Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?

[leibowde84]

You ague subjectivity is about uniqueness, and argue subjectivity is not about uniqueness, which is it?

I didn't say "uniqueness", I said "uniqueness of opinion". And, really, that is inly half of what i said. Opinions are always subjective, whether they are unique or not. Many people share opinions with others, but that doesn't mean that each opinion on its own is not subjective still. Do you disagree that opinion is subjective?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I didn't say "uniqueness", I said "uniqueness of opinion". And, really, that is inly half of what i said. Opinions are always subjective, whether they are unique or not. Many people share opinions with others, but that doesn't mean that each opinion on its own is not subjective still. Do you disagree that opinion is subjective?

What are you talking about? Is uniqueness an essential attribute to opinion or not?

It is not. Uniqueness in the universe is just a matter of the pauli exclusion principle, and interacting with the vacuum or whatever. It's just part of objective mathematics.

 

[leibowde84]

What are you talking about? Is uniqueness an essential attribute to opinion or not?

It is not. Uniqueness in the universe is just a matter of the pauli exclusion principle, and interacting with the vacuum or whatever. It's just part of objective mathematics.

I just explained this. Again, all opinion is subjective, which means that unique opinions are subjective necessarily. But, uniqueness is not a necessary condition for subjectivity in any way shape or form. As I said, people often share opinions with others. But, that doesn't mean their opinions aren't still subjective.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I just explained this. Again, all opinion is subjective, which means that unique opinions are subjective necessarily. But, uniqueness is not a necessary condition for subjectivity in any way shape or form. As I said, people often share opinions with others. But, that doesn't mean their opinions aren't still subjective.

Fine. But then why will you later again say that subjectivity is about uniqueness?

 

[leibowde84]

Fine. But then why will you later again say that subjectivity is about uniqueness?

I've never claimed that. I dont believe that, so there is no danger in the future. Again, I said that unique opinions are subjective, just as all other opinions are.

 

[leibowde84]

Fine. But then why will you later again say that subjectivity is about uniqueness?

Btw, this is ludicrous, as you are blaming me for your inability to read my comment closely. You are the one who claimed that I was saying that, I showed you why you were mistaken, and now am pointing out that you used the word initially.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I've never claimed that. I dont believe that, so there is no danger in the future. Again, I said that unique opinions are subjective, just as all other opinions are.

Since you previously indicated it is insane to reach a conclusion about honesty by choosing, you are not going to relate subjectivity to freedom. So in the future you will just relate subjectivity to uniqueness again, regardless of what you say here.

Leibowde wrote previously:

"Good" and "evil" are great examples too. It means that there are no absolutes in those contexts, and those notions are can change from person to person. What one considers "evil" might be different to another mind.

 

[leibowde84]

Since you previously indicated it is insane to reach a conclusion about honesty by choosing, you are not going to relate subjectivity to freedom. So in the future you will just relate subjectivity to uniqueness again, regardless of what you say here.

Leibowde wrote previously:

Why do you think the following comment claims that uniqueness is required?

"Good" and "evil" are great examples too. It means that there are no absolutes in those contexts, and those notions are can change from person to person. What one considers "evil" might be different to another mind.

 

[leibowde84]

Since you previously indicated it is insane to reach a conclusion about honesty by choosing, you are not going to relate subjectivity to freedom. So in the future you will just relate subjectivity to uniqueness again, regardless of what you say here.

Leibowde wrote previously:

No, you are confused again, I said that whether someone has been honest about something is an objective truth. Either they were, werent, or somewhere in between. Please don't dishonestly misquote me. It is very disturbing.

 

[leibowde84]

Since you previously indicated it is insane to reach a conclusion about honesty by choosing, you are not going to relate subjectivity to freedom. So in the future you will just relate subjectivity to uniqueness again, regardless of what you say here.

Leibowde wrote previously:

By the way, if you are referring to the judgment by someone of another's honesty, the process is obviously subjective. But, that is not related to what we were discussing. And, we made that very clear.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why do you think the following comment claims that uniqueness is required?

"Good" and "evil" are great examples too. It means that there are no absolutes in those contexts, and those notions are can change from person to person. What one considers "evil" might be different to another mind.

Because it relates different opinons to different people......and you previously said that it is insane that choosing is part of reaching a conclusion about honesty.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

By the way, if you are referring to the judgment by someone of another's honesty, the process is obviously subjective. But, that is not related to what we were discussing. And, we made that very clear.

You weave a web of untruths.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

You weave a web of untruths.

So sayeth the six legged spinner of falsehood and poisonous tongues.

 

[leibowde84]

You weave a web of untruths.

What is not true?

 

[leibowde84]

Because it relates different opinons to different people......and you previously said that it is insane that choosing is part of reaching a conclusion about honesty.

I never said that, and I have explained what I did actually claim several times. Please read this carefully. Whether someone is honest is either true or false, objectively. Obviously, though, as an observer, we all don't have that information. Thus, our opinion as to whether someone was honest is, of course, subjective. Do you disagree?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I never said that, and I have explained what I did actually claim several times. Please read this carefully. Whether someone is honest is either true or false, objectively. Obviously, though, as an observer, we all don't have that information. Thus, our opinion as to whether someone was honest is, of course, subjective. Do you disagree?

Yes of course I disagree. Now you have subjectivity as objective knowledge, which is private. Obviously now the definition of objectivity and fact is gone to hell as well. There is no common logic between arriving at a private fact and arriving at a scientific fact, they are completely different. So now you sold science down the river as well as religion, just so you can have private "factual" certitude, about what is honest.

I told you, subjectivity is related to freedom. The conclusion is chosen, and to have chosen the other alternative would be just as logically valid. Honest, or dishonest, ugly or beautiful, good or evil, the soul exists or the soul doesn't exist. For each of these choices, each opition is equally logically valid.

It is simply the truth that scientists reject subjectivity. You see Leibowde here, the only thing that science does for him in the head vs heart struggle, is to find sophisticated ways of rejecting subjectivity. Doing it in a more covert way, changing the meaning of subjectivity so that it is unrelated to freedom, so that he can still say he accepts subjectivity. This is certainly not better than the Sheldon character doing it in a crude straightforward way, telling women that they are in "fact" ugly.

If one thinks about it, one can see that it is mainly and only the perfectly ordinary heart vs head struggle which leads to societal catastrophies. Once people's emotions aren't acknowledged in a properly subjective way, then pretty much anything can happen, viz mass slaughter and stuff, and does happen. What is more important than being happy, having an emotional life, having an emotional bond with the wife, the kids and the parents, and God the creator? When you destroy subjectivity, then the whole house of cards collapses, obviously.

It is very obvious that nazism and communism, is what leads to attrocities. And likewise it is plain as day that the commonly human head vs heart struggle with science as a catalyst, amounts to the systematic destruction of any and all emotion. It is the most deadly ideology of any of them. That is what common sense says. Nazi's for as far as we feel they did have some emotion in them left, they are still human beings. This science ideology however, is much more coldhearted and killing than even nazism, when you look at the systematic way in which subjectivity is destroyed.

 

[leibowde84]

Yes of course I disagree. Now you have subjectivity as objective knowledge, which is private. Obviously now the definition of objectivity and fact is gone to hell as well. There is no common logic between arriving at a private fact and arriving at a scientific fact, they are completely different. So now you sold science down the river as well as religion, just so you can have private "factual" certitude, about what is honest.

I told you, subjectivity is related to freedom. The conclusion is chosen, and to have chosen the other alternative would be just as logically valid. Honest, or dishonest, ugly or beautiful, good or evil, the soul exists or the soul doesn't exist. For each of these choices, each opition is equally logically valid.

It is simply the truth that scientists reject subjectivity. You see Leibowde here, the only thing that science does for him in the head vs heart struggle, is to find sophisticated ways of rejecting subjectivity. Doing it in a more covert way, changing the meaning of subjectivity so that it is unrelated to freedom, so that he can still say he accepts subjectivity. This is certainly not better than the Sheldon character doing it in a crude straightforward way, telling women that they are in "fact" ugly.

If one thinks about it, one can see that it is mainly and only the perfectly ordinary heart vs head struggle which leads to societal catastrophies. Once people's emotions aren't acknowledged in a properly subjective way, then pretty much anything can happen, viz mass slaughter and stuff, and does happen. What is more important than being happy, having an emotional life, having an emotional bond with the wife, the kids and the parents, and God the creator? When you destroy subjectivity, then the whole house of cards collapses, obviously.

It is very obvious that nazism and communism, is what leads to attrocities. And likewise it is plain as day that the commonly human head vs heart struggle with science as a catalyst, amounts to the systematic destruction of any and all emotion. It is the most deadly ideology of any of them. That is what common sense says. Nazi's for as far as we feel they did have some emotion in them left, they are still human beings. This science ideology however, is much more coldhearted and killing than even nazism, when you look at the systematic way in which subjectivity is destroyed.

Again, you are just hearing what you want to hear. I clearly said that we are discussing 2 distinct occurrances. One is objective and the other is subjective. There is no mixing of the two and both subjectivity and objectivity are obviously present and distinct.

Look below:

A says that the earth is flat like a pancake. He knows this is false. As an omnicient observer, was A dishonest? Yes, indisputably. (Objective fact)

B hears A say this, and assumes that A knows, in fact, that the moon is spherical. B's opinion is that A was being dishonest. (Subjective).

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Again, you are just hearing what you want to hear. I clearly said that we are discussing 2 distinct occurrances. One is objective and the other is subjective. There is no mixing of the two and both subjectivity and objectivity are obviously present and distinct.

Look below:

A says that the earth is flat like a pancake. He knows this is false. As an omnicient observer, was A dishonest? Yes, indisputably. (Objective fact)

B hears A say this, and assumes that A knows, in fact, that the moon is spherical. B's opinion is that A was being dishonest. (Subjective).

Huh, now suddenly A is an omniscient observer??? You think making the observer omniscient is going to change the logic??? You think you have an argument because you mention both the terms objective and subjective in an accepting way???

Honesty is never a matter of fact, it is not a material attribute. One can only arrive at the conclusion of honesty / dishonesty, by choosing it, and either conclusion is logically valid, just as the painting is beautiful and ugly is logically valid.

See, this is man under the influence of science, as a catalyst for his weakness to make good and evil into a fact. It is totally whack, everything goes to hell. Not just subjectivity goes to hell, objectivity, science goes to hell as well, just like it did with social darwinism. Now fact is defined in terms of the fact of "honesty". You can't really do any mathematics, or make any models with such a whack understanding of fact.

 

[leibowde84]

Huh, now suddenly A is an omniscient observer??? You think making the observer omniscient is going to change the logic??? You think you have an argument because you mention both the terms objective and subjective in an accepting way???

Honesty is never a matter of fact, it is not a material attribute. One can only arrive at the conclusion of honesty / dishonesty, by choosing it, and either conclusion is logically valid, just as the painting is beautiful and ugly is logically valid.

See, this is man under the influence of science, as a catalyst for his weakness to make good and evil into a fact. It is totally whack, everything goes to hell. Not just subjectivity goes to hell, objectivity, science goes to hell as well, just like it did with social darwinism. Now fact is defined in terms of the fact of "honesty". You can't really do any mathematics, or make any models with such a whack understanding of fact.

You did not specify that you were referring to "reaching the conclusion of honesty". You merely mentioned the subject of honesty in general.

More importantly, I have clarified this many times in this very conversation. So, my real question is this:

Why are you always so hesitant to reconsider your understanding of posters' comments? I completely understand asking for clarification, but you have to be at least willing to take them at their word when it comes to subjective matters (matters of opinion).

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Folks think philosophy isn't relevant, but it is very relevant within the context of specific applications. Then again, I'm probably biased there because of personal experience.

The great physicist John Archibald Wheeler once said “Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers”. While I may disagree with Wheeler about the relevance and importance of philosophers, I certainly agree about the importance of philosophy.