Skepticism and The Normal

[wwitzke]

My intentions for these discussions have been addressed numerous times in this thread.

Discussions are my laboratory, I am testing ternary valued dialectic inside of a community that has evolved two value dialectic to most likely it's highest strata.

Fair enough.

So far, my success rate is virtually 100%.

How do you figure that your success rate has been 100%? What standard are you using?

OS 012 is a three valued dialectic. It is useful to use to discover our own natural metalogic which governs all discussion and perception. If used, then more effecient problem solving and conflict resolution can be obtained.

Yes, when you use your own framework to define the terminology and framework of OS 012, that gets on my nerves.

If you want to have a discussion about "OS 012," then you need to define it in English, in terms that people can understand. If you fail to do that, then how can you expect anything except that people will interpret your words the way they are used to interpreting English in general?

the arguments against this idea were clear to me before this discussion even happened. I am here to find antithesis.

You, my friend, are making the same error that is most commonly made in perception, which is the assumption that because an idea has an antithesis, then it must be 'false' by default.

There has been no argument put forth in antithesis to OS 012 which has not been rationally considered and refuted.

You arguments are structed in binary. My arguments are structured in ternary.

Well, first of all, theories can be proven wrong with a single experiment. That's well established.

Second, how can you expect to find antithesis if you don't tell people what your thesis is in the first place? You've given no hypothesis, so no contradictions can be determined. If this is your reason for being here, then you've sabotaged any possible honest discussion that might be had by withholding the premises upon which an antithesis could be based.

Wayne

 

[sinnikal]

I'm starting to get a bit ticked off by the regular reference to refrence. But I guess that's a subjective assessment.
Invoking the little used 'Open Commons' ruling
Wimbledon

 

[Z]

I counter with Vauxhall.

 

[WWHP]

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

One can justify the validity of a bivalent logical operation using bivalent logic, there is nothing contradictory there.

it's not the differences betwee philosophy and journalism 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.

I'm not ignoring their differences, their differences just have NOTHING to do with this discussion. I am niether arguing for Objectivity in philosophy nor objectivity in journalism, rather, I am arguing for what 'objective' can ONLY mean in the shared sense of the word.

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

Now your argument is falling further into irrationality as it's based on the assumption that I am ignoring them. See how framing things subjectively immediatly produces contradictions to reality?

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

WHO CARES??? 'objective' still refrences something that must be mutually available in both cases. Your argument is founded on a bed of irrationality and confusion.

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

it's still irrelevant, flim. both use 'objective' in the same sense, as mutually available or perceptable, transcending subjectivity, each usage relevant to it's practice.

Remember Bubb:

True does not mean "real"

True means true. A=A. It is 'true' when it can 'appear' as true. When it can 'appear', it is said to exist. That which is said to exist can be considered 'real', relative to it's environment for existence.

False does not mean "non-existent"

False, as used in a bivalent operation, does indeed relate to it's non truth, it's non existence as truth. False does not exist as 'true', and true relates to 'existence' in 'appearance'.

Objective does not mean "true"

For something to be said to be objective, it must contain in princaple that which is mutually viewable. If something is mutually viewable, it's existence is confirmed either physically or as a conceptual and logical construction that is consistant to physical reality.

Subjective does not mean "false"

subjective means subjective, and we can infer that subjectivity does not produce objectively true ideas on face value alone, rather, it produces statements that function as true soley to a unique point of view.

Again, INFER.

1= True, objective, honest, rational, logic, SCIENCE
2=false, subjective, poetic, irrational, expression, ART

They are 'inferred' from each other, dont confuse that as 'defining' each other in princaple.

 

[WWHP]

Nope, her beauty doesn't really exist. Eye of the beholder and all that.

The eye of the beholder is an irrational argument that suggests feelings create reality.

Symmetry is objectively beautiful, even if some people find it repulsive.

Someone can honestly say " I know AJ is considered to be a beautiful woman, I just dont find beautiful women to be attractive" and be perfectly honest and hold both truth values at their respective relevance.

 

[wwitzke]

Welcome to ignore, Bubblefish.

Thanks for your support JohnnyFive

Wayne can handle himself just fine.

And thank you for the vote of confidence.

Wayne

 

[jimbob]

I've just remembered that BS123 is "intuitive".

I'm glad it isn't counterintuitive.

 

[flimflam_machine]

Again, INFER.

1= True, objective, honest, rational, logic, SCIENCE
2=false, subjective, poetic, irrational, expression, ART

I am inferring Bubb, and I know what you're getting at. I still think (wrong, I know) that it's appalingly skewed.

WHO CARES??? 'objective' still refrences something that must be mutually available in both cases. Your argument is founded on a bed of irrationality and confusion.

So you haven't read it then. Are you afraid that someone else might have had an idea that's better than yours?

it's still irrelevant, flim. both use 'objective' in the same sense, as mutually available or perceptable, transcending subjectivity, each usage relevant to it's practice.

Errrrrrrrm no they don't that's the point doofus! Read it, go on, chicken!

The eye of the beholder is an irrational argument that suggests feelings create reality.

Uhhhhhhurrrrrr hurrrrr hurrrrrr hurrrrrr. You just don't understand that phrase do you Bubb? Admit it.

Someone can honestly say " I know AJ is considered to be a beautiful woman, I just dont find beautiful women to be attractive" and be perfectly honest and hold both truth values at their respective relevance.

Notice the use of the word "considered" in there Bubb?

How would you deal with the phrase " I know AJ is considered to be a beautiful woman, I just dont find her beautiful"? Would the person be lying?

Edit: Before I go Bubb, go back and answer the logical contradictions in your past posts noted by Mojo and Prof. Yaffle.

 

[jimbob]

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

Again I think you have the wrong word:

Objectionable not objectifiable
Temple:

you only leave me
Golder's Green

 

[Mojo]

Symmetry is objectively beautiful, even if some people find it repulsive.

Nope. If some people find it repulsive it can't be objectively beautiful. If it was objectively beautiful it would be beautiful for all observers. Yet another contradiction.

Oh, by the way:

Oval

 

[WWHP]

I am inferring Bubb, and I know what you're getting at. I still think (wrong, I know) that it's appalingly skewed.

your lying, you are not inferring. If you were inferring, then you could provide simple logical steps which lead to contradictions inside of the argument. You are reacting, rather, and only providing emotional commentary.

So you haven't read it then. Are you afraid that someone else might have had an idea that's better than yours?

Dude, dont be a chicken. I can provide links to arguments which also support my point of view on the internet too, who cares?

Rather, how does YOUR argument hold up? I dont have the luxory of arguing with the author of that link, only with you, and you are contradicting yourself more than a shizophrenic at disney land.

The eye of the beholder is an irrational argument that suggests feelings create reality.

Errrrrrrrm no they don't that's the point doofus! Read it, go on, chicken!

Why dont you argue it then?

Here are the three arguments

0= Beauty is both in the eye of the beholder AND in objective reality (Bubblefish's argument)
1= Beauty is a result of symmetry in nature, and is objective
2=Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Uhhhhhhurrrrrr hurrrrr hurrrrrr hurrrrrr.

a clear sign of a frustrated human being expressing himself truthfully.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is an irrational argument.

You just don't understand that phrase do you Bubb? Admit it.

I understand it just fine, it says that beauty does not exist independent of an individual subjective point of view.

Someone can honestly say " I know AJ is considered to be a beautiful woman, I just dont find beautiful women to be attractive" and be perfectly honest and hold both truth values at their respective relevance.

Notice the use of the word "considered" in there Bubb?

Yes, it means 'regarded as' or 'defers to as' are 'exalts in understanding as'.

How would you deal with the phrase " I know AJ is considered to be a beautiful woman, I just dont find her beautiful"?

it's contradictory at face value and revealing of a philosophical naive point of view. It's a false idea, and the idea of 'beauty' is considered objectively, and then contradicted.

Would the person be lying?

No, they would be making a false and subjective statement, true to them only

Rather, the statement objectively would read " Although Angelina Jolie is indeed a beautiful woman in the objective sense of the term, I do not find objective beauty to be attractive in her"

BF

 

[Basilio]

I counter with Vauxhall.

Ah, we have a "Return over the points" foul. Mojo started us with Vauxhall, so you lose your 1 point tie bonus, and must reconnect from a main station in The City, or from the largest suburban station from the opposite end of the present line (1994 ruling). Unless the Referee judges otherwise?

Leaving me to press my advantage with:

Seven Sisters

 

[Mojo]

How would you deal with the phrase " I know AJ is considered to be a beautiful woman, I just dont find her beautiful"?

it's contradictory at face value and revealing of philosophical naivte. It's a false idea, and the idea of 'beauty' is considered objectevely, and then contradicted.

Where does it consider "beauty" objectively, and how is it contradictory?

 

[WWHP]

Again I think you have the wrong word:

Objectionable not objectifiable

No, tone, pitch, and technique are indeed objectifiable in the study of music, not objectionable, unless you are objectionable to them NOT being considered in relating levels of refinement in musicianship.

By the way, wanna hear one of my songs?

http://www.fifibastard.co.uk/downloadmp3/jsleepin.mp3

 

[Mojo]

How do you figure that your success rate has been 100%? What standard are you using?

Blind assertion. After a while he claims that he's been successful whatever happens.

 

[WWHP]

By the way, not only are tone, pitch, and technique objective in music, but they are also mathematically quantifiable, as there are numerous computer programs that one can program to adjust, rate, and envelope them.

here is another song of mine that people seem to like

http://www.fifibastard.co.uk/downloadmp3/walkinaway.mp3

This one is one of my favorites, an old standard in Jazz, recorded with the old feel mixed with the new ambience of technology.

http://www.fifibastard.co.uk/downloadmp3/ificouldbewithyou.mp3

 

[Mojo]

By the way, not only are tone, pitch, and technique objective in music, but they are also mathematically quantifiable, as there are numerous computer programs that one can program to adjust, rate, and envelope them.

Technique alone does not make a great musician.

 

[Mojo]

By the way, wanna hear one of my songs?

 

[WWHP]

Technique alone does not make a great musician.

It is soley technique that many often assume is what MAKES great musicianship.

Take Steely Dan for example (sticks out tongue)

 

[wwitzke]

Ah, we have a "Return over the points" foul. Mojo started us with Vauxhall, so you lose your 1 point tie bonus, and must reconnect from a main station in The City, or from the largest suburban station from the opposite end of the present line (1994 ruling). Unless the Referee judges otherwise?

Leaving me to press my advantage with:

Seven Sisters

Hmmmm. . . What about Wembley Park as a lateral counter to this move? I don't have much experience, so please be gentle.

Wayne