Skepticism and The Normal

flimflam_machine said:
Deeply cynical Arkan! Trying to stalemate the game through a multiple Dollis Hill loop! I shall thwart your plan by breaking out of spoon, but this will of course mean sacrificing my first square, south-of-river advantage. Of course this tactic leaves me only one possible move right into the middle of nowhere: Hatch End!
Click to expand...
Well, I always say, "If you're going to lose, lose like an a*****e." I was tempted to go for Aldwych, but I wasn't feeling that snarky this morning.
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Well, I always say, "If you're going to lose, lose like an a*****e." I was tempted to go for Aldwych, but I wasn't feeling that snarky this morning.
Click to expand...

Aldwych is one of the most dangerous moves, but a gutsy player can make it work!

basilio
 
If we're playing the current rules it's a little problematic: see here.
Since the station is now closed, the 1972 Anderson-Perkins rules indicate that closed stations can only be used after the previous player has performed a Johnson switchback manoeuvre (who can forget the great ending move of the 1987 championships). However, since the line is still maintained and trains are run often for filming companies, I believe the Hughs amendment to the 1997 rule on terminating lines could be applied and Aldwych used as a normal location in the game.
Click to expand...
 
Mojo said:
What people are "arguing for" is that objective statements can be true or false, and that their truth can be assessed objectively.
Click to expand...

Well, people are also Churing Cross and upping cinders on Baker Street, allowing me to thus completely outscore all finners, declare overscoop, and take a clean 150, and not since 1860.

So let's break this down simpler. mojo.

There is no STANDARD for the use of 'objective' other than the dictionairy. The only thing that could be considered 'standard use' or 'public use' would be the use of objectivitey in Journalism, which may even be it's source. And it is also ambiguous in Journalism. I get what people are arguing for. They are only telling me that's how they define it and use it. And they or you or anyone can use it that way, I dont care if you like using that word that way or not, I'm just pointing out that it produces something illogical conceptually, it's not fully considered, produces contradictions and has no consistancy.


And the argument is almost ancedotal. the definition of objective in OS 012 does not contradict the dictionairy, or produce something falsely objective in it's place. OS 012's internal logic is hardly resting on it, it's another strawman attack from the reactors here. Every so often you think you 'found' something that 'disproves' OS 012, yet it often seems no harmless than a spelling error or historical slip up.

Since OS 012 uses a 'coupling' of objective/subjective, and wishes that coupling to have a solid logical and mathematical relationship as well as a intuitive one, it's definitions must be consistant to reality, mutually observable to reality, and open to absorb more refined arguments which make even clearer the distinctions.

BF
 
Pfff... amateurish attempt at ingratiating himself. The game wasn't even played in 1860. In any case, where is Churing Cross?

So who's first now that Bubb is in fully fledged denial?
 
There is no STANDARD for the use of 'objective' other than the dictionairy.
Click to expand...
There are several standard uses of it. You appear to be using one of them ,or possibly even none of them since you are mangling the one you are using.

The only thing that could be considered 'standard use' or 'public use' would be the use of objectivitey in Journalism, which may even be it's source. And it is also ambiguous in Journalism.
Click to expand...
I'd say it's pretty unambiguous when used in reference to reporting. In any case that's not the only standard use, a lot of people around here seem to have previous experience of the other meaning.


I get what people are arguing for.
Click to expand...
Really, prove it.

They are only telling me that's how they define it and use it.
Click to expand...
Us and many others.


And they or you or anyone can use it that way, I dont care if you like using that word that way or not,
Click to expand...
Why thank you for giving us permission to use language how we want (and how it's already used by most people). Funny that you didn't ask our permission before you started to use language exactly how you wanted to.


I'm just pointing out that it produces something illogical conceptually, it's not fully considered, produces contradictions and has no consistancy.
Click to expand...
You've pointed out nothing of the sort. Your laughable mathemtical equation was horrendously flawed. What contradictions? Show us a lack of consistency?

For clarification. The set of objective statements consists of two, and only two, subsets: true objective statements, and false objective statements. Clear?
 
Last edited:
it's definitions must be consistant to reality, mutually observable to reality, and open to absorb more refined arguments which make even clearer the distinctions.
Click to expand...
Bubb, you're consistently failing to produce any explanation of how language can be inconsistent (or indeed consistent) with reality. Language was created by us to describe reality (and the contents of our minds) so how can it be inconsistent with reality? It can be inconsistent with itself, sure, but that's not the same thing.

You might be interested by the grue/bleen problem, since it relates somewhat to the concept of language describing the real properties of things.
 
This is just for people discussing objective and subjective using similar meaning to me: I have been looking up some philosophy websites, and some of the mentioned that statements like "I like jam" are considered subjective, whereas we have been talking about them as objective expressions of a subjective idea (jam is nice). Anyone want to dive in about that? I can provide links if people want me to.
 
Well, I'm late as usual but I think a market strategy is in order here -
High Street Kensington
 
This calls for a suburban roundabout deployment. I block you with:

Hampstead Heath
 
Last edited:
Professor Yaffle said:
This is just for people discussing objective and subjective using similar meaning to me: I have been looking up some philosophy websites, and some of the mentioned that statements like "I like jam" are considered subjective, whereas we have been talking about them as objective expressions of a subjective idea (jam is nice). Anyone want to dive in about that? I can provide links if people want me to.
Click to expand...

I think I can see where that's coming from, and I'd be interested to know more. Sure, provide links.
 
Sorry chaps, but anywhere named after a bear brings me out in hives. Under the subsection c (compromise-ing) rule:

Tooting Bec
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom