I see you're from LA, Bubbleboy. Seems LSD is back in vogue and is getting cheaper there these days, if you can afford it and your internet access costs.
Skepticism and The Normal
- Thread starter WWHP
- Start date
I see you're from LA, Bubbleboy. Seems LSD is back in vogue and is getting cheaper there these days, if you can afford it and your internet access costs.
Jonny, this is not logical what you're saying here. If a statement is an incorrect statement, it's not objective. If the meaning was meant to be objective, and there was failure, then it's simply a subjective idea misplaced, a mistake.
Show me one objective statement that is incorrect that is also objective. and I dont mean a paradoxical statement, this is not about paradox right now.
huh? so your saying that something independent of human being can also be incorrect? Not 'true'? true relates to existence, it exists. If someone says that there are reptelians ruling the world, are you actually telling me that is an objective statement?
They are distinctions of a shared thing, they share something in common, but they are not the 'same' thing, they just have a shared essence. To relate these 'essences' back to critical thinking, you could say that the number 1, thinking, mind, science, honesty, rationality, objectivity, order all share something in common in perception.
You cannot be honest and not be rational and value truth. You cannot be honest about truth without being objective, you cannot perform science using dishonesty and reach any objective conclusion. If you think critically (which is complete and ruthless honesty), you can use science to create order from the chaos of your own subjectivity.
Yeah, I got that one! grrrrr, I dont like being called deceptive. Willis, you and me got some talkin' to do! My response there was long, but deserving considering your charge.
Bubblefish
huh?
Buckaroo, are you really suggesting that my argument is false because your not interested in it? Isnt that a bit circular?
So your not addressing my argument because I wrote it?
So your now saying the third value is nonsense? Then argue that. State your argument succinctly. Say, BF, the third value is nonsense because there is no........and.....so therefore.....
If your argument doesn have something close to a structure like that, it's not really an argument, it's an opinion piece, and those go great on blogs.
To support something, there must be a 'something' to support. So far, there is no argument you can be ancillary to, they are not here. All rebuttals to what I have proposed have not addressed my argument, they have been tools used to understand my argument.
If your saying your supporting something that's there, and nothing's there, then neither are your arguments.
You mean you assume or hope someone else can make the argument because you have failed to.
Naturally, you would need an argument for that!
ahh, arguing the person is also an argument of nothingness relative to the ideas they are presenting.
I was just pokin' at cha', Elmer
well when you ask soley rhetorical questions, and supply nothing but rhetoric as an argument, then I wouldnt expect much in return either!
Are you going to be dishonest here and say that you werent assigning that experience as a similarity?
No, that's NOT a rhetorical question, i would like an honest answer.
Last edited:
Give them some more time, Lynx, some of the posters here are starting to improve a bit. They may have started of sloppy, but I'm doing all I can to get them to tidy up a bit!
BF
yes
it's niether positive nor negative on it's own, it's an objective observation of a behavior. How is self satifaction negative?
Yes
I am getting the suspicion that many of you are simply unfamiliar with a critical argument inside of dialectic.
Here is a perfect example of dialectic taking place. Two intellectuals whom I have respect for, Robert Wright and Daniel Dennet, go out it over consciousness. Robert Wright is one of my heros, Dennet I have respect for, but disagree with many of his conclusions, which I dont think are rational.
Keep in mind that 'consciousness' is a third value problem, and note how Dennett can't seem to accept it's natural third value. Robert Wright is a master dialectician and if you have time try to check out the entire exchange. Let's all of us try to meet this standard in debate, eh?
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?topic=conscious&speaker=dennett
If this is too philosophical for some, then I dont know what your doing on a critical thinking discussion forum, we have to address our philosophy as critical thinkers, and many of your arguments stem epistemologically from the philosophy of reductionism.
Here is a perfect example of dialectic taking place. Two intellectuals whom I have respect for, Robert Wright and Daniel Dennet, go out it over consciousness. Robert Wright is one of my heros, Dennet I have respect for, but disagree with many of his conclusions, which I dont think are rational.
Keep in mind that 'consciousness' is a third value problem, and note how Dennett can't seem to accept it's natural third value. Robert Wright is a master dialectician and if you have time try to check out the entire exchange. Let's all of us try to meet this standard in debate, eh?
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?topic=conscious&speaker=dennett
If this is too philosophical for some, then I dont know what your doing on a critical thinking discussion forum, we have to address our philosophy as critical thinkers, and many of your arguments stem epistemologically from the philosophy of reductionism.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
The problem we have now is that, if we rely on your little table:
then you don't know whether the text of the question I asked is an accurate reflection of my meaning, and I have no idea what your interpretation of the text I posted is, so I can't know what you mean by the word "yes".
Surely a better approach at any sort of dialogue would be for you, when you post, to make sure that the text you post ("1") is an accurate reflection of your "hidden" meaning ("0"). Any difference between these is your responsibility. Further, if you can make your text ("1") as clear and unambiguous as possible, and only use words as they are generally defined (this is the point of using a shared language) then there is a much greater chance that, if you have managed to make your text accurately reflect your meaning, my interpretation ("2") of your text will also match your meaning ("0"). Then we can, at least to some extent, rely on the text that is posted, which is as you say mutually viewable as a reliable indication of the meaning that the writer intended.
As the text we post is the sole medium of communication here, it is therefore the only evidence we have of the other's meaning. The only sensible approach is therefore to rely on the meaning of the mutually viewable text, using agreed definitions for words (the definitions already available in dictionaries are, as you have pointed out, appropriate), rather than trying to play some sort of game involving asking questions (that are subject to exactly the same limitations as the statements about which they are asked) to guess some "hidden" meaning.
If the text you post doesn't match your meaning, then that is your problem. If your meaning is hidden because you are not able to express it clearly then you need to work on your language skills. If you are, in good faith, posting assertions that turn out not to be true then you need to work on your research skills. If you are deliberately keeping your meaning hidden, that's another problem.
kieran
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2004
- Messages
- 294
"highly unlikely" sounds like the third option ... but "simply impossible" sounds like one of the first two ... I think you need to make your mind up.
Alternative to your analysis above: Bobby Henderson knows it is real but is spreading the information in a jovial, non-threatening way ... until the world is ready for "the truth" ... (why not?)
Query: If I say I have seen the flying spagetti monster, even if I am possibly lying or deluded, does that make it real?
I didn't say these were true or false claims - but you have absolutely declared that they are false. But this is where I struggle, with your logic, everything is indeterminate because there may be information that we do not know ...
You appear to miss my point - and I am missing whatever constructive point you are trying to make ... none of the truths you have declared above are proveable totally. Your understanding may be based on a cover-up of "the truth" ... why not? (conspiracy everywhere!)
So we can attribute probabilities to true and false ... the highly unlikely scenarios I asked about are at one end of the scale, and "the cost of coffee will rise tomorrow" is somewhere nearer the middle ... which is the basis of fuzzy logic (as already pointed out). There are still two values of truth here, but we apply judgement as to which one is appropriate given our current level of information.
Flo
Illuminator
Flo
Illuminator
Awww. A little starfish trying to portray himself as superior to the posters in this forum.
Well isn't that precious?
Go forth and multiply little starfish!
Last edited:
sinnikal
Muse
If I'd been here long enough I'd post a link, as I haven't just try a quick google along the lines of: narcissistic personality disorder wiki.
LA seems to produce more than it's fair share
*if I'm going to ad hom I may as well allow the possibility that he can't control it*
LA seems to produce more than it's fair share
*if I'm going to ad hom I may as well allow the possibility that he can't control it*
Mangafranga
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2006
- Messages
- 222
I haven't read the whole thread carefully, so I am not sure if this has been covered or not.
One justification that springs to mind for a many-valued logic is to deal with future contingents i.e. the proposition that "Tomorrow I will buy an iced-coffee." The argument is such that it has not yet been determined whether or not this is the case. As such to speak of it being true or false is not correct. This is the closest I can think of as to what Bubblefish might be thinking of. However in this case it is not just the fact that we do not know if "Tomorrow I will buy an iced-coffee", but rather that it has not yet been determined.
As regards the issue of the meaning of the text, the meaning of the text writer, and the interpretation of the reader, I find the account confusing in multiple ways. Does the text really have an objective meaning? What gives it that meaning? If we know that there are different interpretations given to the same thing, how would this affect truth value?
Text "Alpha" has the semantic content "p", and "p" is true or it is not true.
Person "Bob" gives semantic content "q" to text "Alpha", and "q" is true or it is not true.
Person "Sheila" gives semantic content "r to text "Alpha", and "r" is true or it is not true.
One justification that springs to mind for a many-valued logic is to deal with future contingents i.e. the proposition that "Tomorrow I will buy an iced-coffee." The argument is such that it has not yet been determined whether or not this is the case. As such to speak of it being true or false is not correct. This is the closest I can think of as to what Bubblefish might be thinking of. However in this case it is not just the fact that we do not know if "Tomorrow I will buy an iced-coffee", but rather that it has not yet been determined.
As regards the issue of the meaning of the text, the meaning of the text writer, and the interpretation of the reader, I find the account confusing in multiple ways. Does the text really have an objective meaning? What gives it that meaning? If we know that there are different interpretations given to the same thing, how would this affect truth value?
Text "Alpha" has the semantic content "p", and "p" is true or it is not true.
Person "Bob" gives semantic content "q" to text "Alpha", and "q" is true or it is not true.
Person "Sheila" gives semantic content "r to text "Alpha", and "r" is true or it is not true.
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
No, an objective statement and truth are separate things, using several of the standard definitions of the word "Objective".
From dictionary.com:
"not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion."
"intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book."
"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."
Note that those definitions describe what the statement describes or relates to, not whether or not it is correct. The distinction is between internal and external, not true and false.
There are also definitions of objective that indicate that something is actually real, which I believe is what you're saying.
However, you cannot simply select those definitions over the others and then say I am incorrect. That is especially true when the definitions of subjective all point towards the experience being within the mind as the key element.
I do not choose to use your definition of the word "objective" in this case, as I feel it is not useful. I find it more useful to use the external/internal division, and simply use the words "true" and "false" relative to external reality to describe truth.
Is that sufficient?
Based on the above explanation: "The sun did not rise this morning." The statement pertains to external reality, but it is incorrect. This fits with the objective/subjective definitions I am using, and is clearly false, as the sun happened to rise this morning.
Again, this comes down to splitting definitional hairs. If you use the definition of "objective" meaning "accurately describing reality" then, no it isn't.
However, if you define it as "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." then it is an objective statement. One that also, as far as I know, is false.
No you can't, but again this is a new definition of "objective". The "objective" you are talking about here would be similar to "unbiased".
I agree with you on the rest.
Perhaps you are not deliberately being deceptive, but your claim is. You consistently have said that many so-called "skeptics" use only two values without, apparently, taking uncertainty into account. If I'm misunderstanding you, or you've modified your position, please let me know.
I had something else to say regarding your values.
The reason numerical values are assigned to truth values in formal logic is to facilitate mathematical evaluation, and allow you to create formulas using the values to arrive at a truth value for a statement.
If you didn't create a formal logic, what's with the numbers?
ETA: By the way, I never said you ripped off the ternary logic article, merely that you seem to be applying its quantitative mathematical principles over broadly when uncertainty is usually intuitive in informal logic. We simply accept that uncertainty is possible, but don't give it a formal value. Generally, saying "we don't know" or "we don't have enough information yet" is sufficient in informal logic. I'm sure you could develop a very complicated logic construct that took various gradations of information and certainty into account.
Why only three values then? What about "we don't know right now but can expect to find out", "we don't have sufficient information", "we cannot know that", etc.
Those are all treated as concepts in informal logic without formal definition, so why leave them all out?
Last edited:
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
Age doesn't really matter. A lot of people reach a point in their lives when they think they have figured out all the mysteries of the universe, all by themselves. People who make it past their first year of college usually figure out that what they thought was so ground-breaking has actually been thoroughly analyzed by others long before they had ever thought of it.
Others never make it past that stage, and avoid trying to learn anything for fear that they will discover they are really just intellectual hacks in the grand scheme of things.
I suspect you may fit into one of these categories, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.