What is a good argument?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 08:46 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;108816 wrote:


But Reconstructo believes that intersubjectivty = objectivity. At least this is what I think he is insinuating. And this I think is not true. I think that what is objective is true regardless who believes it.



What about my example of the color red? If normal people under normal circumstances believe that an object is red, then isn't it red?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 08:52 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108819 wrote:
What about my example of the color red? If normal people under normal circumstances believe that an object is red, then isn't it red?


You're saying that in this case intersubjectivity = objectivity? Can something be objectively red, independent of our perceiving? That's a good question, I think. Color is one of those peculiar things, which is why I made that thread on it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 09:17 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;108820 wrote:
You're saying that in this case intersubjectivity = objectivity? Can something be objectively red, independent of our perceiving? That's a good question, I think. Color is one of those peculiar things, which is why I made that thread on it.


Colors seem to be quasi-objective. We accept that something is red if it appears red to the normal observer under normal conditions of observation. Something like this may be true about value properties too, like good. Of course, if our criterion for color turns out to be the wave length an object emits, that is something else again. Then, any kind of subjectivity (including intersubjectivity) goes out the window.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 09:23 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108827 wrote:
Colors seem to be quasi-objective. We accept that something is red if it appears red to the normal observer under normal conditions of observation. Something like this may be true about value properties too, like good. Of course, if our criterion for color turns out to be the wave length an object emits, that is something else again. Than any kind of subjectivity (including intersubjectivity) goes out the window.


Yes, and this is why I didn't directly answer your question. I am still researching color myself. (I have been since I made that thread).
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 09:27 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;108829 wrote:
Yes, and this is why I didn't directly answer your question. I am still researching color myself. (I have been since I made that thread).


This is an interesting issue. Should science (in this case) supersede how we ordinarily think and talk about this matter?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 10:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108832 wrote:
This is an interesting issue. Should science (in this case) supersede how we ordinarily think and talk about this matter?


We are aware of color disorders, and we know that people with color disorders experience color in ways a person that experiences color normally would not. Despite this, we would still say the coat is red, if everyone agreed the coat was red under normal conditions, even if that one person (out of hundreds of thousands) saw it as green. So, no, I don't think what is discovered by science supersedes how we ordinarily think about color. It certainly gives us something to think about, though.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 10:07 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;108843 wrote:
We are aware of color disorders, and we know that people with color disorders experience color in ways a person that experiences color normally would not. Despite this, we would still say the coat is red, if everyone agreed the coat was red under normal conditions, even if that one person (out of hundreds of thousands) saw it as green. So, no, I don't think what is discovered by science supersedes how we ordinarily think about color. It certainly gives us something to think about, though.


I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:11 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108845 wrote:
I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length.



And what makes you think it doesnt?

Science is what found out that different mediums promote different perceptions.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:20 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;108893 wrote:
And what makes you think it doesnt?

Science is what found out that different mediums promote different perceptions.


What makes you suppose I supposed it didn't?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:29 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;108845 wrote:
I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length.



So I ask you: When has science not taken physiology into consideration?

If you dont agree with what you said then why say it in the first place?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:41 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;108898 wrote:
So I ask you: When has science not taken physiology into consideration?

If you dont agree with what you said then why say it in the first place?


When did he say that there was a time when science did not take physiology into consideration? He just said he supposes they do have take physiology into consideration. Not every supposition has a hidden implication.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:45 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;108899 wrote:
When did he say that there was a time when science did not take physiology into consideration? He just said he supposes they do have take physiology into consideration. Not every supposition has a hidden implication.



And thats the point.

WHY SAY IT AT ALL IF ITS A USELESS STATEMENT THAT HE DOESNT ACTUALLY BELIEVE?


How bout an example: Zetherin should take words into consideration before reading a sentence.

Now I dare you to ask me when you didnt...
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:48 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;108900 wrote:
And thats the point.

WHY SAY IT AT ALL IF ITS A USELESS STATEMENT THAT HE DOESNT ACTUALLY BELIEVE?


What is a useless statement he doesn't actually believe? It makes more sense that he does believe it, since he supposes it. Usually when I say, "I suppose", I am saying I believe or think said thing.

To go back for a moment, this is what he said:

kennethamy wrote:
I suppose that science has to take physiology into consideration, and not simply wave length


What about it is useless? Which part do you think he doesn't believe, and why?
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 12:58 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;108901 wrote:
What is a useless statement he doesn't actually believe? It makes more sense that he does believe it, since he supposes it. Usually when I say, "I suppose", I am saying I believe or think said thing.

To go back for a moment, this is what he said:



What about it is useless? Which part do you think he doesn't believe, and why?



I just asked him and he said he doesnt believe the implication.

And the implication is that at one point science didnt take physiology into consideration.

How can you not see how useless it is?

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?
 
Emil
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 01:09 pm
@Kielicious,
Kielicious;108905 wrote:
I just asked him and he said he doesnt believe the implication.

And the implication is that at one point science didnt take physiology into consideration.

How can you not see how useless it is?

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?


What is useless is your misunderstanding of what he wrote. Smile
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 01:13 pm
@Emil,
Emil;108911 wrote:
What is useless is your misunderstanding of what he wrote. Smile


And the energy devoted to this tempest in a teapot. Shall we drop it, and I'll admit to anything I am required to admit.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 01:14 pm
@kennethamy,
Kielicious wrote:

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?


Just because a statement is obvious doesn't mean it's meaningless. In fact, many obvious statements are meaningful -- they help remind us of things we sometimes forget whilst philosophizing.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 01:15 pm
@Emil,
Emil;108911 wrote:
What is useless is your misunderstanding of what he wrote. Smile


Enlighten me then...
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:01 pm
@kennethamy,
Kielicious wrote:

It's like going up to Peyton Manning and saying, "you have to take the other team into consideration..." The implication is that Manning doesnt take the other team into consideration, but if there isnt an implication -as you two seem to think- then tell me how is it a meaningful statement and not completely obvious?


What is a good analogy is two football fans, or announcers, talking about what they think Manning should do. They may say, "Yeah, I suppose Manning has to take into consideration player X who is usually really good at tackling quarterbacks right off the line". If someone said this, would you think it implied that Manning usually doesn't take into consideration opponents that tackle him while he's about to throw the ball? I don't think so necessarily -- they could sincerely just be supposing this is what he should do.

Again, not every supposition has a hidden implication.
 
Kielicious
 
Reply Mon 7 Dec, 2009 02:13 pm
@Kielicious,
I cannot understand why there is so much animosity towards my questioning of Ken's statement. The implication was there, so I asked. When I found out he didnt intend for there to be an implication, I then asked to what value his statement was and I have yet to receive an answer -even from the person who stated it! (yes Im looking at you Ken). You guys want me to back down and stop questioning such useless statements? Fine. I guess I hold such discussions (especially in a philosophy forum) to higher standards than others on here. So instead of continuing this verbal vomit we call a conversation, I will end by preaching to the choir so as to make everyone a little more comfortable: dont forget that the earth isnt flat!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 10:31:39