Mar 25, 2012 -- 11:02PM, Oncomintrain wrote:

You should know, Meso, that Blu is extremely bright, as are many posters here. If Blu cannot even follow your central argument, odds are that the problem isn't Blu. Just sayin'.

I am no brighter than Blu.  However, Blu is limited in his scope of science concepts and terms to discuss.

Meso has said he supports the Correspondence Theory of Truth, as plain as day.  The only reason Meso is told he is not being understood is that this very definitive statement is not comprehended in context in this discussion.  It's like asking a rider - how he rides and getting told they ride "side-saddle".

And the next question is - well how do you sit on the horse?  The term; its precise meaning and historical context are just ignored.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-corresp...

As to Truth -- My statement - about how to use truth in a science discussion - will be a many time repeat, for all but Meso -- There are at least two usages of the term.  One: for subjective truth, which is always associated or related to an agent (s) (knower) - the other usage is for truth about physical reality. (facts open to objective measurement).

Meso - I find the materialists like Blu and the concerned like OCT - only understanding "truth" in context one, but always pointing to context two.

In context two - objective reality - the answer is in "truth-tables".  Now, we can not only have physical measurements (where appropriate) and their relation to fact, but we can measure some the abstractions, as well as information.

(Blu will not understand this comment)  Meso - does this make sense to you? - if you are talking about physical science - it all about truth tables from data -- and not about subjective Truth. 

A truth table is a mathematical table used in logic—specifically in connection with Boolean algebra, boolean functions, and propositional calculus—to compute the functional values of logical expressions on each of their functional arguments, that is, on each combination of values taken by their logical variables (Enderton, 2001). In particular, truth tables can be used to tell whether a propositional expression is true for all legitimate input values, that is, logically valid.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Oncomintrain wrote:

NCG-

It is difficult for me to see the value of contributing additional jargon, which you claim -- if not brag -- that one party to the discussion will not understand, when the entire PROBLEM at this point is the apparent inability of both parties to reach a common understanding of the argument.

The need at this point is to clarify and simplify the argument, not pile on additional wrinkles. I know it is fun to pat yourself on the back and reassure yourself that you "get it" while others don't, but that isn't constructive to actually moving the discussion forward.

OCT,

You have every right to say that - just as do the fundi's when you and others challenge them with ideas and terms from science, that upset their literalist beliefs.

But, you expect them to click the links and learn the science and logic - right?

To me - the CToT and the idealism of the good Bishop Berkeley are connected.  That's because i have studied both.   Does that make me better - NO.   and with a quick look into the subjects --you may develop a better opinion that I on the subject.

But what's going on is you are telling Meso he is unclear when - he is not. 

Meso has started and supported a thoughtful thread about a kind of ID process and ties it to ideas (new information) being created by living things - some without brains.  I still have not read your comment to the theme of the thread?  Only comments to your POV about Meso and to Blu's POV.

Mar 25, 2012 -- 10:07PM, Mesothet wrote:

Mar 25, 2012 -- 10:00PM, Blü wrote:

Mesothet

This isn't working.  Instead it's galloping off in all directions.

It's one thing for me to try to understand your argument by reducing it to a list of propositions that you apparently intend.  It's another when I'm asked to join in the task of turning the list into a sensible argument.

I propose that you scan the list of propositions I set out in #108 and either accept each one or change it so that it represents your actual argument.

When you present a succinct list of such propositions and say, That's my argument, and I understand what you've written, I'll respond to it.

Otherwise we'll be here for a year.

Before I do, do we still have disagreements as to what radical skepticism signifies? That it does not produce any affirmation whatsoever (including the conclusion of “certainty is never justified”)?

I still haven't seen a rational justification for radical skepticism. I do not accept radical skepticism; therefore, I cannot accept any argument that includes radical skepticism among its premises.

Mar 26, 2012 -- 2:55PM, Mesothet wrote:

As it is, I’ve grown increasingly content with this thread.

Unless there will be reason to do otherwise, I’ll back off of it at this point.

Thank you for all the posts and comments.

In other words, the moment you're asked point blank to justify your initial premise, you turn tail and run.

That's no way to defend an argument. In fact, your argument fails.

I'm surprised that you're content.

Mesothet