for a subjective statement.

yes, I understand how you are defining objective to yourself. How do you determine what a subjective statement is if you can't determine it to be true or false?

"Oasis is the finest band that England has produced in all of music history"

is that true? [yes, no]

if no, then> query> is it false?
if no, then> query> is it unknown then?

Tell me, have you ever answered any English comprehension questions? If you did, were your answers vastly different from other pupils' answers?

dont bore me with side topics of fancy, please stay in the exchange this time and stop dancing around the argument like a swizzler in a cha cha contest.

 

[WWHP]

consider your arguments, all of you.

what you are arguing for is that there is no distinction between an objective statement, and an objectively false statement.

 

[Mojo]

consider your arguments, all of you.

what you are arguing for is that there is no distinction between an objective statement, and an objectively false statement.

What people are "arguing for" is that objective statements can be true or false, and that their truth can be assessed objectively.

 

[Mojo]

How do you determine what a subjective statement is if you can't determine it to be true or false?

"Oasis is the finest band that England has produced in all of music history"

is that true? [yes, no]

Some people may think so, others may not. It's a matter of opinion. That's the way it is with subjective statements: they're, well, subjective.

 

[wwitzke]

What people are "arguing for" is that objective statements can be true or false, and that their truth can be assessed objectively.

That is, assessed using pure logic or via comparison to the real world without the introduction of bias arising due to the person making the comparison.

Correct?

 

[Mojo]

I think so.

 

[wwitzke]

I think the problem that's arising here is that the ideas of truth and falsehood have nothing to do with the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity have to do with personal bias. An objective statement has no personal bias, a subjective statement has personal bias.

If I were to give an objective statement, that is, one that was not dependent upon personal bias, then the truth or falsehood of that statement could be determined independent of the person making the statement. I could say "That brick is a sphere," and this statement would be true or false, and because its truth or falsehood could be determined independent of the person making the statement (since the definition of a sphere is well defined and measuring objects is a well established procedure), it is an objective statement. If I were to say, "That brick is beautiful," then that statement may still be true or false, but the truth or falsehood of the statement is entirely dependent upon who is making the statement. If I say it is beautiful, but in reality I think it is not beautiful, then it may be considered a false statement in that particular case. If another person were to say it who thought it actually was beautiful, then it may be considered true in that case. The fact that the truth or falsehood of the statement depends on the person making the statement makes it a subjective statement.

Wayne

 

[Basilio]

One of my favorite blocking tactics:

East Finchley (the bluebottle defense)

 

[Z]

One of my favorite blocking tactics:

East Finchley (the bluebottle defense)

Excuse me, blokes, and forgive my ignorance (being a stupid Yank and all)...

but if you just used East Finchley as part of the Bluebottle Defense (I assume you're referring to the 1988 Bluebottle Defense, not the rejected 1992 re-appraisal by Rolfe Margueritesen), then aren't we able to reach Mornington Crescent in just three moves?

Thanks for clearing this up...

 

[quixotecoyote]

Except that under the revised 2005 rules, that activates a security checkpoint reroute.

Eta:Would you believe I've been waiting to use that line for almost 2 years?

 

[Zep]

OK, I'll take it further with what I hope is an interesting move.

Going en passant of Chigwell, Barkingside.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

The International Rules are usually only used in representative matches where ranking points are at stake. Quite apart from anything else, enforcing them properly involves the use of two accredited touch judges and a professional referee. For an informal off piste knockabout like this the British rules should be quite adequate.

ETA: the current version, of course!

No wonder I was confused, I thought you were playing the Finsbury rules...

 

[Professor Yaffle]

BF - I thought my deliberate misspellings would be enough to cue you that I was pulling your leg about "getting it". I was going to continue to tease you in this way, but I'm not in such a mischievious this morning.

But if the statement "Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman" is objectively true, should I tell my husband he is simply wrong when he says he finds her weird looking? How would I go about proving it to him? Surely if we can definitively state that it is objectively true, then we must have proof or at least strong evidence for it. Beauty may be based on objective, measurable qualities, but the importance we give to each of these qualities differs between us in an idiosyncratic way, and we may even use qualities that other people do not use at all in their assessment. "Most people consider AJ to be beautiful" is an objective statement - it can be verified by asking lots of people whether they find her beautiful. "AJ is a beautiful woman" is subjective.

Although True/false mainly pertains to the objective class of ideas, some subjective statements or ideas can also be true or false, so calling them all false is discarding information about the idea. I could hold the idea "Mozart's music is amazing", which could be true to me (ie subjectively) , or it could be false - it could be a lie, or I could simply be mistaking Mozart's music for someone else's music.

I think you are trying to fit a 3 dimensional space onto a one dimensional line. The 3 relevant dimensions are like the x, y and z axes (some of them possibly as dichotomies??) on a graph - entirely independent of eachother - the true/false axis, the objective/subjective axis and the known/unknown axis. If you try to compress that into a one dimensional line, you are just discarding useful information, and it will involve tortuous justifications and twisted logic to make it work.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Dollis Hill

(I much prefer Go Johnny Go Go Go Go)

 

[flimflam_machine]

Bubb, we're really getting down to it now, and I would urge you to leave the maths aside (since there is an error in your assumptions) and try to extract the overall gist that is common to pretty much everyone's posts.

As usual, Jonny, with his enviable clarity of expression puts is best:

Your second statement is subjective. The implication is that the person making the statement believes Angelina Jolie is beautiful. That depends entirely on the thinker's definition of beautiful. Hence, it is a product of the subject doing the thinking, not the object of thought. Although it does, in fact, include an object of thought, it does not include words that can be precisely quantified without resorting to the opinion of the thinker.

So the statement "Angelina Jolie is beautiful" is true to you since you like your women curvy and with brown hair. But because I like my women, tall, blonde and willowy it's false to me. Since the truth value of the statement depends entirely on the point of view (because we have different criteria for beauty) it is not objective, it is subjective i.e., it depends on personal opinion. Even if you try to reduce "beautiful" to "elegant" we still may have different criteria for elegance.

On the other hand "AJ is a woman" is an objective statement. Since it's truth value can theoretically deduced from observable fact since the definition for "woman" is roughly "having 2 X chromosomes." Similarly "AJ is not a woman" is a statment which can theoretically have its truth value deduced from observable fact.

Please do not confuse either of these with the statement "I think that AJ is beautiful". This is another objective statement since to prove it we could theoretically measure what you're thinking and prove that you do in fact think that AJ is beautiful. We don't know precisely how to do that yet (although we could have a stab) but that does not change the fact that it is theoretically possible to do so.


Incidentally the error in your assumptions is that you think that objective statements and objectively false statements form two non-overlapping sets. Whereas, in fact, objectively false statements are a subset of objective statements so O = O(2) is not an absurd conclusion.

 

[flimflam_machine]

I think the problem that's arising here is that the ideas of truth and falsehood have nothing to do with the ideas of objectivity and subjectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity have to do with personal bias. An objective statement has no personal bias, a subjective statement has personal bias.

Bing! Spot on!

If I were to say, "That brick is beautiful," then that statement may still be true or false, but the truth or falsehood of the statement is entirely dependent upon who is making the statement.

Exactly, so the statement itself doesn't really have an inherent truth value. I reckon it's best just left as "subjective".

If I say it is beautiful, but in reality I think it is not beautiful, then it may be considered a false statement in that particular case.

I disagree, it cannot be proved to be false since it is still dependent on personal opinion. In practical terms it would be a lie, but if I were to prove that you were lying what I would actually be doing is proving the implied statement "I think that AJ is beautiful" to be false. Which is perfectly possible becuase I could theoretically observe the fact of what you think.

The fact that the truth or falsehood of the statement depends on the person making the statement makes it a subjective statement.

Again, spot on. How long have you been involved in this thread relative to Bubblefish?

 

[flimflam_machine]

Hmmmm.... Dollis Hill Dollis Hill.....

Hang on, I can go straight to Mornin.... oh no, that would be commiting Postlethwaite's fallacy. So I shall have to capitulate and say High Barnet


Prof. Yaff, I'd have to disagree on a 3-axis system since I don't think that orthogonal true/false and known/unknown axes can apply to subjective statements.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Hmmmm.... Dollis Hill Dollis Hill.....

Hang on, I can go straight to Mornin.... oh no, that would be commiting Postlethwaite's fallacy. So I shall have to capitulate and say High Barnet


Prof. Yaff, I'd have to disagree on a 3-axis system since I don't think that orthogonal true/false and known/unknown axes can apply to subjective statements.

Thinking about it, you're right, they wouldn't be orthogonal. There would be a perculiarity to the graph, that when a statement appeared on the subjective end of the axis, the true false value assigned would only be true or false to the individual it pertained to. And the known /unknown can't really apply to subjective cases except by some bizarre twist of thought, so that portion of the graph would be empty. So its not completely orthogonal, but it is still a 3D space instead of a 1D line.

 

[flimflam_machine]

yes, I understand how you are defining objective to yourself. How do you determine what a subjective statement is if you can't determine it to be true or false?

You don't, it's just subjective, a matter of taste or opinion. I have a friend who as a matter of policy always leaves discussions when they get down to one purely subjective statement against another, precisely because the argument cannot progress any further. Pretty good policy I reckon.

"Oasis is the finest band that England has produced in all of music history"

is that true? [yes, no]

Not a valid question, it's a subjective statement because it depends on your/my/anyone's taste in music.

if no, then> query> is it false?

Not a valid question, it's a subjective statement because it depends on your/my/anyone's taste in music.

if no, then> query> is it unknown then?

I don't think that makes any sense. If it does not have a truth value (which is doesn't because it's a subjective statement) then there is nothing to know.

 

[Taffer]

For such a quiet game so far, I have to say that the last three moves have certainly made things interesting!

Zep's move of Barkingside would normally be considered a scare tactic (as can be seen in the 1984 Westbridge International game where Carlo Malinatio famously made the same move in a failed attempt to scare David Windsthrow into making a Reverse Triangle manuver to protect his right flank. Of course, David did not fall for what is now known as the 'Carlo Tactic', and went on to win the match by a brilliant use of the Hampshire Ruling.), however, if we analyse the move with respect to the next two, we will see that it is not quite as simple as that.

Professor Yaffle made the move to Dollis Hill, in response to Zeps Carlo Tactic move. On the face of it, this is an odd move to make given the previous move. Professor Yaffle's flank is unprotected, and unless he is in Spoon (which he isn't, as Spoon is currently wild), he risks of someone performing a Crossing the Square procedure and Blocking his retreat. However, if we look at the current playing field, we'll see that he has nicely set himself up for MC is 3 moves. At least, that was his intention, however, if we look at the latest move, things become far more interesting.

flimflam_machine made a surprise Jameson Maneuver with the move of High Barnet. This places him in Spoon, despite Spoon normally being wild when the First Square ruling is in place (as it is in this case, due to Amendment Ruling 85.1/B of the International Revised Edition of 2006). This blocks the Southern Route to Professor Yaffle (which, as should be clear, would cause a Westminster Stalemate leading to a MC in 3 moves for Professor Yaffle by invoking the Westminster Clause 13, (see the complete 1982 ruling on the resolution of a Westminster Stalemate by the IMCS) and places flimflam_machine in a superior position.

However, if we think back to Zep's move, we see that Zep predicted the next two moves in advance, and as we can now see, Zep is now ready to make a Lateral Shift, which of course requires Spoon to not be wild. Very interesting indeed!

As Spoon is no longer wild, I shall envoke Amendment Ruling 192.4/D-1 and make my move:

Aldwych