Skepticism and The Normal

[WWHP]

Because he doesn't find weird looking women beautiful. Are you saying he is wrong?

no, I'm saying he has a very subjective understanding of the term 'beautiful', and is not using a shared understanding of the term. Rather, he is not defining his usage of 'weird', so most likely to him, beautiful is defined as 'weird', and thus he is contradictory to reality.

 

[flimflam_machine]

umm, have we not been talking about truth VALUES this whole time? Considering we have been discussing truth VALUES for some three months now, what would you assume I mean?

So you're trying to justify the validity of OS012 by using OS012. That's almost perfect in it's circularity.

it's not the differences that are relevant in this discussion, it's WHAT THEY BOTH SHARE IN COMMON WHICH IS.

And yet, by ignoring what is different you are making your arguments incomprehensible and very possibly invalid.

So over the weekend, while your thinking about all of this somemore, ask yourself what does OBJECTIVETY have 'shared' or what is 'mutually observable' about 'objective' in both PHILOSOPHY and JOURNALISM.

Objectivity in journalism is about epistemological objectivity. Objectivity in philosophy is also to do with metaphysical objectivity, it's that last bit that you're missing, which makes you think that something can be "objectively mysterious" and yet something cannot be both objective and false.

Read this:

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

Or better yet, since I suspect that reading that will make your head explode since it nicely contradicts you. Read this sample:

We should distinguish two kinds of objectivity:

1. metaphysical objectivity, and
2. epistemological objectivity.

We also should distinguish two kinds of subjectivity:

1. metaphysical subjectivity, and
2. epistemological subjectivity.

Remember the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology?
Metaphysics consists of arguments and counterarguments about what we should call "real" or what we should say "is" or "has being". "Is free will real?" is a metaphysical question. In metaphysics, something exists objectively if its existence does not depend on its being experienced. For example, Antarctica and the Eiffel Tower exist objectively. They exist whether or not anyone has experienced them.
...
Now let's turn to epistemology, the philosophical investigation of knowledge. Epistemology is largely about what statements are true or false. Statements are linguistic entities; they are strings of words or symbols. People use statements (as opposed to questions or exclamations) when they want to assert that something is so. The words "true" and "false" apply only to statements.

Remember Bubb:

True does not mean "real"
False does not mean "non-existent"
Objective does not mean "true"
Subjective does not mean "false"

Even if you think they do.

 

[JonnyFive]

Regarding AJ and beauty:

BF, you indicate that you do not understand the difference between the fact that people consider AJ beautiful and the subjective statement "AJ is the most beautiful woman in the world." The standard definition of the two words, as used in philosophy, has to do with the object of thought versus the subject of thought in the implication of the sentence.

Thus, "AJ is the most beautiful woman" deals with factors that ultimately lie with the subject - i.e. what they consider to be "beauty". If you don't find her beautiful anymore, someone else might, but then you're making a different statement. The statement "someone finds AJ beautiful" is not the same as "AJ is beautiful." The last statement makes an implicit declaration that centers the statement on the subject - the person making the statement. If you want to remove that implication, you need to be clearer with the language of the statement.

The fact that those subjective judgments are based on observable characteristics means nothing - the ultimate statement is still an expression of subjective belief.

Your belief that my statements on the matter are somehow contradictary only tells me you are presently incapable or unwilling to grasp the underlying difference in what the various statements are actually saying.

As we have been discussing before, there are areas where this is somewhat ambiguous, but those aren't even as ambiguous when you cut to the implication of the statements being made.

This isn't nearly as hazy as you seem to believe. The usage of the two words is well established in common language, as well as within modern philosophy. The fact that your definitions don't "contradict reality" doesn't mean anything. If I redefine "true" and "false" to mean the opposite of what they do now, then I will still produce statements that describe reality, but no one else will know what I'm talking about.

You need to be consistant with linguistic usage as well, if you want to communicate. Your failure to actually convince anyone here may not mean anything to you, but I'm sure it speaks volumes to everyone else here.

And on a final note, I see you're still at it:

Your high as a kite, arn't you?

Yes, you most certainly must be *high* as a kite.

Welcome to ignore, Bubblefish.

 

[jimbob]

no, I'm saying he has a very subjective understanding of the term 'beautiful', and is not using a shared understanding of the term. Rather, he is not defining his usage of 'weird', so most likely to him, beautiful is defined as 'weird', and thus he is contradictory to reality.

"no, I'm saying he has a very subjective understanding of the term 'beautiful'"

That is the point: Beauty *is* subjective.

Flimflam, I can'y be bothered to wade thru philosophy, but was the point of your post that "like" is a subjective term, so, "I like x", is a subjective statement... as is, "many people like x".

Jim

 

[flimflam_machine]

When you model reality soley on bivalent thinking, contradictions are produced which are verifiably false within the same bivalent framework that you are using

So verify them then. Your last mathematical attempt was hilarious and I could do with a good laugh.

Jim, you're ok to make that move, I'm currently involved in a Metro power-struggle with the evil Basilio.

 

[wwitzke]

eh, c'mon, you're desperate and lonely

Your high as a kite, arn't you?

Ad hominem and insults clustered above. These do not help your arguments, and simply cause you to lose credibility.

Consider this: The idea of a giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird. This idea is neither true nor false, nor is it mystery by your definition (which is both true and false, and since the idea is neither true nor false, it cannot be both true and false).

dude, if you are going to jump in early in the converstation, at least do some background research. In this framework, that idea most certainly is a false idea as defined in OS 012. Remember, a false idea is a definition of a 02 value, not a 02 value a definition for false.

I'll assume you mean "late" here, since "early" makes no sense, unless, of course, you're trying to redefine "early" as meaning "late," in which case I'll still assume you meant "late". Incidentally, my original post to which you replied (post #1577) wasn't directed you, it was to the people playing Mornington Crescent, and your response to my post (which was clearly not directed at you) implied that you wished for me to join in the non-Mornington Crescent aspect of the conversation, an invitation, of sorts. I obliged by responding to your post on its own merits. If your post couldn't stand on its own merits and you didn't want criticism, you shouldn't have posted it in the first place, or should at least have provided reference material that would have clarified the rules you listed. Considering how incredibly illogical those rules were, however, I am certain now, and was certain at the time, that no set of references could possibly have made any difference.

Now, regarding your statement above, I explained carefully why the idea of the giant, furry, pink and green polka dotted bird is neither true nor false. It is because there is no context in which to judge it. Without a context, it could be either true or false. Unless your framework implies some context, then the idea of the bird is still neither true nor false. If your framework does provide a context, then you need to define that framework and show what context it provides, otherwise your statement above does not hold up. As for your contention that "a false idea is a definition of a 02 value, not a 02 value a definition for false," the first part seems to define "02 value," but this is pointless since "02 value" wasn't even used in any of the preceding material, and the second part doesn't actually say anything at all.

For an idea to be true or false, it must be applied to something for which true and false have some meaning.

erf, really?

Yes, really. I already explained why, but I will explain again. In order for an idea to be true or false, there must be some basis upon which to judge the truth or falsehood of the idea. In the bird example, until you apply that idea to, say, the real world in some way, perhaps by claiming that such a bird exists, you have no way to judge the idea itself, and the idea could be either true or false. By applying the idea, saying something like, "The bird exists in the real world," or "The bird does not exist in the real world," you gain a context in which to judge the truth or falsehood of the idea, although the idea itself without that context (that is, on its own) is still neither true nor false.

Now, what does 'false' mean, can you explain in your own language without resorting to use 'not true or incorrect' in your definition?

What is something when it is false other than not true?

Here are the definitions for true and false. These sources explain in my own language (English) just as well as I can. If your contention that "not true" implies false, this is simply not the case. This is a logical fallacy. False is, indeed, defined in terms of true. If something is false, then it is not true (by definition). This also means that if something is true, it is not false. However, the fallacy comes in when you try to say that if something is not true, then it is false, or if something is not false, then it is true. This is argument from fallacy, and that is pure logic, not merely my reasoning. Sorry.

Thanks, and i'll ignore the rest of your misinformed and longwinded post.

By not addressing the other points that I've raised, you're not defending your argument. Why choose not to defend your own argument? Should I simply assume that my other points were beyond your reproach?

tell you what, since you are attached to language, take away all the words that you dont like represented that way, and just for now refer to them as 0, 1, and 2.

So are you saying that you redefined "true" and "false" as well as "mystery" in your first rule? That would be the only instance where I would object to the use of the words "true" and "false." If you did redefine "true" and "false," how could you expect anybody to understand anything you're talking about?

Oh, and since you're contending in your post that redefining terms is somehow a good thing to do, and not wanting to use redefined terms is somehow a bad thing to do, here is why redefined terms and nonstandard definitions are a bad idea:

First, using nonstandard definitions or redefined terms leads to confusion, both for readers and for people who are trying to join into the discussion. People are used to seeing familiar terms defined in familiar ways. At best, when they read a familiar term defined in an unfamiliar way, it makes it difficult to think about the discussion where that unfamiliarly defined term is being applied, and that's assuming they know the nonstandard definition in the first place. At worst, it makes discussions completely indecipherable. Even assuming that you have mentioned actual nonstandard definitions for the terms you are using in prior posts, most people who peruse this discussion are not going to be interested in going back through 40 pages of posts just to pick out those definitions! I, for one, would prefer my comments to be decipherable to as many people as possible. Further, I would like to encourage others to join in the discussion, something that the redefinition of terms will actively discourage in part because of the confusion redefinition causes.

Second, it leads to inexactness. Since non-standard definitions will, necessarily increase the number of definitions for familiar terms, in using those terms it suddenly becomes more difficult to determine which definition should apply in any particular case. With redefinition of the term "mystery," if somebody uses that word then it becomes more difficult to know which, if any, definition should apply for that use.

Third, when somebody uses a redefined word, the redefinition makes it possible for somebody to deliberately misinterpret what that person is saying, while maintaining a facade of credibility. I could, for instance, post something using the standard definition, and somebody could say, "Ah, but you're not using the definition that we are using!" Then, if I did use the redefined word, somebody could then say, "Ah, but that's not how that word is really defined!"

Fourth, as an extension of my third point, if I were to agree to use your redefined terms, it would then be much easier for my post to be entirely taken out of context, so that I could be made to seem like I'm saying something that I'm not actually saying. While this is always a possibility, it becomes much more of a possibility when the terms that we use in discussion aren't those that are in common use, and I will avoid, as much as I can, following a track that would knowingly open up my comments to that sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Fifth, it is completely unnecessary to redefine terms in this (or almost any) discussion. If you wish to argue a point on "OS 012" where you have to use tricky ideas, then it is simple to spell out those ideas when they actually occur in your argument so that there is never any doubt as to what definitions you are using. Further, it is realistically no more difficult to continue to spell out those ideas wherever necessary.

Now, in case you are wondering if I consider you capable of the deliberate dishonesty that I have spelled out in points three and four above, then the answer is a resounding "yes." Perhaps if you weren't so insistent upon people using your ridiculously redefined term, were willing to work with standard definitions while spelling out your arguments when they occur, addressed points that people specifically ask you to address without resorting to non-responsive rhetoric, and avoided insults and ad hominem attacks, then I (and others) might feel differently. Of course, if those conditions had already been met then I would never have needed to address this issue in the first place.


Wayne

 

[WWHP]

Bingo. Just wanted to step in here, to point out that one of Rome's obvious flaws - aside from the flaw of not thinking before he posts potentially alienating accusations - is that he lacks an understanding of the basic terms and concepts that he bandies about with such abandon.

Notice, for example, Gentle Reader, how he insists on adding 'unknown' as a TRUTH value, when, in fact, it is simply a KNOWLEDGE value.

Ahh, zaay, what are you doing back in this discussion? You virtually have NO integrity INSIDE of this discussion. you hop back and forth between bivalent and ternary thinking like a cat on a hot tin roof. Your continued contraditions between what you believe to be true and what you argue to be true have already been distinguished.

So here you are, coming back to damage control the situation, addressing the 'gentle reader' once again.

The 'gentle reader', if rational, already can see your contradictory and manipulative nature, and nothing you can do can 'magically' refute that, but keep up your spells none the less, they're charming.


For the most part, our discussion has ended, since you have been completly unable to logically refute anything I have written without producing gross contradiction after gross contradiction

I mean, look how quick you *illusion* reality.

And now, he's decided that objective and subjective have ENTIRELY DIFFERENT values from what the REMAINDER of the English-speaking world has given them.

and what is the english speaking standard of objective/subjective, ladies and gentleman?

Objective: unaffected by the perception of the observer.
Subjective: affected by the perception of the observer.



The statement, "Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman," is subjective. The statement, "Angelina Jolie is a woman," is objective.

ahhh, so Angelina Jolie is only beautiful when I say she is beautiful, and her beauty doesnt really exist. That's magical thinking at it's highest strata.

Good work!

Now get back to the 'great work'! Stop manipulating people while your at it, it's disgusting and also 'black magic'. a sign of a 'black brother'.

Begone! Your magic is useless here.


BF

 

[flimflam_machine]

Welcome to ignore, Bubblefish.

I know what you mean Jonny, I can't take his spelling much longer either.

I'm not sure on that one Jim, it's subjective in that it requires an observer to have a truth value. I'd say the second one is objective. Probably best to wade through the posts since I've engaged my weekend brain now and can't do it all over again.

 

[jimbob]

Your high as a kite, arn't you?

It's you're

"your kite is high" would also be allowable.

"You're not convicing anyone with these posts, BF" is correct English.

"Your posts are not convincing anyone, BF" is also correct.


Jim

 

[WWHP]

So verify them then. Your last mathematical attempt was hilarious and I could do with a good laugh.

I have verified them on each occasion they have crossed my path. I draw your statements into thier only logical conclusion which produces contradiction, and you succesfully avoid addressing them virtually each and every single time.

 

[geoman]

My work here is done!

Prof. Yaffle, are you still languishing in Geordieland? How long until you can play Fentiman's Discombobulator on geoman's Morden?

dang, I completely forgot about the Discombobulator! I guess that's what comes of being used to playing Third Amendment rules.

ETA: P.S. Bank

 

[flimflam_machine]

ahhh, so Angelina Jolie is only beautiful when I say she is beautiful, and her beauty doesnt really exist. That's magical thinking at it's highest strata.

Nope, she is what she is whether you say so or not. Bizarrely you actually got something right (I guess the law of averages said you would eventually): her beauty doesn't really exist. Eye of the beholder and all that.

 

[flimflam_machine]

I have verified them on each occasion they have crossed my path. I draw your statements into thier only logical conclusion which produces contradiction, and you succesfully avoid addressing them virtually each and every single time.

So you're ignoring the fact that your "mathematical" equation had a non sequitur in it and the reductio ad absurdam that it was supposed to show wasn't actually absurd.

Bring it back, I want to laugh at it again.

Anyone still in any doubt as to whether Bubb is a troll?

P.S.

Now get back to the 'great work'! Stop manipulating people while your at it, it's disgusting and also 'black magic'. a sign of a 'black brother'.

On Zaay's behalf: Twat!

 

[Mojo]

Well that's true, because he's dead. But "Miles Davis was the best trumpet player in the world" isn't objectively false, it's subjective.

It's subjectively true, however. Now what happens to your bivalency, logic, and sense of mathematics? If something is subjectively true, what then is it's distinguishable and logical complement?

Hang on, a few pages ago you said that you have a method of objectively assessing trumpet players:

I do have a way of assesing trumpet players objectively, it's just relative to my tastes. 'pitch' 'tone' and 'technique' are objective in music. there is a clear distinction between pitch, tone, and technique at various levels of musicianship.

And here:

yet my tastes in music are still relative to 'pitch' 'tone' and 'technique', which are objectifiable, in music.

If you can objectively (i.e. independently of viewpoint) assess trumpet players, then the the statement is either objectively true or objectively false, not subjective. Which is it?

Can you objectively assess trumpet players (as you have claimed), or is the statement subjective (as you have claimed)? The two statements are contradictory.

 

[Mojo]

Because he doesn't find weird looking women beautiful. Are you saying he is wrong?

no, I'm saying he has a very subjective understanding of the term 'beautiful', and is not using a shared understanding of the term. Rather, he is not defining his usage of 'weird', so most likely to him, beautiful is defined as 'weird', and thus he is contradictory to reality.

If he is "contradictory to reality", then he is wrong. So once again you are contradictory to yourself.

 

[WWHP]

BF, you indicate that you do not understand the difference between the fact that people consider AJ beautiful and the subjective statement "AJ is the most beautiful woman in the world."

I did not introduce the statement "Aj is the most beautiful woman in the world" as an example, rather the statement "angelina jolie is a beautiful woman"

The standard definition of the two words, as used in philosophy, has to do with the object of thought versus the subject of thought in the implication of the sentence.

that still does not negate the objectivety of 'AJ is a beautiful woman'.

Thus, "AJ is the most beautiful woman" deals with factors that ultimately lie with the subject - i.e. what they consider to be "beauty".

Your argument here is based on a faulty premise that my argument supports "AJ is the most beautiful woman in the world" as a objective statement, and that is not the statement I am defending, rather "AJ is a beatuiful woman"

If you don't find her beautiful anymore, someone else might, but then you're making a different statement.

No, i am making the same statement. Me no longer finding her beautiful has nothing to do with her objective beautiful qualities.

The statement "someone finds AJ beautiful" is not the same as "AJ is beautiful."

They still share the same beautiful object in question, however.

The last statement makes an implicit declaration that centers the statement on the subject - the person making the statement. If you want to remove that implication, you need to be clearer with the language of the statement.

there is no statement that can objectevly refute Angelina Jolie's exterior beauty, and any statement regarding her lack of beauty is purely subjective.

The fact that those subjective judgments are based on observable characteristics means nothing - the ultimate statement is still an expression of subjective belief.

Angelina's beauty is empirical.

Your belief that my statements on the matter are somehow contradictary only tells me you are presently incapable or unwilling to grasp the underlying difference in what the various statements are actually saying.

I can make the distinction far clearer than you can account for, I asure you. Your arguments here are hardly new to me, and my arguments here are clearly new to you.

I can see how it is that you are defining O/S, it's not that hard to see what you 'mean', it's just that what you mean produces contradictions when considered further. You havent considered them further.

As we have been discussing before, there are areas where this is somewhat ambiguous, but those aren't even as ambiguous when you cut to the implication of the statements being made.

There are objectively determined ways to determine 'beauty' objectively. This does not cancel out our subjective sense of beauty, and you are assuming it does.

This isn't nearly as hazy as you seem to believe. The usage of the two words is well established in common language, as well as within modern philosophy.

And I am contradictory with neither, rather, I am CLEARER about them in spite of common usage and philosophy. I am clearer about them because OS 012 highlights what BOTH of them share in common.

The fact that your definitions don't "contradict reality" doesn't mean anything. If I redefine "true" and "false" to mean the opposite of what they do now, then I will still produce statements that describe reality, but no one else will know what I'm talking about.

I am not redefining true and false, that is not an objective observation. Rather, I am consistant with their usage, and merely updating our undertanding of them metalogically. It's still the same set of information.

You need to be consistant with linguistic usage as well, if you want to communicate. Your failure to actually convince anyone here may not mean anything to you, but I'm sure it speaks volumes to everyone else here.

I am not trying to convince people of anything, i am simply showing where what you are already convinced of produces inconsistancy. If you wish to continue doing that, so be it, I dont care, whatever rocks your boat. I am only interested in if your rebuttals are logically consistant, or not. And they are not consistant, and mine are.

And on a final note, I see you're still at it:

Welcome to ignore, Bubblefish.

Wayne can handle himself just fine. I dont see you ignoring the posts of others who tease me.

You wishing to ignore me at this critical phase is telling, and reveals nothing about any 'value' you have for discussion, rather, reveals that you are unable to consider further the arguments presented. I notice you choose to put me on 'ignore' after you made your final statement, not before.

I have consistantly been respectful to you, if this your final statement to me, then thanks for participating in this discussion. You have been helpful in this argument being refined, and for that I appreciate your contribution.

Best,
BF

 

[flimflam_machine]

Angelina's beauty is empirical.

Well provide the evidence then.

Be warned that proving that many people find her beautiful proves only that many people find her beautiful. They could all be delusional or just wrong.

There are objectively determined ways to determine 'beauty' objectively.

Which are? In mediaeval Europe fat women were beautiful, now, slim women are the thing. Chinese people used to think that bound feet were beautiful, I've never thought so. So who is objectively right and who is objectively wrong?

You wishing to ignore me at this critical phase is telling, and reveals nothing about any 'value' you have for discussion, rather, reveals that you are unable to consider further the arguments presented. I notice you choose to put me on 'ignore' after you made your final statement, not before.

Exactly what colour are the underpants that you currently have on your head? Jonny could out-debate you with 98% of his brain removed.

 

[sinnikal]

Flim-flam, I'm not going to quote your post as you seem to have got away with it, but I like to think the word you used was my very own when applied to our California Dreamin' friend. As you used it on Z's behalf however, I'll let it pass..................Rayner's Lane.

 

[WWHP]

So you're ignoring the fact that your "mathematical" equation had a non sequitur in it and the reductio ad absurdam that it was supposed to show wasn't actually absurd.

Yes, you ignored it because you didnt 'think' about it, rather..

Bring it back, I want to laugh at it again.

Here is your argument.

1. Let O = objective. Let O(2) = Objectively false.

2. Let t= angelina jolie. Let x = woman.

3. t is x = O

4. T is not x = O(2)

5. Therefore, O= O(2)

6. Therefore, t is x = O(2)


Where is the non sequitor that can be arived at via the logical steps of the argument? (i.e that's YOUR non-sequitor! erf)

Anyone still in any doubt as to whether Bubb is a troll?

More magical thinking refrencing magical beings to somehow refute the truth values in my rebuttals.


All of this magical thinking, Sheesh, are you a wiccan too?

On Zaay's behalf: Twat!

my that Zaay is a damn good manipulator! He got the badscience crowd to believe in his magical arguments, and even defend them using magical statements.

Zaay can take care of himself fine. You stating the word 'twat' effects nothing in Zaay's life. His bills are just the same, his home is just the same, and his magical thinking is just the same.

If you want to properly learn how to make spells, zaay has already recommended 'witchschool.com' for any class that may tickle your fancy.

BF

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I can't hold it in any longer:

IT IS AFFECTS, NOT EFFECTS

NON SEQUITUR, NOT NON SEQUITOR

AND WHILE I AM BLOWING OFF SOME STEAM, PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, OBJECTIVELY AND SUBJECTIVELY, NOT OBJECTIVLY AND SUBJECTIVLY. IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO SPELL ANYTHING ELSE CORRECTLY, AT LEAST SPELL THOSE ONES CORRECTLY.