Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
This is incorrect as a representation of my claim. As I said, you seem to be confused. This post of yours may point up the source of your confusion -- you don't know what my claim is. I am not making any claim about a word. I'm making a claim about the meaning of certain sentences in which that word occurs. Please get this straight.... We are talking about the qualifier "good" that you falsely claim is an objective.
...
My watch analogy did not fail. Only in your subjective biased opinion did it fail.
Those aren't objective evaluations. And Ted Williams was a great hitter.
No it is a subjective claim he is objectively an above average hitter but the term "good" is subjective
Your problem is you are trying to make the word "good" mean whatever you want at any given time and it doesn't have to mean that to another person. ie it is subjective.
You did the same with your failed broken watch analogy.
If you don't know what these words mean, I refuse to carry on a dialogue with a contrarian.
Reproduce the criteria laid out in this video and let's see if "Ted Williams was a good hitter" is objective or subjective.
My watch analogy did not fail. Only in your subjective biased opinion did it fail.
This is incorrect as a representation of my claim. As I said, you seem to be confused. This post of yours may point up the source of your confusion -- you don't know what my claim is. I am not making any claim about a word. I'm making a claim about the meaning of certain sentences in which that word occurs. Please get this straight.
Here's another one for you gents. Decoct the criteria and we'll apply them together.
If you just wish to repeat the uninformed contrarian counterclaim, please waste someone else's time.
Thank you.
it 100% failed and was proved factually wrong by multiple posters, definitions and examples. NOTHING you just posted changes that fact. Just more of your feelings that you want others to buy but facts dont allow us to put any logical stock in your failed and proven wrong claims.
Ahh Ok I think see where you are going.
Yes and no
Yes it exists in the mind
For lack of a better term the logic behind logic will remain if we all of humanity dies tomorrow and a new species becomes as intellectually evolved as we are. Same with mathematics the logic behind 1+1=2 and 1+1+1=3 then 1+2=3 will always remain true but if no one exists or all humanity loses their memory. No one would know it and it would have to be relearned. It could look differently but the logic will be the same
eg Q#Q;d and Q#d;c then Q#Q#Q;c
He does like to post examples of the word good being subjective then claiming it is objective.
Not necessarily, logic requires a mind, human or otherwise but that doesn't mean it exists or doesn't exist without a mind. So I guess you could say it can exist without humanity as long as there is minds capable of complex thought.So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not?
Never claimed it existed with inanimate objects but you are kind of making my argument above. Logic requires the capacity for thoughtIt doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...
Those aren't objective evaluations. And Ted Williams was a great hitter.
I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.Again cant watch your videos, try making an actual argument instead of using videos top speak for you.
The only uninformed person here is you repeatedly using the term Good subjectively then falsely claiming it is objective.
Good/Bad are subjective terms as all of your examples have shown
Show me where I represented your view as "arguing that a Volvo isn't a car."You are claiming that a Volvo is a "good" car is objectively true this is false. You then try the strawmen by claiming that I am arguing a Volvo isn't a car
This is also false
I am stating that the term Good is subjective and all you have done so far is use it subjectively then falsely claimed it is objective
Not necessarily, logic requires a mind, human or otherwise but that doesn't mean it exists or doesn't exist without a mind. So I guess you could say it can exist without humanity as long as there is minds capable of complex thought.
Never claimed it existed with inanimate objects but you are kind of making my argument above. Logic requires the capacity for thought
I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.
1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.
SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,
All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.
Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.
I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.
1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.
SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,
All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.
Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.
He does like to post examples of the word good being subjective then claiming it is objective.
"Ted Williams was a good hitter" is an objective evaluation of Williams as a hitter based on career stats including, among other data, 2654 hits in 7706 at-bats for a .344 batting average.
This is an objective evaluation of the functional concept "hitter" in the context of the professional sport of baseball. Its contradiction is false on the facts.
I've made a hundred arguments in posts to you, going back to the old forum and our discussion of logic. You are impervious to argument in my words; so I posted videos that would provide you the criteria you need to see that your position here, that the word "good" is absolutely a subjective terms in every and all contexts, is WRONGHEADED. I forgot that you can't see videos. Okay, here are the criteria from the videos, distinguishing between OBJECTIVE claims and SUBJECTIVE claims.
1. OBJECTIVE claims have a truth value.
2. A METHOD verifying the truth value of objective claims exists.
3. Someone holding the opposite claim of an objective claim can be shown to be holding a false claim.
SUBJECTIVE claims, by contrast, have no such criteria. That's why they're subjective,
All my claims, using the word "good" as evaluative of functional concepts, meet the criteria for objective claims.
Now please desist! You're obsessing on a word and ignoring usage and context.
If "Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively' speaking," then he was, pari passu, a good hitter objectively speaking. Your logic in this post is neither great nor good.You are still wrong. Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively" speaking. And hitting is about much more than batting average. In fact, your objective criteria are really subjective, because of this fact. There is no single measure of what makes something good, and it becomes a subjective preference. You can only objectively rank hitters by numerical statistics. You can only assign subjective values to those numbers in order to call one hitter good, better or best. The numbers aren't the only criteria. Objectively, I could say most hitters aren't good if they make outs more than half of the time they hit.
Broccoli is good for you.
Broccoli tastes good.
Here we have the word "good" used in two sentences making claims about broccoli.
Questions to you, Quag:
Are both of these claims subjective?
or
Is one of these claims objective?
Broccoli is good for you.
Broccoli tastes good.
Here we have the word "good" used in two sentences making claims about broccoli.
Questions to you, Quag:
Are both of these claims subjective?
or
Is one of these claims objective?
If "Williams was a great hitter, 'objectively' speaking," then he was, pari passu, a good hitter objectively speaking. Your logic in this post is neither great nor good.
Why don't you start by answering the question posed in #466. This will help you understand the issue.
So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not? It doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...
So if logic would exist without humanity, then that means logic is rooted in something other than the human mind, does it not? It doesn't seem dependent upon the existence of humans... and I think it would be hard to argue it being rooted in inanimate mindless objects...
Yes. You've made the difference rather clear in this post: I know what I'm talking about, and you don't. Clearly, you do not know what you're talking about -- you post from an over-confident ignorance of the things you post about. We're done, as far as I'm concerned. Just to give you one example, which you won't understand of course and on which you'll reply with the typical bravado of over-confident ignorance, colors, like the red referred to in your post, are the quintessential illustrations of subjectivity in empiricism. And here you are boldly citing color as an obvious example of objectivity. Lord luv a duck! Take your materialist authority-on-everything act to some other member's crib and play there, yes? Thanking you in advance.Calling a car good is not objective. Calling a car a Volvo is objective. Calling a car red colored is objective. Calling a car a 4 cylinder is objective. See the difference?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?