Do you have any plans on posting something that hasn't been refuted ad nauseum?

Is this the royal "we"? You seem to have abandoned even giving the pretense that expert opinion is on your side. All of your assertions are completely unsupported.

Hi Shaun,

I wanted to keep the data gathering and method of analyzing the data as two separate issues, because each does have its own problems for us to discuss. But, since you insist:

The point is, if your position is true, no matter how “clearly” or “unambiguously” you try to communicate something, the reading of it (i.e. data gathering) is going to be skewed and the analyzing of it (i.e. the method used to draw conclusion about what is written) is going to be tainted by biases. So, the conclusion (i.e. the understanding of what is read) may or may not have much to do with what you wrote or meant, no matter how clear or unambiguous you tried to be. Moreover, if your position is true there is no way for me to know how close I have come to understanding what you meant and there is no way for you to ever know if your meaning has gotten through.

You see, if your position is true, even if I do a tell back, your reading of the tell back will be skewed and your analyzing of what I wrote will also be tainted by your biases.

Did I really understand you? There is no way for either of us to know; therefore, any real communication becomes impossible.

So, if you believe your position is true, why did you write? I know why I write: I believe that your position is false and real communication can exist. But you really can’t believe your position is “true,” because, if your position is true, you can't know that anything is true. But if you say, “I can’t know if anything is true,” aren’t you saying that you know that is true?

Let me give you another example:

So, when you read Kant (and yes, I have), did you read Kant or did you just read your biases into Kant? Since the information is skewed automatically and subconsciously, how could you possibly know?

Your position is completely self-stultifying and makes any and all knowledge impossible.

Will you respond to this post? If so, why? Are you trying to share with me some truth? Or are you just trying to impose on me your biases?

G. Brady Lenardos

I think my response has already been predicted. And the fact that it has been predicted so well is exactly the type of example I would need to show how you are making hyperbole out of my position.

The fact that we cannot have absolute and direct knowledge of things does not mean that we cannot use the limited amount of information to gain some tentative understanding. And in combination with other tentative and incomplete information, our general picture can become clearer. Still, you are right, we can never have real complete knowledge.

You seem to be trying to hold the line on this all or nothing epistemology. This is sophomoric. Just because you don't understand the neurolinguistic complexities of the word "sophomoric" as they exist for me, you have a shared (I'll avoid the word "intersubjective") definition of the word that allows you to glean some understanding of what I meant. Did I mean it snidely/ Did I mean it playfully? You don't know. Does that mean you didn't understand the word in the context I used it? Even your ability to guess among some set of possible subtle meanings means that some communication is possible even if complete understanding is not conveyed.

So, if you're right, you'll have to explain either how you are able to understand the subtle complexities of my subjective neurolinguistic aspects of the words I use, or you'll have to explain how you seem to be responding to what I say when without this complete understanding, you seem to be communicating with me.

Shaun

Yes, it's exactly what I meant (I think).

Perhaps we are the same person

(Spooky sci-fi music starts to play)

I don't remember claiming that any of my conclusions were highly accurate. If you are referring to the conclusions of Paul, then i cannot comment, and I'll let him do so if he so pleases. I'm not even sure how much accuracy would be "high" and how much would be "low," but that's besides the primary point.

Admittedly, we've strayed from the original intent of this thread, and thus I will avoid further straying to talk about linguistics and epistemology to any more complexity that has already been discussed. However, the primary function of this thread, since you (Brady) began posting here to debate the topic, has been this false dichotomy of objective/"no value" (as todangst put it early on). I agree with this criticism, and have tried to support why this dichotomy must fail for reasons based in epistemology. I feel like I've made my point, but for whatever reason you (Brady) do not seem to agree.

Yes, you are correct, we are. I think that he simple way to say it is that despite the necessary skewed and biased nature of epistemology, and therefore the subsequent effects on our interpretation of data and how it is collected into a conclusion, accurate conclusions are still possible.

That is, concerning a specific question (say, the existence of Jesus as an historical figure), we can possibly determine which is the more accurate historical position to take. The lack of certainty here has more to do with lack of data, but the interpretation of extant data will also play a part. It is simply plain that someone of faith may more likely interpret data x differently than someone else.

But this is a dire oversimplification.

We, of course, will not always have the most accurate conclusions (from this theorretical "objective" point of view, anyway). The point is to take the data we have and apply it in such a way as we reach what seems like the best explanation or answer. It is at this point where our biases can influence our conclusions. You are very aware of this, I believe.

Notice how you didn't say absolutely accurate or even simply "accurate"? That's the point. Despite the biases and skewing (which may be small or large in terms of their influences, the exact amount is never really known), we can still often have a highly accurate conclusion.

Thus, when you say

you are incorrect. Again, this critique is based on this dichotomy which is the basis for this disagreement.

You finish by saying

Well, do we ever really fully know if our conclusions are correct (especially in historical matters)? You said that "we are not talking about “complete knowledge” or “absolute knowledge,” yet you seem to be talking as if the problem with my points are that we might not be correct. That is, while you say "highly accurate," it seems like you mean to say "(absolutely) accurate." That is, you would be right if you were saying that the skewing and bias makes it impossible to be absolutely accurate (and you would be right), but that is not my claim.

My claim is that we can have highly accurate conclusions despite bias. How high our accuracy is may never be known, but the real question is how high is the accuracy compared to other conclusions (based on the data we have, skewed or not). The fact that there are disagreements only shows that the skewing and bias must exist, otherwise we would all come up with the same answers. Debate has to do with (intersubjectively) trying to get to the best answer possible, given our limited ability to be perfect.

So, we might have biased and skewed conclusions, but are your more skewed and biased or are mine more skewed and biased. That's the question. The fact that we may not be able to be sure one way or the other does not bother me so much as the fact that the people who tend to be sure about their conclusions tend to base that certainty on faith rather than skewed evidence.

Skewed evidence is better than faith any day.

I was wondering how it is that the "laws of logic" show his position to be false, even if you are correct that it is "self-stultifying"? As far as I can tell, you've been raising claims of undesirable consequences of Shaun's position, and then saying that means it must be false. But showing undesirable consequences of a proposition doesn't make it false.

Hi Shaun,

That is fine, I think you will see as we go on this doesn’t change the problem. The example could have been about anything.

Yes, quite correct.

As I said before, it is not his atheism that is in question, but his conclusion. He is asserting that the evidence is insufficient. Since all conclusions are based on skewed data and biased methodology, that conclusion is based on skewed data and biased methodology. Therefore, his conclusion can’t provide us with knowledge, his conclusion becomes nothing more than his statement of faith.

You have already admitted that your viewing of the evidence is skewed and any analysis of it is biased. How do you know the evidence is not their in front of your very eyes? Given your position you have no way of knowing. The idea that there can be real evidence and that you have the ability to recognize it, comes from my position. It is called “an objective viewing of the evidence.” There is no equivalent in your position.

Actually, it makes everything equally invalid, loosely speaking. I say that because valid and invalid are deductive terms, but I think we understand each other.

I have already agreed that someone can come to a correct conclusion by accident. I would disagree with the second part of your statement. It is not only hard to determine if the conclusion has any truth value, it is impossible. For, any attempt to evaluate the truth value of a conclusion will be skewed and biased itself and can do no more than produce another skewed and biased conclusion.

I understand that you may not like that implication, but your position makes is necessary. For if any of your conclusions can be not skewed and unbiased, then any and all of them can and we wouldn’t need to mess around with the skewed and biased ones in the first place.

Shaun, in the above paragraph you have a number of assertions. I will assume that you think you have reasons for them, so I will call them conclusions. I have marked them with a [C]. From your position, all of them are just as skewed and biased as any and all other conclusions. Their truth value remains unknown. Any of them that are true are so accidentally and can never be known to be true. Your position asserts that all conclusions are skewed and biased, that includes ALL of yours.

Here is the bottom line: From your position every point you make is biased, every fact you present is skewed and the truth value of any conclusion you draw is unknowable. This takes us to the next level: Your position, if true, makes communication impossible. You see, from your position, every time I read one of your conclusions, I necessarily read my own bias and skewing into it. There is no way for me to know if anything I read of yours is correctly understood by me. And, of course, the same is true vice versa.

Surely you are not saying that 50,000 Frenchmen can’t be wrong? Your position already tells us why all those people believe the same as you: They hold the same skewing and bias as you do. Consensus doesn’t make a conclusion true; it doesn’t even make it more likely. But do they really agree with you or are you just skewing your reading of them? You can never know.

This assumes that someone somewhere can objectively view the facts and then objectively compare them to someone else’s conclusions. Your position says no such person exists. And if such a person did exist, you would have no way of knowing who it is. It would also be the case that any conclusion he came to would be skewed by you and you would add your own bias when you read it. Therefore, you have no possible way of knowing if your above statement is true.

So you say, from your skewed and bias position.

So you say, from your skewed and biased position.

So you say from your skewed ad biased position.

I think you get the picture.

So, in your world is “it fails” any less certain than “it must fail”?

Do you know that objectively or are you merely expressing your bias?

You haven’t proven that “without objectivity we still go somewhere,” or “Objectivity is impossible.” You simply assert them. They are part of your statement of faith. And as we have seen , from your position you can’t prove them, because, from your position, you can’t prove anything.

The problem is, if you go over your own post, you have made dozens of truth claims. In the above couple of paragraphs you have declared as true “without objectivity we still go somewhere,”, “Objectivity is impossible,” and regarding my position, that “it fails.” Nowhere do you ever state, “I really don’t know if this is true, it’s just my best guess based on my skewing of the data and imposing my biases.”

But you can’t get out of the dilemma. You write, “Relativists don't say nothing is true, they say that if things are true, our ability to know it seems limited, so we may never, in fact, know what's true.” Is that statement true?

Is that statement true and do you know its true?

Is that statement true and do you know its true?

From your position, that includes everyone, including yourself and that statement.

G. Brady Lenardos

That was what my very first post was all about. You seem to have missed the point.

If we are subjects, thus have a subjective point of view, how do we get objectivity? Where does it come from?

We communicate (that is, we actually do. Look, I'm doing it right now). Therefore, we can call this intersubjectivity. It is the communication of multiple subjects, thue the "inter-" part of the word.

We do have answers. Whether they are actually true or not is irrelevant; we actually have them. All of my conclusions and your s are evidence of this. We don't have evidence that they are correct, at least not absolutely. But using communication and our subjective powers, we can figure out which ones work better.

You keep insisting on this objective method and objective (biasless) perspective. My simple question is where it comes from. Who has it. What person, or group of people, are not subjects?

Until you can answer that, the statement taht we get somewhere without objectivity holds. That is, it must hold until some objective perspective is demonstrated. That is, until the statement "objectivity is impossible" is disproven, the other statement ("we get somewhere without objectivity") holds.

Your whole response to me was a continuation of the misunderstanding of the position of relativism. ou still insist that the statements it makes are supposed to be absolute/true. You still insist that I say so from my own biased and skewed point of view.

That's exactly the point. taht's all I can do. But we still have answers that make more sense than others, not from an objective point of view, but one based on imperfect methodologies. It's all we have. Wanting more won't get them for you.

Sorry.

Shaun

Here is how I look at it, though perhaps I'm over-simplifying. Say we were both looking at an analog spedometer of a car. I say it says 58 mph, Bob says it says 57 mph. Which is right? Or is it maybe between the two, 57.5 mph? And say we were to look at the speedometer with a more and more precise microscope to where we get it down to, say, 57.55556 mph. Is that right? What if we get an even finer microscope? Eventually, we will hit upon quantum limitations to where we can't say exactly where the needle is. There literally is no EXACT answer as to what the speedometer reads.

But, some answers are better than other answers. If we ask 100 people, and 90 of them say 57 or 58, and the other 10 say it is somewhere between 55 and 60, it is fair to say an answer of 57 is a lot better answer than if one odd person somehow says 22. We can use probability and statistics to determine some answers are better than others even if there isn't any one exact answer.

That's the way I see it.

Yes. His entire argument is based on his flawed understanding of what the terms subjective and inter-subjective actually mean. As long as he holds to the false dichotomy of 'obejctive certainty' or 'absolute chaos" he'll continue to make the same errors here.

I don't think he's able to agree because that would require him to actually learn a bit about what he's arguing over...

based on the fact that we humans don't need 'perfect' answers.

If I want to determine whether a new desk will fit in my office, I don't need a perfect measure, I only need a measure within a certain margin of error.

This is how most human problems work: we only need meet a specified criteria - not 'perfection'

Brady's error is akin to holding to the idea that there is either perfection of measure, or utter and complete inability to know anything at all about the measure.

The mere fact that inductive statements are in doubt is not a reason to reject an inductive statement. This is basic error put forth by theists time and time again. Here we see yet another version of the same old error. The fact that we can doubt a conclusion is confused as a need to doubt everything entirely. The fact that we cannot be certain is confused as the belief that we cannot know anything.

Precisely. Hence here is the value of considering and examining bias in research.

Well put.

Right. He continually overstates the situation... his definition of 'objective' is too strong, his definition of 'subjective' is too weak. His understanding of induction is flawed - he overstates its abilities.

And he vastly overstates the concept of inductive uncertainty as if it implied utter epistemological chaos.

Precisely.

Until lenardos works out his errors, we'll see the same errors posted and reposted ad nauseum.

Sigh, this is getting really tiresome.

Let's try to put this little semantic quibble behind us and move on. If you were being honest, you would admit you know what I mean (or that you don't!) and address the issue (or ask what I mean). By "subject" here I mean an individual, a person, a being with conscious perspective, etc. This is how the term is used in philosophical language, especially existentialism. But, for the sake of argument, and to avoid this equivocation, let's call this being an individual.

Because this 'individual' is epistemologically separated from the rest of the world--that is he/she is not able to see phenomena from the perspective of other beings--it has a unique and limited source of information about the world. Due to imperfect hardware (the brain and its neural interconnections, icluding connections to sense organs), this being's unique, individual, spacio-temporally located processing mechanism for doing things like methodologies and inductive reasoning is simply flawed. It does not process the information from the world directly; that is, without the influence of pattern-creating, mistake-prone, and illusion/delusion-prone processes.

To a large degree, however, it does allow us to view the world relatively accurately. Otherwise, it probably would not have allowed us to survive the process of evolution, and we would be extinct. We know it works well enough to represent reality around us sufficiently to navigate the world. At the same time, there are some things the brain does that makes us conclude things erroneously. These are related to pattern-recognition processes gone in over-drive, and seeing, for example, purpose and intent in the non-animated world. It allows us to project our own experiences of consciousness onto non-embodied things, as well. Nietzsche also talked about how the concept of truth is based in error. With this I agree. If you are not familiar with Nietzsche, we'll just leave that alone as it involves too much explanation.

So that's the individual (or what I was calling the "subject" earlier).

The experience of being an individual among other individuals allows us to percieve that our conscious experience must differ from that of other similar beings. We can then conclude that what it is like to be me is not what it is to be like you. It simply seems like a safe bet. My brain is slightly different, I have different experiences, thus there would be differences. My set of experiences at time t would be called my conscious state, and my general experiences might be called, say my own personal individual experiences. For short, lets call it subjective experience. Call it whatever you want.

With our ability to make sounds, gestures, and marks on paper in addition to our ability to hear, see, and even feel, we can come up with symbols, signs, etc to stand for simple concepts. As we get better at it, we can get more refined at this "language" (we have to call it something). This process is also subject (and this time I am using the term in a different manner, I hope you are able to make the distinction) to these flaws in our brain-based perception, and we sometimes do not communicate very well. But when dealing with epistemologically separated individual symbol-based interaction (we could all this, say "inter-individualization" or something like that; perhaps "intersubjectivity" is better yet).

You cannot, and still be intellectually honest, avoid the fact that in no experience of any person on any planet in any galaxy that there is a possibility of objectivity. Even if telepathy were possible, this only extends the boundary of the subjective experience, If the whole universe shared one single consciousness, this would still be a subjective experience.

Objective experience is an absurd concept. It's like saying my perspective of my not-perspective. A does not equal ~A. My perspective cannot be that of something outside of myself. If it were, it would be part of me.

So if you hold that without objectivity, no communication or certainty is possible, then that must mean that you are not communicating nor are you even capable of even the least certain of conclusions. I might go as far as to say any perception of the world might even be impossible. You must be imagining your own thoughts. Descartes would be ashamed of you.

Um, no. It is simply based on an imperfect methodology. It is not a truth claim so much as it is an observation of some function of the world metaphysicalized (that is, by use of our mental powers of abstraction and projection) into an idea about how to explain what the world does.

It's just like saying that a scientific theory tries to explain the world rather than identify universal laws. In fact, that is almost perfectly analogous to the point in this discussion.

Youa re allowed to reject anything you like. But if you are going to reject it, reject it on its merits, not on the fact that you are continually trying to make this cute point about whatever I say being simply my own bias. The point is moot because it misunderstands what I'm saying. Your smarmy deflections of the actual question is not fooling me (or anyone else, methinks).

Shaun

I agree. The reason it is getting tiresome is because you just keep making the same assertions without showing how you get from point A (your preconditions) to point B (your conclusions). Take the following for example:

Here you have set out your precondition or working premise, if you prefer.

Here we have you conclusion. You will notice that there is no in-between. You have not shown how you get from flawed reasoning and mistake prone, illusion and delusion laden data to us having conclusions about the world with some good degree of accuracy.

But you try to offer some explanation:

The problem is that this doesn’t connect your precondition to your initial conclusion. This explanation is only an extension of your conclusion.

Let me simplify your above position:

1) Our data is flawed and our process for coming to conclusions is mistake prone and delusion/illusion prone.
2) Given 1) we can come to generally accurate conclusions.
3) We can tell our conclusions are accurate because if they weren’t we wouldn’t have survived.

If you feel I have misrepresented your above writings, please let me know.

You will notice that there is no argument connecting 1) to 2). Throughout this thread you have not given one, and there is no necessary or natural connection between 1) and 2). One might even say that as it stands, there is a disconnection. At first blush, it might occur to a reader that it is unreasonable to say that if all our data is flawed and our process is mistakes and delusion prone that any accurate conclusion, other than one accidentally occurring, would be possible.

Now, let’s take another precondition and exchange it for yours:

1) It is possible to limit the skewing of data to where it has no effect on the conclusion and it is possible to limit our bias to where it has no effect on our conclusion (this we call objectivity).
2) Given 1) we can come to generally accurate conclusions.
3) We can tell our conclusions are accurate because if they weren’t we wouldn’t have survived.

You will notice that regardless of the precondition, the extension of the conclusion still follows from the conclusion. There is no difference in either example, because the extension is not based on the precondition, but on the conclusion. So, the extension cannot be evidence of the truth of the precondition, it can only be evidence of the truth of the conclusion (if it can even do that).

You will notice something interesting about this second example. It seems that the conclusion flows from the precondition. If the data was not adversely skewed and the process used to reach a conclusion was not adversely biased, one would expect to have fairly accurate conclusions. If you were to apply Ockham's Razor to the above, which precondition would you say would win the day?

The second problem with your above position is that any case you make to bridge the precondition and the conclusion will self-stultify. As I have stated before if all data is flawed and all arguments are mistaken prone and delusion/illusion prone, so will your argument be. You can never know if your argument really gets you to your conclusion. Even if by chance some of your data is not flawed, you have no way to know which data is and which is not; your precondition does not allow you to know. If by chance your argument is not mistaken, you have no way to know that; your precondition does not allow you to know.

Simply because you believe your precondition and you believe your conclusion, doesn't mean that your conclusion actually follows from your precondition. In fact, it does not (or at least you can never know if it does).

The only real method you have to get from 1) to 2) is fideism.

Let’s stop here. I will address the rest of your post later, but I think if we can work through these two points we could actually make some progress.

G. Brady Lenardos

Because he doesn't know any better. His posts have proven your points Case: lenardos doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about....

Yeah, well, I knew that...

I bet when you wrote that you thought to yourself, “Boy, that sure sounds good!” And it does sound good. It is just too bad it has nothing to do with reality. When all you have is a self-stultifying position all you can do is either lie about your position or lie about my position. In this case you chose to lie about my position. “Objectivity” and “objective certainty” are two different things. The former deals with how we approach an argument or a study, the latter has to do with the quality of the conclusion. I have never said anything about objective certainty, except perhaps the implication of it in math. I have certainly (he he) never used it in connection with inductive studies.

On the other hand, the positions you have proposed here does, in principle and in fact, lead to nihilism.

The problem is it is a childish dichotomy that you made up. My position has been clearly stated. You just don’t like it. Too bad, get over it. You can’t defend your position, so you misrepresent mine and attack that made up position. This fallacy is called, “ A Straw man argument.” This is the kind of nonsense you find in freshmen debate club.

And which dictionary would that be? The last time we looked at a dictionary, you told me that all the dictionaries were wrong! I am beginning to see how your subjectivity affects you view of dictionaries. This is a perfect example for all to see of how you allow your subjective view to influence your conclusions. Let me put it is simple language:

When a dictionary agrees with todangst, his conclusion is, “Dictionary good.”
When a dictionary disagrees with todangst, his conclusion is, “Dictionary bad.”

I guess when dictionaries agree with you they are an unimpeachable source; and when they disagree with you, they are easily disposed in the nearest trash can.

But let’s get back to your position and its big, big problems. Even with all your many pages of writing, you failed to provide the link that Shaun could not provide. Show how skewed data and a biased process produce an accurate conclusion and not a skewed and bias conclusion. There is an old saying among programmers: GIGO, Garbage In, and Garbage Out. I guess they found out that if you input bad data or have a bad program, the results are going to be bad. Who would have thought it?

Oh, by the way, when we are talking about “skewed data,” we are not talking about sense perception limitations. That is another discussion. You are the one who insisted on the example of the Likert scale. It’s kind of hard to screw up that data collecting scale, even with bad vision and you don’t need a tape measure that measures to the 15th decimal place.

G. Brady Lenardos

No, Paul, that is not what I mean. I mean that given your position you can know nothing at all. Given your position, if anything you say you “know” has any correspondence to reality, it is merely an accident.

It sounds like a presuppositional argument because TAG and the problem we have been dealing with here have atheistic self-stultifying positions in common.

Please, we are not talking about brains in a vat; we are discussing the necessary implications of your “presupposition.” You and your colleagues have stated over and over that all data is necessarily skewed, all methods are necessarily biased, and that somehow, magically, the conclusions based on skewed data and biased methods turn out to be extremely accurate. I say “magically,” because, based on your premise, it would seem that the conclusion would be skewed and biased (i.e. inaccurate), but in your scenario, the opposite is true. And just like a magician, none of you can or will explain how the magic works. The other problem would be that any explanation would be based on skewed data and biased methods, which makes the explanation suspect. And of course any further attempt to “clarify” (todangst’s word) the initial explanation would also be suspect for the same reasons, and on and on it goes. Do you get the picture?

The only way to demonstrate your position is true is to do it from my position. But if you CAN do it from my position, your position must be false, for they are contradictory positions. This is what is known in logic as an indirect derivation. By proving a contradiction at the heart of a position contradictory to my own, my position is proved. If you have never studied sentential (propositional) logic, this might seem difficult to understand, but I assure you the conclusion follows necessarily.

The difference is that my position allows for the possibility of knowledge, your does not. Therefore, any evidence for knowledge is evidence for my position, and evidence against your position.

Actually, I have answered your question on numerous occasions, you just didn’t like the answer. Let’s look at our positions side by side:

Paul: Objectivity does not exist. Only subjectivity does exist.
Brady: Both objectivity and subjectivity exist.

Paul: All data must be skewed.
Brady: Data may or may not be skewed.

Paul: All methods of analysis must be biased.
Brady: Methods may or may not be biased.

Paul: Our conclusions are generally and mostly accurate, regardless of skewing and bias.
Brady: Conclusions where the data is not skewed and methods are not biased are accurate. The more skewing and bias that occurs, the more inaccurate the conclusion. Once again, it is possible to have an accurate conclusion with much skewing and bias, but the conclusion in this case is accurate by mere accident.

You have already admitted that your position is false when you admitted that math was objective. You admitted that adding 2+2=4 had no skewed data, and the method was not biased. You may say, “Oh, that is just math!” But it does prove that not ALL data must be skewed and ALL methods must be biased. That is all I need to show, in order to show your position false.

From my view, the rules of induction in the disciplines of Science, Law and History are there to help eliminate skewing and bias. The rules of induction are there to bring us to objectivity. From my position, there are times (far too many) when data is skewed and methods are biased, but they don’t have to be. The more skewing we get rid of and the more bias we eject from the mix, the more purposefully accurate the results.

Objectivity also does not mean the necessary elimination of all skewing and all bias. It just means that skewing and bias are sufficiently suppressed, so they will not effect the conclusion in any way.

This has been my position in all my writings to you. I believe that it is possible for you to collect and view the evidence for the resurrection without skewing it, and I believe you can use a method of analysis of that evidence that is unaffected by your bias or the bias of others. I believe I know what the conclusion of that process will be. That is all that I have asked you to do.

Up until now you have denied that was possible. I think I have proven your position is necessarily false. I hope you will reconsider.

G. Brady Lenardos

This is what is called a red herring. The answer to the brain in a vat question, regardless of which way it goes, it does not solve your problem. So, since you can’t give an answer to your problem, you try to change the subject. I’ll tell you what, I’ll hypothetically ascent to any position you want regarding the brain in a vat. Now show how skewed data and bias methods yield anything other than a skewed and biased conclusion.

If you go with the brain in vat theory, skewed data and biased methods won’t yield accurate conclusions, because there is no such thing as data, methods or conclusions. If nothing actually exists as we know it, your position is necessarily false.

If you go with the position that says we are not brains in vats, you still have to provide the proof. Something you cannot do. So, either way you lose.

And yes, if we are just brains in a vat, then I am wrong too! Where does that get you? Is this where your position forces you to go? Must you deny all reality in an attempt to redeem your position? An attempt that in the end still falsifies your position?

It seems that if the options are, Brady is right or we are all just brains in vats, you would happily embrace the latter. And this you believe is the “rational response.”

You just don’t get it. When we are talking about skewed data, we are not talking about sense perception limitations. Go back to the beginning of this discussion and read what we are talking about in regards to skewed data, its not sense perception limitations.

You can easily solve your problem by getting a digital speedometer.

How many times do I have to point out the equivocation? I tell you what, instead of using the words “subjective” and “subjectivity” in the above sentence, write out and replace them with what you mean by those words. Then read it back. See if it doesn’t sound as stupid to you, as it does to me, and if you can’t immediately see the answer.

Actually, you are once again wrong. In my view objectivity is possible. In my view a conclusion may be skewed and biased, but it doesn’t have to be. Even if a conclusion is biased, in my view, it is still possible to objectively analyze an argument, spot any skewing or bias and remove it.

The problem lies in your position. All conclusions must be skewed and bias and so must any analysis. This leads to utter nihilism.

G. Brady Lenardos

Is Lenardos STILL repeating that error?

Unbelievable....

No, I take that back.. completely believable. Case, this guy doesn't have a clue as to what he's talking about....

Isn't it painful having to point out the very point of your arguments to him?

Right, because perfection is not required.... a concept that alludes mr. Lenardos.

Yes. Again and again the 'painfully obvious' must be presented to Mr. Lenardos.

LOL Very nice, Case. Now watch and see who's the one being intransigent here....

I figured that sooner or later you'd get tired of having your ass handed to you and would pick a lame excuss to leave. I just didn't quite expect it to be *that* lame. You did notice I put "subjective" in quotes, which is a standard methodology to indicate you are going to using the word in a figurative manner. You know that, I know that. It was the cheapest, silliest excuse to pack up your marbles and run home I've seen in a long time.

And, for the record, while me, Shawn and Todangst generally agree on the subject of this thread, none of us are responsible for the others and have no obligation to present a consistent argument. It so happens that I believe that we generally have done so, but we have no obligation to do so.

Oh come now, you know what was meant. The meaning was that if I was a BIAV, and held your position, it would be at least as wrong if not more wrong than being a BIAV and holding my position. For I acknowledge that I have the assumption of not being a BIAV and acknowledge that my conclusions are based on that assumption, rather than relying on "magical knowledge" that I'm not a BIAV.

So long, Zorro. Bring your whip next time.

So, the question today is, is todangst permanently stuck on stupid or did he intentionally misrepresenting my position? Yes, I agree that the above false dichotomy is indeed false, but it is your false dichotomy, not mine; as I explained in the very next two sentences of my post that you didn’t quote, that is not my position.

So, is this what is thought to be “rational” here at the rational response squad? Since you can’t defeat my argument, you misrepresent it, then cherry pick half a quote out of context and say I agree with you?

Well, I think I have the answer to the question of the day. For you to intentionally misrepresent my position in both of the above cases, you would have to be beyond stupid, because anyone can go back, read the thread and see that false dichotomy was not my position and that I wasn’t agreeing with you on the second point.

If all you can do is misrepresent positions, you can play that game with someone else; you’re not worth talking to. If this is the apex of the rational thought at the rational response squad, then Christianity has nothing to worry about.

Z

P.S. Todangst is a doctoral student and is anything but stupid. Granted, there have been times when I felt his communication could stand improvement--but, in this particular case, the communication problem seems to be on your end as I don't think anybody else is having any trouble understanding.

Or.. here's a third option: that you don't know how to properly define the terms 'subjective' and 'objective' and that your flawed conceptualizations of those terms actually do lead you to a conclusion that even you, yourself recognize as ridiculous.

Allow me to demonstrate my point:

Either we have 'objective certainty' or complete nihilism

Your sense of the term 'objectivity' is more akin to 'objective certainty' than the actual reality of inter-subjectivity - that's the point of the 'scare quotes' around 'objective certainty' - i.e. that your definition basically leads you to something akin to certainty.

Here, just look:

But your definition is too strong. Objective processes themselves rely on processes such as categorization or operationizing - processes that are intersubjective. The way you phrase the concept does lead to a sort of 'certainty' that objective processes do NOT actually grant! We can't even make sense of the world at all without some preconception - some set of categories to break down the stream of consciousness into something sensible!

PS: 'Proofs' have to do with deductive processes.

And as for your sense of the term 'subjectivity' - your sense of the term just leads to nihilism.... So without realizing it, you are in fact affirming 'either 'objective certainty' or nihilism'

So this is where your error stems from. Let's continue:

First of all, YOU complaining about anyone else on earth ignoring your argument is hypocrisy. You've done nothing BUT dodge every refutation given to you! You didn't even concede any of the false dichotomies I demonstrated in your post... you just ran from them.

As for your claims, I didn't quote all of them, but I dealt with all of them. I'll post them all this time to prove it, to show that nothing changes.

No one has misrepresented your position. Allow me to prove it here. I will post your entire post, and demonstrate how nothing changes - perhaps you'll even come to see your error - that your claims DO lead to the ridiculous conclusion that even you yourself balk at...

You have not demonstrated that my position is self-stultifying. You merely assert it, based on your flawed understanding of the term 'subjective'. If you correct your erroneous perception of the term, the supposed 'self stultifying' nature of the concept disapears.

I am not lying about your position, but actually showing you that your own misperceptions of the terms lead to the very error I've declared.

We have demonstrated over and over how you define the term incorrectly. Your definitions imply a level of certainty that no inductive process can actually give. Again, your error is at the level of category conceptualization - you fail to realize that processes like categorization and operationizing are inter-subjective.

Our discussion has to do with historical artifacts. In this case, there is no such thing as 'objective certainty'. Any inductive claim is necessarily tentative. The only certaintly we have is deductive certainty, so I am glad that you realize that inductive processes cannot lead to certain conclusions. Bully for you.

However, none of this helps you, because again your definition of objective is still too strong as I have already demonstrated above, and your flawed definition does lead you to a conclusion that you yourself do not like. Furthermore, your error is based not only on getting the term 'objective' wrong, but in getting the term 'subjective' wrong as well.

Your definition of 'objective' was in fact too strong - as both Sean and I have pointed out for you, ad nauseum, but your real error comes from the fact that your definition of 'subjective' is too weak, as already pointed out to you numerous times. So it is your flawed understanding of both terms that leads you to your erroneous conclusions. You want to eradicate 'subjectivity' by calling it self stultifying... well, what's left then?

The reality is that what is left is what already actually does exist: the proper understanding of 'intersubjectivity'.

Again, for the 100th time, your error is that you create a false impression of subjectivity... interestingly enough, the terms 'flawed' and 'biased' themselves are subjective... and we can denote this simply by asking "how flawed' and "how biased"... questions that you yourself ought to have asked, for they would have given you the answer you seek:

what matters is how flawed or how biased the process is... whether the flawed, biased process is good enough for helping us solve our current problem. This is basic pragmatism, something a college freshman would know, so I would have forgiven you for not knowing it... except for the fact that both Sean and I have told you about this a dozen times by now.

Again, for the 100th time, here is the example that refutes you - just as it goes sailing over your head: human beings DO NOT REQUIRE PERFECT RESULTS IN THE FIRST PLACE. What we need is 'good enough' as per a current human need. A flawed, biased process may still be good enough.

Pragmatism rules the day - what solves problems is what 'works'

I do not need a measure of perfection - just something good enough.

So your entire argument DOES rest on a childish false dichotomy.... either perfection, or chaos. I am glad that you seem to at least be somewhat aware of your error, as per your acceptance of inducitive uncertainty - but you have not come far enough away from your errors as of yet. The reality is that 'good enough' is what we really need.

So you are not only wrong, but now owe me an apology. NOTHING in my argument has changed. ZERO.

But a Likert scale itself is a subjective measure! And the numbers in such a scale are not even ratio data!! You really don't know what you're talking about here at all.

PS IN the future, be thankful that people don't quote your posts entirely, it actually goes worse for you if they do.

Agreed. But notice that while Lenardos gives lip service to inductive uncertainty that his statements about 'objectivity' do in fact speak lead to something akin to 'objective certainty' i.e. the ability to think without preconceptions, the ability to eliminate bias... all of this would lead one to the 'one right answer'.... and the ability to know the 'thing in of itself' in a literal Kantian sense.

Yes, which basically implies 'objective uncertainty'

And we both already know that he's defined subjectivity as a form of nihilsim.

So he has actually employed the dichotomy that I have accused him of employing, and yet his revulsion in response to learning that his claims logically lead to this dichotomy is promising....

The line, "I don't have enough Faith to be an Atheist" is a popular catch-phrase of Christians. Its the title of a book, as you note, but I've also heard Christians say that to me as sort of an "F-U atheist!"

I haven't read that specific apologetic. I took a look at the customer reviews on amazon, and it basically sounds like "same old, same old". But, no, I can't give any direct specific information about the book or its claims.