Keith Russell

Hugo:

As I said before, I have read many of the articles previously, but I hadn't seen a concise listing of all of them in one place.

Of the ones I've read, I didn't find any of them challenging, convincing, or--IMO--very well argued.

You said:
"If we use signs [could you mean 'symbols'?] to describe "reality" we have no way to be certain of their correspondence; it is trivial to then shrug and say that nothing can be proven or known with certain, as this is a necessary limitation of the semiotic system employed."

Human beings design the symbols we use, and we decide to which objects, events, or concepts they shall refer. How, then, can we have no way to be certain of their correspondence? You have rightly asked Primal to prove his claims, perhaps you could prove this one?

Also, I would still like to hear your definition of 'subjectivism'.

Thanks.

Keith.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Hugo Holbling

Keith:

No - i'm concerned with semiotics.

Nice try, but i'm not making an epistemological claim. Have a look at this:

As i said clearly enough before, recognizing the limitations of a methodology does not entail making an epistemological claim. If you still think it does, why not ask any and all scientists you know to prove epistemological nihilism?

Try this explanation of subjectivism on for size, then:

You're welcome to try and contest this if you like, and thereby prove it is self-defeating. Primal can try too - let's invite the whole family!

Not to worry. So are you still an objectivist?

Primal

Hugo the conclusion to be reached is quite obvious.

The "lurkers" also notice how you keep avoiding my actual arguments btw and any logical refutation.


It says all knowledge is subjective, it thus follows that knowledge of something "external"or objective does not follow by definition. The process it called deduction Hugo and it really isn't that complex at all, I bet even you can apply it in fact.

Again you avoid my argument.


Hugo that was my original point. You would know this had you paid attention to my first post on this issue. Again that's a nice way of avoiding a logical argument btw Hugo.


DUH! Hugo I had already said this. Look at my post on page two, this very topic. Do you lack a memory?

Also remember whenever you say "inconsistent" you must say "compared to what". Obviously then within the subjectivist vacuum nothing can ever be "inconsistent" because the subjectivist can deny this. Hence what I am saying is that subjectivism then is inconsistent with logic and funamentally wrong.


Because logic itself would be an objective system and logical proof is objective. In logic, believe it or not Hugo, proof is demanded in order to establish a position.


I've already adressed this several times Hugo. Again do you lack a memory? The two are not well divided and even if they were how could a subjectivist say he or she lacks "objective knowledge" but has "knowledge of something objective"? That makes no sense Hugo.


I don't really care about Wittgenstein and haven't taken the time out to read everything the guy wrote. Why don't you, if he thinks he makes a good argument present it instead of throwing out red herrings? Do you know your Kent Hovind? You Caleb Car? Your Paul Kurtz? Your Paul Churchland? And your Frank Sulloway, Hugo?

I hate having to say this: but a toddler can repeat himself too Hugo, that doesn't make him right. Refute my argument concerning this or kindly STFU.

Again Hugo the line here is very thin. Please stop merely repeating yourself. If truth is all relative and no one claim really reflects "reality" then how can it really be called "knowledge"? In essence all claims, both nihilism and relativism are saying all opinion are equal.


Feeling's mutual Hugo. But keep in mind that blank charges of fallacy and arguments from mere incredulity are very cheap imitations.

The article says that for a claim to be "subjective" it must only be about the subjective. And I must note that I am obviously not as good at "selective culling" as you dear Hugo.

The entire paragraph from the article.

Note that in the entire article found here: <a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/subjecti.htm" target="_blank">http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/subjecti.htm</a>

There is no distinction made between "epistemological" and metaphysical subjectivism at all. Suggesting that Hugo may have merely made such categorical divisions up.


My arguments against subjectivism equally apply to constructivism. Again, why don't you confront my actual arguments instead of changing the subject Hugo?

According to who Hugo, you? Actually this is what subjectivists are often saying. Nice pseudorefutation, try again.

Maybe he doesn't but people that go by reason and evidence actually do.


Yes Hugo I know, every argument you can't refute stems from a misunderstanding of what "true" subjectivism is....according to Hugo. Why don't you go back instead Hugo and see what I wrote about your "penetrating" refutation?


Whoa, calm down macho man. Again Hugo you totally avoid actually trying to refute my post and instead talk about how I "made the opponets argument up" you base this alllegation on what support? Nothin. I'm glad you admit that I'm beating subjectivism though, even if you don't think I'm attacking "true subjectivism according to Hugo."


Hugo that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard but I'll give it a shot.

Premise 1: Objectivism maintains that there is a right and wrong.

Premise 2: The subjectivist claims he is right.

Premise 3: The objectivist maintains that the subjectivist is wrong.

Conclusion: There is an inconsistency between Premise 1 and.....wait it's not there. So much for that plan Hugo.

If I were you right now Hugo, I'd check my ears, since I'd be feeling like a total ass at this point.

Ah, and your re-inventing the wheel..... incorrectly. Again I do not see your pseudorefutation as authoritative Hugo.


Because you bring in zero support for your points, meaning you don't have a case at all much less one that demans a probing criticism. All you are doing is repeating yourself like a broken record.

So engaging in childish insults is what courage is to you Hugo? Gee, if only men like you were in every field of science, we'd see articles in Scientific American like "Why Einstein needs a backbone".

Oh yes, Hugo you offended my vanity so deeply, because you know how much I care about your opinion of me.

BTW, nice job of NOT refuting my arguments. You should apply for a job at ICR.


You make it too easy Hugo. You really do. But I will be strong and refrain.

In any case, one doesn't have to be a father to realize when another has "blundered" as you put it.

This isn't high school Hugo and accusing me of ignorance is again, a pseudorefutation. I mean, you're a regular case study for CSICOP aren't you Hugo?

A little late to be giving me warnings about insults Hugo. That's kinda like shooting someone before saying "freeze!".

Also, why don't you actually confront my arguments instead of changing the subject and acting like a snob. :idea:

I mean you are after all someone arguing on a Message Board, I don't see why you think that makes you all high and mighty.

I explain it clearly enough for anyone who is actually willing to examine what I say instead of glancing over it. In any case you miss my point; My failure to answer your request for an explanation does not equate to a refutation. I am not going to stand here all day explaining every little thing you don't want to believe in a dozen different ways. Real refutations requires logical cricism Hugo.


LOL. No assumptions or ad homineds there.

WTF is an "online dictionary type"? And what does consulting a dictionary have to do with thinking for one's-self? Would being an "independent" thinker involve making up words Hugo?

Also what do you mean by "homework"? On the one hand you say I shouldn't consult outside sources like "online dictionaries" which can be seen as the most accessible and up-to-date. On the other hand you want me to be spoon spend from sources you think count as homework.


quote:


Really is there any need to yell Hugo? Again, you have yet to prove I am attacking a straw man, in fact this is the very issue being debated.

Why don't you go back and look at the argument you are attacking, and see how objectivists would fit into your definition of subjectivism.


Kinda like a monkey typing isn't it? Hugo has learned the word "straw man" and can't seem to get beyond it.

Again Hugo whether I am attacking a straw man or not, and please pay attention cause I don't want to have to explain myself again; IS EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DEBATED.

To argue that I attacked a "straw man" because my definitions were a "straw man". Is not too convincing an argument Hugo.


Or so you say.....for the umpteenth time while giving no evidence for this claim.

Dunno, I'm guessing a personal problem.


Your fundemantalist menatlity maybe. You seem to have other motives though I can't imagine what they are, all I know is that they don't seem to be based on reason or evidence.


Yeah and that last statement has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. btw Hugo. The fact is metaphysics and epistemology are sometimes closely related.

Also your first statement assumes subjectivism is wrong, making for a poor defence of it.


Funny how people like Hugo always avoid making a valid criticism and ignore obvious ideas that run through the statements of certain schools of thought.

You want the proof Hugo? I have already given it. In essence though both schools of thought, subjectivism and relativism, are saying that axioms and fundamental standards are all matters of opinion or preference. That there is no right or wrong.


Hugo your jokes about "doing homework" get a little old after, what? The third time or so.

Again, did you actually REFUTE a single thing or change the subject?

Also you seem to be attacking me on the basis that relativists and subjectivists don't say these things verbatim. Which is a straw man Hugo, as I am defining them by what ideas they express in this manner not how they describe themselves verbatim.


Nice try but no cigar? Jokes from the 50s now in a serious intellectual discussion?


The Burden of proof isn't always on the side of the nay-sayer Hugo. It also requires that once a claim or argument is made it be properly refuted. This is where creationists for example "bluster" when they attack evolutionary theory, in that their criticisms are way off the mark and never fully supported. Kind of like your own.

I have proven that subjectivism is self-refuting using logic. You have merely rejected my definition of subjectivism as a "Straw man" on the basis of your own definition which is way to vague and would cover most obectivist positions.

Straight from the horses mouth. Again this was a lame attempt to avoid actually having to make a valid criticism and instead offer one on pure incredulity. It is I Hugo that ask you either "put up or shut up" valid cricisms on how my arguments are flawed, instead of merely challenging my definitions in a circular manner.

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

John Page

I honestly looked but couldn't find the refutation you reference. Would it perhaps be your subjective opinion that you had provided such an analysis? Your statement implies you believe that logic provides completely objective truths, whereas they are are only truths within the scope of the system of logic you intend.

If you are claiming that subjectivism is claiming a truth about the world and therefore contradicts itself into an objectivist position, this can easily be countered by observing that subjectivist claims are unproven.

A truth, therefore, can be accorded a degree of subjectivity/objectivity depending upon the range of circumstances under which the truth has been tested and the system under which it must hold.

Of course, this is my humbly subjective opinion since I do not know exactly how it is that I know what I know. I guess that's just epistomolgy for you.

Cheers, John

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Kantian

Don't hold your breath, John. If you have read the entire thread, to date all Primal has done is kick up a storm of dust and complain that nobody can see.

~Transcendentalist~

Hugo Holbling

Primal:

Okay: i'm happy that there's nothing more i can do to help you here. I'm also happy for everyone following this thread to make up their own minds as to how the debate has fared, and how thoroughly you have trounced me. I leave it to you to claim victory.

In the meantime, i'm going to stick with my criticism that your definition of subjectivism is poor and not one used by philosophers. If you look at my reply to Keith you'll see that i have offered a definition actually in use. I'd be interested in seeing you demonstrate that it is self-refuting. If you cannot or will not, i'd like to know why your mockery of an attempt is more accurate, and on what grounds you would base this claim. Notice i already said that my definition is in use by scientists who apparently understand philosophy, unlike your good self.

John Page:

Well... i hate to break it to you, but you must be a dunderhead like me, because Primal has clearly shown all his arguments to hold and all mine to be sheer nonsense. If you can't see this, why are you in the philosophy forum? This place is for deep thinkers like Primal, and if you should stray here you may get burned by the fire of his obvious intelligence, wit and erudition.

As a mathematician, i formerly understood this to be the case. However, that was before i was re-educted by Primal's immense intellect. I suggest you follow suit.

LOL! Just remember that your opinion is therefore self-refuting!

Kantian:

Evidently you're just as thick as John and i, if you can't see that subjectivism has been refuted. I hope there are others out there like Primal who can make the world safe for Reason, while the rest of us merely stumble along, being refuted as we go.

[ October 11, 2002: Message edited by: Hugo Holbling ]</p>

Keith Russell

Hugo:

You may be concerned with semiotics; I'm not.

You can claim that we can know that other individuals, organisms, or species perceive [colours, for instance] than I, 'we', or 'humanity' does, but these others are 'extra-dermal' as well.

If we cannot validate extra-dermal colours, how can you make claims about the perceptual differences of other, 'extra-dermal' consciousnesses?

Lastly, I have never been an objectivist. I am an Objectivst.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Keith:

Uh... when did i make these claims again?

So tell me: is subjectivism still self-refuting?

Ah, my mistake.

Huh? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

Keith Russell

Hugo, try to keep up.

You said, quoting 'Clark':
Subjectivists need not define colors as "internally generated qualities that the animal simply projects onto the world", and do not endorse the view that colors are simply "in the head". We can admit the existence of stimuli.

Keith: Admitting the existence of [external] stimuli (such as different frequencies of light) in no way means that one need either accept or reject the belief that colour is 'in the head'.

Hugo, quoting Clark:
The point is rather that the "collecting principles"--or that in virtue of which two stimuli are perceived to be the same color--cannot be framed in extra-dermal terms.

Keith: As I understand this, Clark means that there is no way for me to know whether or not other organisms perceive 'colour x' in the same way as do I myself.

Hugo, again quoting Clark:
The stimuli are indeed out there in the world--note they must be, if genes can ever control them.

Keith: This seems vague. How can 'genes', which are 'sub-dermal', 'control' stimuli which are 'extra-dermal'--'out there in the world'?

Hugo, quoting Clark:
But the principles that collect those stimuli into color classes can only be found in the innards of visual nervous systems.

Keith: No disagreement here.

Hugo, quoting Clark:
That different species operate in such radically different ways is just sauce for our (putatively pentachromatic) goose. (Clark, 1992)

Keith: As I said, Clark (earlier) seemed to be saying that there is no way to know whether or not other organisms perceive colour the same way I do. Yet, precisely this view seems to be the conclusion he chooses to draw.

The reasons behind his advocacy of this viewpoint, however, remains unclear.

Again, it seems that subjectivists want to claim that I can know that it is impossible for others to perceive colours in the same way as I do. Yet, they conveniently forget that I can only observe others' subjective perceptual apparati, via my own--equally subjective--perceptions.

How's this for an analogy?
If my own lens distorts, it will allow me to accurately identify the distortions that others' distorting lenses produced in their photographs.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Keith:

With you? Well, i'll try, but i can't promise anything. Please be patient with me.

It's a strange reading you have of that quote. It doesn't "seem" to me that any such conclusion was drawn, but then i'm no Objectivist.

Let's look at it again, trimming it down to the bare bones:

It really isn't that difficult. Once again you confuse the recognition of limitations with an epistemic declaration of certainty. Go figure.

Maybe that's how it "seems" to you, but i don't see subjectivists making this epistemological declaration. Do you propose making certainty a methodological constraint?

How cute! Are you any closer to showing that subjectivism is self-refuting?

To all:

It appears that i am being martyred for subjectivism. *shrugs* If any of you would like to give me a break and take on these two leviathans, please feel free to drop by. Do bear in mind that subjectivism is on its last legs, even in spite of my inability to see the brilliance of their arguments.