Skepticism and The Normal

[Mojo]

Even Wikipedia recognizes that beauty is a subjective experience.

(Of course, if Rome has finally conceded this simplest of points in the many, many, MANY posts above, please accept my apologies for persisting in this point. But if you can't even get the basic distinction between subjective and objective correct, how can you manage to make finer distinctions between even more vague categories?)

No, he's now claiming that it is both objective and subjective. This implies, of couse, that a statement about beauty can be true for all viewpoints but not true for some viewpoints, and bingo, Rome has produced yet another contradiction.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

One of the buildings voted the most ugly in britain (the car park in gateshead featured in get carter) is very symmetrical.

I think I have it figured out - if you agree with rome you are using the objective definition, if you disagree you are using the subjective one....

 

[Z]

No, he's now claiming that it is both objective and subjective. This implies, of couse, that a statement about beauty can be true for all viewpoints but not true for some viewpoints, and bingo, Rome has produced yet another contradiction.

Indeed. Most of his error, of course, lies with his misuse of objective itself as defined as 'mass subjective' - that is, in his opinion, the objective POV is nothing more than a shared subjective POV. His theories really don't deal with the objective at all.

Of course, objective means, simply, irrespective of viewpoint. Apples grow on trees, regardless of who views them or under what conditions they are viewed. If apples are growing, they grow on trees. This is true for all observers, and would still be true if no observer were present.

On the other hand, subjective means, simply, dependent on viewpoint. Apple trees are beautiful, but only if they have those qualities which the observer considers beautiful. Beauty, of course, is probably the single most subjective attribute available to mankind, as evidenced by the vast differences between definitions of beauty available from different resources. For example, the thin supermodel-types are often considered beautiful by modern Western standards; but to some cultures - for example, rural Latino-culture - a thin woman is a sign of poverty and malnutrition; therefore, a more curvaceous and plump woman becomes more beatiful, due to her obvious health and prosperity.

Simply enough, we can tell a subjective statement from an objective one, if a sane person can disagree with it meaningfully and not be wrong. To disagree with the statement, "apples grow on trees", would be wrong. To disagree with the statement, "Winona Ryder is lovely", would not be wrong. In a subjective statement, there is rarely a wrong or right answer; it is entirely due to the conditions of the person making the statement as to whether the statement is true or not.

Remove all persons, and subjective statements lose all meaning. For example, if no one is present to observe a sunrise, the sunrise simply cannot be beautiful, since it was unobserved.

I suppose such a fundamental misunderstanding of terms could simply be the result of poor education, or perhaps exposure to an environment in which critical, clear thinking is lacking. Of course, extensive drug use COULD also come into play here.

Yet, I find myself torn between laughing at Rome's obvious ignorance, and pitying his situation. Here he is, obviously struggling to defend his theories, and he's had one of his underlying premises swept from beneath him. To save face, he simply cannot concede - his ego won't allow it. So instead, he has to prevaricate and fabricate in a frenzy of misdirection and bad language skills, and hope to regain ground by slipping into the cracks of ignorance of his readers.




Too bad he chose to try this tactic here, where those cracks are remarkably small and hard to find.

Considering the last valid move, I'll have to try for Picadilly Circus.

 

[jimbob]

you are defining the third value as 'meaningless' here, and then you are defining 'meaningless' as something which cannot be considered true or false.

Yes, partly. The following is a meaningless statement:

"let's include mystery as a value of truth."

no, it is you whom is very confused and ambiguous about true and false and objective and subjective. if we cant infer T from objective, then the only thing about objective that is objective is that it's meaningless.

BF

"if we cant infer T from objective, then the only thing about objective that is objective is that it's meaningless."

It is not meaningless, it *might* help one to recognise statements that are pioints of view and ones that are verifiable.

However you are the one arguing for the use of your system

in response to Zaay's post:

Uxbridge

 

[jimbob]

Has anyone actually looked at BF's signature:

There is a rational arguement for the
inclusion of mystery as a value of truth

.


What is an "arguement"


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=arguement

In England (and judging from google, the US too) "argument" is considered more conventional.


I'd make sure that at least my sig didn't contain any spelling errors.

Jim

 

[jimbob]

Of course, objective means, simply, irrespective of viewpoint. Apples grow on trees, regardless of who views them or under what conditions they are viewed. If apples are growing, they grow on trees. This is true for all observers, and would still be true if no observer were present.

On the other hand, subjective means, simply, dependent on viewpoint. Apple trees are beautiful, but only if they have those qualities which the observer considers beautiful. Beauty, of course, is probably the single most subjective attribute available to mankind, as evidenced by the vast differences between definitions of beauty available from different resources. For example, the thin supermodel-types are often considered beautiful by modern Western standards; but to some cultures - for example, rural Latino-culture - a thin woman is a sign of poverty and malnutrition; therefore, a more curvaceous and plump woman becomes more beatiful, due to her obvious health and prosperity.

Exactly, and well put.

BF: That is what we are all trying to get through to you

 

[Z]

Oh, dear... I'm trying to avoid it, really I am... but I'm blocked everywhere else!

Dollis Hills

(And under the Kluge-MacAllistair Gambit, no less - I apologize for this loop...)

 

[pv+]

It is subjective, because people have different experiences of it.

"I have 56 chairs in my kitchen" is an objective statement.

The veracity or otherwise of this statement does not affect whether the statement is objective or not. Note the correct use of "affect" as opposed to "effect".

Features that make up beauty might be objectively defined, but the concept of beauty is puerly subjective.

Statements can be true or false or meaningless (amongst other things)

They can be subjective or objective.

There are four options : (the initials are obvious)


TO, FO
TS, FS

Only the person making the subjective statements can *definitely* assign TS or FS to a particular statement.

If I understand your nearly coherent posts BS123 is limited to TO, FS, and unknown. It also confuses true with objective and false with subjective. This gets you nowhere, talking of which:

Liverpool Lime Street

If you could read, rather than concentrate on getting me banned, you would see I have asked you lots of questions. That you only spot a question now is really down to the standard of your observational skills rather than any change on my part. You still haven't answered anything though. All you've done for hundreds of posts is to make unsupported and unsupportable assertions with no discernible connection to each other or to reality. So no change there.

 

[pv+]

Oh, dear... I'm trying to avoid it, really I am... but I'm blocked everywhere else!

Dollis Hills

(And under the Kluge-MacAllistair Gambit, no less - I apologize for this loop...)

Try the Drain again.

Bank

 

[Z]

Try the Drain again.

Bank

Can't - look at the South London area - you'll see why I have to do this.

Dollis Hills

 

[WWHP]

It's a pity it doesn't define synergy in the same way as the rest of the English speaking world. It would avoid a lot of confusion.

OS 012's definition of synergy is refined and in harmony with it's technical meaning.

If it isnt, then you should be able to explain how it is misleading rather simply

 

[WWHP]

No, he's now claiming that it is both objective and subjective.

That has always been my claim

This implies, of couse, that a statement about beauty can be true for all viewpoints but not true for some viewpoints, and bingo, Rome has produced yet another contradiction.

Hardly, it means that beauty is not only a subjective experience, as when my eyes gaze on AJ's beauty and wonder, but also relates to something external and existing independent of my wonder, which is symmetry of features. When I gaze at a truly beautiful woman, there is a harmony of objective and subjective occuring in unison.

 

[WWHP]

One of the buildings voted the most ugly in britain (the car park in gateshead featured in get carter) is very symmetrical.

as already addressed, 'symmetry' is not reduced to 'geometric' symmetry, but also infers radial, bilateral symmetry and planar symmetry. Concrete blocks or ugly buildings may have geometric symmetry, as in they are symmetrical, but that is not perfect 'symmetry', thus, it is no wonder that buildings can be dull and boring as squares.

I think I have it figured out - if you agree with rome you are using the objective definition, if you disagree you are using the subjective one....

no, if y ou are using either the objective one or the subjective one, you only see one half of what I mean. The answer lays in both of them.

 

[WWHP]

Indeed. Most of his error, of course, lies with his misuse of objective itself as defined as 'mass subjective' - that is, in his opinion, the objective POV is nothing more than a shared subjective POV. His theories really don't deal with the objective at all.

Once again, Z is resorting to distortions, manipulations, and mysticisms to stay afloat in this discussions.

Objective is not defined as 'mass subjective', nor has it been refrenced as mass subjective.

Of course, objective means, simply, irrespective of viewpoint. Apples grow on trees, regardless of who views them or under what conditions they are viewed. If apples are growing, they grow on trees. This is true for all observers, and would still be true if no observer were present.

This is what OS 012 defines as objective reality, so you are agreeing with me while you are refuting me, that's insanity.

On the other hand, subjective means, simply, dependent on viewpoint. Apple trees are beautiful, but only if they have those qualities which the observer considers beautiful.

Perfect Symmetry in nature, when expressed elegantly in her design, is considered to be objectively beautiful, as beauty itself is defined as a prescription for the word 'symmetry' in the dictionary.

Beauty, of course, is probably the single most subjective attribute available to mankind, as evidenced by the vast differences between definitions of beauty available from different resources. For example, the thin supermodel-types are often considered beautiful by modern Western standards; but to some cultures - for example, rural Latino-culture - a thin woman is a sign of poverty and malnutrition; therefore, a more curvaceous and plump woman becomes more beatiful, due to her obvious health and prosperity.

This is an ignorant, shallow, and misinformed statement. The reoccuring pattern found in objective beauty is, again, perfect symmetry. And this is hardly a controversial statement. It is supported by dictionaries, encyclopedia's, and numerous papers on art, philosophy, and science.

Simply enough, we can tell a subjective statement from an objective one, if a sane person can disagree with it meaningfully and not be wrong. To disagree with the statement, "apples grow on trees", would be wrong. To disagree with the statement, "Winona Ryder is lovely", would not be wrong. In a subjective statement, there is rarely a wrong or right answer; it is entirely due to the conditions of the person making the statement as to whether the statement is true or not.

Glad to see that you are integrating OS 012.

Remove all persons, and subjective statements lose all meaning. For example, if no one is present to observe a sunrise, the sunrise simply cannot be beautiful, since it was unobserved.

Remove all persons, and you remove all statements.

Statements are not found like rocks and trees. Your example is irrational

I suppose such a fundamental misunderstanding of terms could simply be the result of poor education, or perhaps exposure to an environment in which critical, clear thinking is lacking. Of course, extensive drug use COULD also come into play here.

Since your terms of objective/subjective are highlighted in OS 012, I find your critique bizarre, deceptive, and irrational.

 

[Taffer]

Don't think you're going to get out of it that easily, Z.

Kennington

As you're all probably aware, this places me in Spoon, and because of Spoon Clause 17/a, breaks the Dollis Hills Loop (by force, I might add. If I were to go Farringdon, for example, because you have your Northern Transit Line reinforced, and because no one is in knip, you could choose to continue the Dollis Hills Loop for another two turns (see the relevant rules Amendment 577b/1-1 of the 1984 International Revised Ruleset).

 

[WWHP]

Exactly, and well put.

BF: That is what we are all trying to get through to you

then you are really lost, that's all I have been getting THROUGH TO YOU!

At least my definitions stay consistant with reality through the process.


piccadilly circus

 

[WWHP]

If you could read, rather than concentrate on getting me banned, you would see I have asked you lots of questions. That you only spot a question now is really down to the standard of your observational skills rather than any change on my part. You still haven't answered anything though. All you've done for hundreds of posts is to make unsupported and unsupportable assertions with no discernible connection to each other or to reality. So no change there.

Hi PV, can you explain what issue you are confused on and what issue has not been supported by argument? Thanks

BF

 

[WWHP]

I am reposting this for ease of argument. This objective/subjective argument is really beginning to bore the bears out of me. If you cannot address this argument in post, then you have no argument. Simply stating an opinion while you misrepresent my argument (zaay) is not a refutation.

So to close: Objective/Subjective can work logically and rationally, as well as intuitively, with true and false when a third value is available inside of the operation. By rationally I mean that their logical reasonings do not produce contradictions in reality or with the commonly accepted usage of the terms given in the dictionary.

The arguments against this seem to stress one point, and one point only. That objective statements can be parsed into true or false, and a false statement can therefore still be considered an objective statement in this regard. But it should be noted that it is this definition of objective that is incredibly narrow, and is only a focus on application of 'objective' used in grammar, or soley relative to grammar in bivalent logic, as in a "closed statement" is an "objective statement" which can only be true or false.

This usage, however is contradictory with THREE other common usages of "objective" in the dictionary, and ALL of which are in harmony with OS 012. These definitions of objective are:

1.) Of or having to do with a material object.
2.)Having actual existence or reality.
3.)Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Keep in mind that these three definitions of objective are the top three specified and COMMON usages of objective. There are two 'particular' meanings of objective that are given after these three, which state: Medicine. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
Grammar. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.


So the fifth definition of 'objective' does indeed support the logic of a closed statement being either true or false. The problem with that is that is a closed rule in grammar, does not coincide with any truth other than grammar, may produce contradictions with the first three definitions when used outside of closed sentences in logic. It's nothing more than how 'objective' is used inside of a closed set. And 'objective' still holds the same value of what it relates, the viewable grammatical 'object', relative to the invisible and subjectivly dependent verb. Note how you cannot have a verb function unless it relates to an 'object'. In grammar, the object takes hold as a linguistic struture soley to relate to the verb, it's existence is not in question in grammar.

Yet the arguments given trying to refute me claimed that it is my usage that is narrow, or not in step with common usage. That is clearly not a rational argument, they are far closer to normal and standard usage than the particular use in grammar.


Please dont bore me with tit for tat of previous arguments about this, this is the argument summed up with all sides squared.

If there is an argument to it, then you can extract it from this post. If you cant argue with it, then we are in agreement.


BF

 

[WWHP]

sorry, zaay. You are going to have to do allot better than your previous rebuttal to stay afloat rationally in this discussion.

although I do concide, you have me beat in

Green Park

 

[jimbob]

If you could read, rather than concentrate on getting me banned, you would see I have asked you lots of questions. That you only spot a question now is really down to the standard of your observational skills rather than any change on my part. You still haven't answered anything though. All you've done for hundreds of posts is to make unsupported and unsupportable assertions with no discernible connection to each other or to reality. So no change there.

Er, I presume you meant to post this to BF and not me...

Anyway, in important matters, I invoke the famous 1984 Rushton appeal that twats can't play any moves unles they have objectively shown that they have reformed from twatdom...

In reply to Taffer, then:

Bank