04-09-2003, 06:35 PM
Hi,
Therefore if I am of the extreme opinion that the sky is not blue, I simply have to disagree with the idea that the short end of the visible spectrum is in fact blue.
And if I call a stone a scone, will it then nourish me? That we call that part of the visible spectrum with the shortest wavelengths "blue" is meaningless. Any other sound with the same significance would do as well. That is the kind of pointless semantic discussion the Greeks (Socrates in particular) loved, playing with definitions. Educated people for the last few hundred years have gotten well beyond that. Yes, if you redefine "blue" to mean "a piece of furniture to sit on", then indeed the sky is not blue and ads will sell you a set of table and four blues. But our good friend Reverend Dodgson did a better job of parodying that outlook than I could ever do. :)
Regardless of what we call it, of what units we measure in, the peak of the spectrum of the daylight sky stays the same. To deny it, as to deny the (mostly) spherical nature of the Earth is not tenable. If you are implying that some people are mentally unsound, that is fine. If you are implying that we should then give those people's opinions equal weight with those of sound mind, then I strongly disagree.
How many flawed perceptions does it take before it becomes truth? . . . I'm just pointing out when ideas are less obvious than the color of the sky, the problem of finding the real truth becomes even more difficult.
As I've said, matters of fact, matters of opinion. No one is entitled to an opinion in matters of fact. The world *is* round. The battle of Agincourt *was* fought. And so forth. No amount of opinion will ever make the beauty of the Mona Lisa "true" or "false". It will always remain a matter of opinion. In (valid) opinion, there is no true or false, just more or less defensible. On the other hand, no amount of opinion will change the fact of the *existence* of the Mona Lisa. Solipsism aside, it exists. It is there.
We have to start defining everything, and soon apathy sets in. As in our previous example, a definition of the term, blue, is required by both sides of the argument.
That people in a discussion need to agree on the terms they are using is so basic that it barely needs saying. Of course the semantics must be established. That is almost trivial. Hence the often heard "that's just semantics", which is both a valid and a poor claim. Valid, in that semantics is not worth really arguing about. Some compromise can be easily reached, even if it involves inventing new terms or (as the education people love to do) stringing together a bunch of polysyllabic words. It is a poor claim in that semantics is never a "just". Like a building without foundations, an argument where the semantics haven't been settled soon falls down.
I don't see the relationship between moderation and apathy. Moderation seems to be an attempt to maintain a sense of balance. Apathy would be no attempt at fomenting any opinion at all, and as you say accomplish nothing. I do not see how moderates 'desire' is to accomplish nothing. Maybe I'm missing something there.
Bad semantics on my part ;)
I used the word "moderation" in a moment of metal weakness. I meant by it your "Here's how I choose to live. Take the extremes of both sides and cut them in half. The truth is not far away." but that is really a misuse of "moderate". Since I do not know of any appropriate term, then let me call it "averagate". So, take my statement and replace every occurrence of "moderate" with "averagate", thereby removing the connotations associated with "moderate".
By taking the position that the middle is right, then you take no position at all. What is the averagate position on abortion? On the death penalty? On affirmative action?
Since so many things have no averagate mean, then an averagate cannot have a meaningful opinion on them. That is in effect the same as having no opinion at all, which brings us back to apathy. Except that an averagate is an apathetic person with a rational -- or so it seems to me.
I would put forward that truth is only attainable when everyone observes the same event in the same way, which can never happen. The only truth then would be individual in nature.
Sorry, I disagree. The "truth" of your opinions is indeed personal, in that matters of opinion do not have a "truth" associated with them. The truth of past events, of scientific observation, etc. is beyond rational doubt. The existence of people who claim that gravity does not exist does not keep dropped glasses from breaking. While earlier you rejected relativism as being foolish, here you seem to embrace it fully. I think you might want to reflect on your belief system, for it seems to embody paradoxes. If you are comfortable with them, by all means enjoy. But if you are looking for a consistent world view, then you might want to replace some of what you believe.
--Pete
Therefore if I am of the extreme opinion that the sky is not blue, I simply have to disagree with the idea that the short end of the visible spectrum is in fact blue.
And if I call a stone a scone, will it then nourish me? That we call that part of the visible spectrum with the shortest wavelengths "blue" is meaningless. Any other sound with the same significance would do as well. That is the kind of pointless semantic discussion the Greeks (Socrates in particular) loved, playing with definitions. Educated people for the last few hundred years have gotten well beyond that. Yes, if you redefine "blue" to mean "a piece of furniture to sit on", then indeed the sky is not blue and ads will sell you a set of table and four blues. But our good friend Reverend Dodgson did a better job of parodying that outlook than I could ever do. :)
Regardless of what we call it, of what units we measure in, the peak of the spectrum of the daylight sky stays the same. To deny it, as to deny the (mostly) spherical nature of the Earth is not tenable. If you are implying that some people are mentally unsound, that is fine. If you are implying that we should then give those people's opinions equal weight with those of sound mind, then I strongly disagree.
How many flawed perceptions does it take before it becomes truth? . . . I'm just pointing out when ideas are less obvious than the color of the sky, the problem of finding the real truth becomes even more difficult.
As I've said, matters of fact, matters of opinion. No one is entitled to an opinion in matters of fact. The world *is* round. The battle of Agincourt *was* fought. And so forth. No amount of opinion will ever make the beauty of the Mona Lisa "true" or "false". It will always remain a matter of opinion. In (valid) opinion, there is no true or false, just more or less defensible. On the other hand, no amount of opinion will change the fact of the *existence* of the Mona Lisa. Solipsism aside, it exists. It is there.
We have to start defining everything, and soon apathy sets in. As in our previous example, a definition of the term, blue, is required by both sides of the argument.
That people in a discussion need to agree on the terms they are using is so basic that it barely needs saying. Of course the semantics must be established. That is almost trivial. Hence the often heard "that's just semantics", which is both a valid and a poor claim. Valid, in that semantics is not worth really arguing about. Some compromise can be easily reached, even if it involves inventing new terms or (as the education people love to do) stringing together a bunch of polysyllabic words. It is a poor claim in that semantics is never a "just". Like a building without foundations, an argument where the semantics haven't been settled soon falls down.
I don't see the relationship between moderation and apathy. Moderation seems to be an attempt to maintain a sense of balance. Apathy would be no attempt at fomenting any opinion at all, and as you say accomplish nothing. I do not see how moderates 'desire' is to accomplish nothing. Maybe I'm missing something there.
Bad semantics on my part ;)
I used the word "moderation" in a moment of metal weakness. I meant by it your "Here's how I choose to live. Take the extremes of both sides and cut them in half. The truth is not far away." but that is really a misuse of "moderate". Since I do not know of any appropriate term, then let me call it "averagate". So, take my statement and replace every occurrence of "moderate" with "averagate", thereby removing the connotations associated with "moderate".
By taking the position that the middle is right, then you take no position at all. What is the averagate position on abortion? On the death penalty? On affirmative action?
Since so many things have no averagate mean, then an averagate cannot have a meaningful opinion on them. That is in effect the same as having no opinion at all, which brings us back to apathy. Except that an averagate is an apathetic person with a rational -- or so it seems to me.
I would put forward that truth is only attainable when everyone observes the same event in the same way, which can never happen. The only truth then would be individual in nature.
Sorry, I disagree. The "truth" of your opinions is indeed personal, in that matters of opinion do not have a "truth" associated with them. The truth of past events, of scientific observation, etc. is beyond rational doubt. The existence of people who claim that gravity does not exist does not keep dropped glasses from breaking. While earlier you rejected relativism as being foolish, here you seem to embrace it fully. I think you might want to reflect on your belief system, for it seems to embody paradoxes. If you are comfortable with them, by all means enjoy. But if you are looking for a consistent world view, then you might want to replace some of what you believe.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?