Skepticism and The Normal

[flimflam_machine]

Where is the non sequitor that can be arived at via the logical steps of the argument?

Well let's work out whether you're representing us correctly.

Here is your argument.

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

Fair enough, bearing in mind that objectively false statements are a subset of objective statements.

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

3. t is x = O

4. T is not x = O(2)

Fine so far.

5. Therefore, O= O(2)

There's your non-sequitur. Where does the therefore come from? You have two preceding equations that don't share any terms and have just pulled this from nowhere.

Also if this is meant to be absurd, try again. O(2) is a subset of O so (your weird notation notwithstanding) there's nothing wrong with this.

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

Again, where's that from. We've never argued that "AJ is a woman" is objectively false and you haven't shown that our arguments logically result in that.

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.

I'm sure he can, I only put it on Zaay's behalf since the insult was directed at him. The sentiment was straight from me, although I think we have enough evidence to state that Bubb=twat is objectively true in any and all senses of the words.

 

[wwitzke]

Ah, I see you did address the rest of my post. Okay, on to it.

then if you keep your idea to yourself til you die, then that idea is making copies over time in your head, i.e. it's still spreading over time. and all secrets get shared at some point.

Even if I grant that an idea is replicated in the human mind, if that idea is forgotten, then it's not there anymore and therefore cannot be replicating. The idea does not spread. Similarly, if the secret is forgotten, then it will never be shared.

Also, your contention that ideas replicates in a person's mind is incorrect. If it were correct, then we would, all of us, have enormous numbers of copies of redundant ideas in our heads and that number of redundant ideas would be increasing all the time for every idea, and that isn't the case. You might be able to say something like this if you stipulated that prior copies of ideas are lost. Then the contention may have merit, and might even be interesting to think about.

ideas are ideas. human beings are human beings.

Indeed, and clearly there is a distinction between a concept and a physical material object.

can you find the person's set of ideas they have after a coronary and set them in an hermetically sealed plastic bag?

Just because a person's ideas disappear after they die does not change the fact that those ideas existed at some point. In fact, insofar as a person is more than just the sum of their material parts, but also the operation of those parts to produce personality, memory, thought, emotion and behavior, I could easily argue that you cannot find the person after they have died. Just because the person is no longer there does not mean that they never existed at all.

Also, just because a person has a physical, material reality does not mean that the person doesn't also exist as an idea. There may be a clear distinction between the physical, material object that is a human being and the conceptualization of that human being, but humans do, in fact, exist as both the object and the conceptualization.

Now, if your saying something like, "Human beings are physical, material objects, and ideas about those human beings do not necessarily reflect the physical, material object and are not necessary for that physical, material object to exist," then this is true. However, this is not what you said.

Yes, you and your nieghbor have a conflict of idea regarding property rights and values.

I could quibble here, but I think we're both on the same basic page with this one.

And the perfect sign that your opponent is indeed rational in any conflict is their response when given the choice to a non zero sum game, and a zero sum game.

I could quibble here as well, but as long as you aren't saying that all conflicts can be resolved so that all parties benefit, then I think we agree, in principle, on this point as well.

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

Again, this is an ad hominem attack. Counterproductive.

If you value logic, then you will soon wish to make sure your metalogic is indeed logical as well. Currently, how you are defining things to yourself is evidence of an understanding of reality that produces contradictions.

Okay, "metalogical" has, as best I can tell, two definitions. Here is one, "beyond the scope or province of logic." The other is "relating to the metaphysics of logic," out of Webster's unabridged (2nd edition, old dictionary).

I was assuming the first definition of metalogical (it was the only definition I could find at the time), in which case logical metalogic is a contradiction. You must be assuming the second definition, "metaphysics of logic," and I'm really not sure what "metaphysics of logic" means exactly. I can guess that it means logic applied to metaphysics, in which case I suppose would make it essential that any metalogic used is logical if you are making arguments in metaphysical philosophy. However, the relationship between logic and metaphysics doesn't appear to be trivial. Here's a 20 page paper on the subject (haven't had time to read it yet).

So, if you were using the second definition of metalogic, then I grant you that I was using the wrong definition. So, were you using the second definition?

Wayne

 

[flimflam_machine]

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.

I think that's supportive? Thanks?

Hmmmmm... I shall have to leave Paris to the mercy of Basilio and play the Eurostar switchback (should be fine in an informal rally like this) Waterloo.

 

[WWHP]

Well provide the evidence then.

http://www.jurassicpunk.com/stars/angelinajolie/angelina_jolie_9.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/new_intellectual/JUSTIFIED_ARROGANCE.html

some interesting arguments on this question:

http://www.modernletters.org/freedomtowrite/index.html

Wiki on beauty

Beauty is a quality present in a thing or person that gives intense pleasure or deep satisfaction to the mind, whether arising from sensory manifestations (such as shape, color, sound, etc.), a meaningful design or pattern, or something else (such as personality).[1] Said another way, "beauty" is a quality of a person, object, place, or idea that provides a perceptual experience of pleasure, affirmation, meaning, or goodness. The subjective experience of "beauty" often involves the interpretation of some entity as being in balance and harmony with nature. This leads to powerful feelings of attraction and emotional well-being.
In its most profound sense, beauty may engender a salient experience of positive reflection about the meaning of one's own existence. An "object of beauty" is anything that reveals or resonates with personal meaning. Hence religious and moral teachings often focus on the divinity and virtue of beauty, and to assert natural beauty as an aspect of a spirituality and truth.
The literal opposite of beauty is ugliness, i.e. the perceived lack of beauty, which stimulates displeasure and engenders a deeply negative perception of the object.

article on 'symbols' of beauty

http://www.art.net/~coffin/WRITINGS/BEAUTY/beauty.html



note this is not a simple 'standard' argument, and has been asked countless of times. It's true nature is ambiguous, it's result in objectively reality, however, consistant with symmetry, therefore symmetry is beautiful, and can be considered beautiful objectively.

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.

Of they are wrong, then Angelina is not Beautiful.

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?

Dont know, I am just talking about Angelina Jolie. What evidence do you have of her historical ugliness?

Exactly what colour are the underpants that you currently have on your head?

I dont wear underwear.

Jonny could out-debate you with 98% of his brain removed.

Then he has failed to provide evidence, his arguments dont advance, and mine do.

BF

 

[flimflam_machine]

Of they are wrong, then Angelina is not Beautiful.

So you admit that AJ's beauty depends not only on the presence of observers, but also their accuracy. So it's not inherent to her, but to them. If they disappeared or were wrong she'd no longer be beautiful. That, Bubb, is why it is a subjective statement, you have to refer to them for it to be true.

Then he has failed to provide evidence, his arguments dont advance, and mine do.

Oh yes Bubb, you're very good at mashing the keyboard. Perhaps you're using a non-standard definition of "advance", and possibly even "argument", oh, and "failed" and maybe "evidence".

 

[sinnikal]

I think that's supportive? Thanks?

Hmmmmm... I shall have to leave Paris to the mercy of Basilio and play the Eurostar switchback (should be fine in an informal rally like this) Waterloo.

You think correctly flimflam. I tried to point out the objective truth of the observation "Bubb is a twat", ooh, seems like ages ago back on BadScience, but some dismissed it as an ad hom. Your use, I feel, vindicates my position.

Using the Silverlink titration Gospel Oak.

 

[jimbob]

As this has been said so better before, I'll just quote this entire post.

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1060&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

{a lot of things}

But this post is not addressed to him at all.

Seems to me that TM confuses conflict that his ideas generate with the heat his behaviour generates. He then says that "it's ideas which are in conflict, not people". Anyone with the sense not to engage with him remove themselves from the conversation, leaving him to make the claim that he has now "won" the conflict to the credulous remainder of his audience. The bigger the idea, the bigger the conflict, he reasons, so the bigger the conflict he can generate, the more status he can claim his idea has. Yet OS012 has no more lept out of cyberspace than 'leet'-speaking teenaged conversations about which bird has the best tits, or which computer game conveys the most realistic violence have challenged western hegemony. So much for "dialectics" then.

OS012 is good code for trolls. But is it memetics? Insofaras he argues that conflicts are between ideas, not people, there is some crossover. But the understanding of the fact that "TM is a twat" is in conflict with "TM is not a twat" doesn't lead us anywhere new. We already knew it, just as we knew that "OS012 is useless" and "OS012 is useful" was the rough outline of the discussion since TM dominated what was once a fairly interesting conversation.

Let's try some dialectical processing of the above idea

Thesis                         Antithesis 
  |                                  |
TM is a twat                 TM is not a twat
  |                                  |
TM behaves like            Behaviour is subjective  
a twat                               |
  |                                  |
Everyone                     People find him annoying
ignores him                          |
  |                                  |
  ------------------------------------
                  |
            End of conversation
                  |
               Synthesis 
                 |
               Sweet FA

The idea that "TM is a twat" didn't come out of nowhere. I say this is my idea, and I had it, and so probably have many people reading this thread, had the same idea simultainiously. Memetics might argue that it's the culmination of all the memes which have ever gone before it. So my question is - does either OS012 or memetics tell us anything more interesting than "we are having a conversation, and we disagree because we have different ideas"?

TM says that this OS012 stuff will resolve conflicts between big ideas, but as far as I can tell, OS012 will only appeal to people who believe in it, and take it forgranted - just like religion - just like memetics. Circular, ain't it.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Symmetry is an objective quality that people may have, so is skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, hip to waist ratio. These are all objective. They are objective qualities that people use in determining the level of beauty a person has. But everyone uses these objective qualities in a different way in determining if they find someone beautiful. Some of them are fairly universal, in that an increase in symmetry, will result in an increase in assessment of beauty, some are more idiosyncratic - for example only finding blondes attractive. So we all come out with different ratings of beauty when looking at the same people.

Look again at your Miles Davis example that I pointed to earlier, and show me how rating of trumpet players is any different to this. There are some things in music that are pretty universal that increase our enjoyment of it, and other things that are more idiosyncratic and in the end the mix is pretty unique to the person. So how can you look at the two statements and say that one is objective and the other is subjective?

You keep asking us to point out any logical inconsistecies - so here is one.

 

[wwitzke]

There is natural and logical inference of truth and falsity with objective and subjective.

No, based on the definitions of objective and subjective, there is not logical inference.

Objectivity and subjectivity have to do with personal bias.

You just defined all subjective and objective statements as personaly biased statements. So therefore, according to your contradictory logic, the statement's objective and mutually viewable truth value of "The word at the end of this sentence is the word this." is personally biased.

No, I just defined objectivity and subjectivity as having to do with personal bias. The fact that both words deal with personal bias does not mean that they say the same thing about personal bias. In fact, objectivity is defined as a lack of personal bias, and subjectivity is defined as having personal bias. But, again, here are the definitions: objective subjective

An objective statement has no personal bias, a subjective statement has personal bias.

Yet this statement is a logical contradiction of your previous statement. Your saying that the set 'objective/subjective' share the member 'personally biased' and then take it out of that set within two sentences!

No, this is incorrect. Saying that objective and subjective both have to do with personal bias (i.e. as words they both say something about personal bias) does not mean that they both say the same thing about personal bias.

So, "Newspaper taxi's appeared on the shore, waiting to take me away" is therefore an objective statement in your logic.

Yes, exactly. Since it describes a potentially real situation, it can be described as an objective statement. It may be true, or false, but it's objective.

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.

What would that statement be if it was included as a line of poetry?

It would still be 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.

So if you think the brick is 'ugly', and I think it 'beautiful', then only I get to decide it's true or false quality?

Ah, tricky point. Let me clarify. The truth or falsehood of the statement is entirely dependent upon who is making the statement, and the truth or falsehood of the statement only applies to whether the person who made the statement really believes that the brick is beautiful. In this case, we are not assigning an objective truth or falsehood to the statement, saying that the brick is 'ugly' or 'beautiful' as an inherent property of the brick, but instead we're assigning a subjective truth or falsehood. "That brick is beautiful" is true for you because you believe it is true, or it's false for you because you believe it is false. It may still be true or false to me regardless of whether it's true or false for you.

But how would anyone know you were lying to make the distinction?

Others might not know, but you would know, and if you told others that you really believed that the brick was ugly, and then said it was beautiful they would know as well.

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.

Oh my goodness, and to think you opened this post with the phrase "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."

I think the problem is that you are entirely confused on the whole matter and don't appear to be able to parse your understanding into any consistancy. You contradict yourself within one or two paragraphs and sentences!

Actually, there is no contradiction. I say that "the fact that the truth or falsehood of the statement depends on the person making the statement makes the statement subjective." That is one possible test to determine if the statement is subjective. Another test to determine if the statement is subjective is to ask the question, "Does the statement deal only with experiences/opinions/ideas that are specific to the individual making the statement?" This test does not rely upon truth or falsehood at all. Just because you can use truth/falsehood in a test to determine subjectivity or objectivity does not mean that the definitions of true/false and objective/subjective have any dependence upon each other at all.

That's irrational thinking. You are expressing your confusion, not objectivety. Confusion is a subjective experience, thus, you just wrote a little confusion poem. nice work!

Again, an attempted insult.

Wayne

 

[Mojo]

Using the Silverlink titration Gospel Oak.

Aha:

Poplar

Via a double arboretum link, of course, which means that the next move...
Well, I'll let you figure it out for yourself.

 

[flimflam_machine]

The idea that "TM is a twat" didn't come out of nowhere.

Very true. It is an inherent, measurable quality of TM himself. So the idea/statement would be true even in the absence of any observer.

Mile end.

 

[jimbob]

And this:

http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1060&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=210

Tell us, ST, honestly- what is your world view? what is your philosophy that manages all of the complexity of information about being alive at this point in time?

It is called ST 4567, and its power comes from four core axioms:

4. Bread is made from ants.
5. Dogs can hear gravy.
6. Dough is only the begining.
7. Oranges are not just for Christmas.

There are three other axioms, but they are held secret until the full power of the central axioms are understood, just in case the experience is too profound for uninitiated minds to cope with. This generally takes about 500 posts to a certified uberthread. Then you receive the invitation to participate in an initiation ceremony under a bridge, involving goats. That's all I'm at liberty to reveal at the moment.

So please, feel free to use OS012 on ST4567, and prove them to be false.

 

[WWHP]

Well let's work out whether you're representing us correctly.

Indeed.

Here is your argument.

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

Fair enough, bearing in mind that objectively false statements are a subset of objective statements.

Bear in mind, there is a distinction in common usage of an 'objective' statement, and an 'objectively false statement'


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

3. t is x = O

4. T is not x = O(2)

Fine so far.

5. Therefore, O= O(2)

There's your non-sequitur. Where does the therefore come from? You have two preceding equations that don't share any terms and have just pulled this from nowhere.

sorry, it should read, as I am addressing YOUR non sequitor, from your point of view, simply

5. 0(2) = 0

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

Also if this is meant to be absurd, try again. O(2) is a subset of O so (your weird notation notwithstanding) there's nothing wrong with this.

Where is the 'subset' defined as such? In your personal usage, fine, it's a subset, yet then what can account for the distinction in common usage of 'objective statement' and 'objectively false' statement?

If a reporter asks Tony Snow to give an 'objective' assesment, how come he does not need to qualify "of course, not the subsets of objective statements, just objective statements"?

How is it then that we know what he means if your subset is common usage?

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

Again, where's that from. We've never argued that "AJ is a woman" is objectively false and you haven't shown that our arguments logically result in that.

It's the logic of how you are using the term objective. Of course you don't argue that the statement "AJ is a woman" is objectively false, that would be irrational, yet if we parse your usage into bivalency and logic, that's what you mean LOGICALLY.

It's called thinking your thoughts 'through'. If you think them through and your produce a contradiction, then your argument is NOT LOGICAL.

I'm sure he can, I only put it on Zaay's behalf since the insult was directed at him. The sentiment was straight from me, although I think we have enough evidence to state that Bubb=twat is objectively true in any and all senses of the words.

Stop thinking with your feelings, it's irrational. What determines the objective outcome in a discussion is the ability to advance truth values. If your truth values cannot advance in continued tit for tat exchange, the subjective expression of 'troll' does not help you advance your argument.



BF

 

[WWHP]

wayne

I dont have time to address your posts right now. You are late coming in this discussion and I am keeping flow with wee_eck and flim.

I will get to them critically later.

Dont confuse my teasing of you to be proof of lack of argument. I teased you because you avoided determining certain things that are already available in this discussion for refrence, thus making me do more work. That gets on my nerves, yes.

I will lovingly address your rebuttals later

BF

 

[Basilio]

I invoke the single turn Transatlantic station transfer clause (causing return via eastern line stations) and select

Foggy Bottom

 

[Z]

Reading the bits quoted in various posts -as I still have Rome on ignore - I marvel that he has gotten anywhere in life, being unable to manage a basic distinction between 'objective' and 'subjective'!

If anyone had any doubts about the intellectual vacancy of Rome's thinking, this debate about beauty being subjective should verify that Rome lacks basic education and knowledge. Beauty has long been regarded as the ultimate subjective quality; after all, is the famous saying not, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" This saying alone denotes fully the entirely subjective nature of beauty. To say that "Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman" is to make an absolutely subjective statement. If you can find even one example of a person who can look at Angelina Jolie and NOT come to that conclusion, then the statement is subjective - unlike the statement, "Angelina Jolie is a woman". The state of womanhood has predefined parameters which she meets. Beauty does not. Yes, our society has certain markers for beauty; but those markers are not the same for every culture, society, or even person. For example, it was recently pointed out to me that she has bony hands. This, combined with her recent unacceptable thinness and general attitude, makes her ugly to me. (I'm a hand man, myself). And since I don't find her beautiful, we cannot say that her being beautiful is an objective statement.

Since Rome cannot distinguish properly between subjective and objective statements, any claims he has made about the nature of OICU812 are clearly mistaken. ONO911 is a purely subjective art, based on a purely intuitive and subjective system of evaluation, attempting to cram four-dimensional (or possibly more) spacetime into a three-value framework.

It's a complete joke, and I second the use of the "T" term in his case.

Oh, and since the game seems to have reached a dangerous point, I suppose it's up to me.

Forgive me, O impartial divine universe, for I know EXACTLY what I do.

Aldwych

 

[Mojo]

If a reporter asks Tony Snow to give an 'objective' assesment, how come he does not need to qualify "of course, not the subsets of objective statements, just objective statements"?

An objective assessment is not the same thing as an objective statement. It may well consist of a series of objective statements. You're confusing definitions again.

 

[jimbob]

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

.

How many times, As we are attemptiong to communicate with you using English, it is most effective if you use commonly accepted definitions of words.

If a statement concerning AJ's lack of beauty is subjective, then so is one concerning her posession of "beaute".

It is subjective because it is dependent on the person's own view...

"There is an afterlife" might be be gramatically obective, but in reality is unknowable. this is another subset of statements that you have missed.

Anyway back to the serious points:

All this talk of dogs hearing gravy has reminded me that I can finesse people with the shear sublety of Wood Green (er unless I have missed something obvious)

Edit:

maybe nobody will notice the riposte..

 

[flimflam_machine]

How is it then that we know what he means if your subset is common usage?

Because, teenybrain, many, many people have the mental capacity to have two definitions in their head at once. Wooooooooooooooooo!

The root of all this twaddle is you hamfistedly mashing the two definitions into one. "They have stuff in common", yes, so do cows and sheep (domestic animals, eat grass) are they the same thing?

Bear in mind, there is a distinction in common usage of an 'objective' statement, and an 'objectively false statement'

Only if you use objective to mean "true or unbiased" in the first phrase and use it to mean "external to the mind" in the second phrase.

sorry, it should read, as I am addressing YOUR non sequitor, from your point of view, simply

5. 0(2) = 0

And you think that's different from O=O(2)? Fantastic.


Bubb, get a paper and a pen...

Draw a big circle. Label it "objective statements".

Draw a line from one side of the circle to the other.

In one resulting semicircle write "objectively true statements", in the other write "objectively false statements."

Now given those labels, try to put your pen somewhere on the paper that represents an objectively false statement, but that doesn't represent an objective statement. Come back when you've done so.



My final throw before heading home: Temple (a classic night watchman)

Have a good weekend all! (including Bubb, have fun with that pen!)

 

[jimbob]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2412167#post2412167

Go on: use BS123 to get anywhere with the four axioms postulated in the above post.