We should probably start with this:
As you were just caught↑ misrepresenting↑ me, you should probably be very careful about how you use the words "good faith".
While that paragraph is nonsense, it's also rude; the primary purpose of your posting is the condescension. You praise yourself easily along the way—
—but what's actually missing is anything more substantial and useful. Of course you thought you did a pretty good job; it's part of what you do, as expected as your misrepresentation of others.
Maybe you could to try being honest; that ought not be so hard for you.
See, James, that's just nonsense. "Why not engage with what you wrote?" you ask, but go back and actually look at what was quoted: I acknowledged your side issue that gravity and lightning are different: "Yes," I said, "but that's a different discussion." And then I addressed your fake indignance: Don't put words in your mouth? I didn't, so quit complaining about make-believe. Again, it ought not be so hard for you to be honest.
And that sort of fluff is the easy way to skip out on making any more substantial argument.
You wrote↗, "If "red" is "something we do", then "red" cannot be "a fundamental part of the rose." This is fallacious, and then you retreat into "even if". The problem is in your misrepresentation: I said, "Calling the 'color' 'red' is something we do"; this is different from, "If 'red' is 'something we do' …". You need to stop misrepresenting people.
Well, remember, James, something you call putting words in your mouth might simply be someone observing an inevitable result of your argument.
The "assertion that the redness is entirely to be found in the rose" is your own misrepresentation.
If the wavelengths we describe as red still exist even if we are not there to observe and describe them, then your focus on the point "that 'we' are somehow involved" is fallacious at best.
Fallacious. Your focus on the point "that 'we' are somehow involved" is a ridiculous word game. What we call red is our decision; those wavelenghts exist regardless of what we call them.
Do you feel better for having said all that? Those four paragraphs are actually exemplary of what appears to be your specialty. Remember, that there was "no value in retreading common ground" was part of a word game.
Again, someone who misrepresents as much as you do ought to be very careful when using the words "good faith". For instance:
Well, remember that you huffed about, "There is no way, without an observer specified", yet all three paragraphs in question include observers. The whole point of the huff was to huff so you could feel good about wagging, "Getting the picture yet?"
We might, then, take the moment to notice the contrast: That something is not in dispute is what you say later, but in the moment you wagged according to false pretenses. The later statement that something was not in dispute does not necessarily have anything to do with what was said in the moment.
The ellipsis omits seven return-strikes spent in setup for the condescending punch line. Anyway, like I said↑, dorkjoking the difference between weight and mass might be something one in twelve American high school physics teachers might try, but your usage didn't really go anywhere.
Are you unaware that sometimes it actually matters what the mass actually is?
What seems to be the problem is that you would refuse to look at any context in which that is actually true.
Such admonitions are the most apparent purpose of your word-games; again, this is not out of character for you. And the string of false pretenses required to reach this point illustrates what I mean↑ by the flip side being no words at all insofar as addressing your sleights and fallacies is futile; each time around, it's just a shift of subject and more huff and wag.
Which, to bring it 'round, is why—
—you should probably be very careful about how you use the words "good faith".
There are a couple answers to that, James: One is to suggest it's about you insisting on a definition you were careful to design, but when asked about how it works you would evade by referring to Arf, and I still don't see why he should be the one explaining your definition. Just a shift of subject, and more huff and wag.
It is not simply an extraordinary comparison, but also—
—extraordinarily weak. I mean, come on, James, that one is laughable. "Beauty" versus "599 nanometres"? Did you lose an argument, once, about whether something was orange or red? Or, more seriously: In all that occurs in the Universe, according to its rules such that, as we have it, the math works out, "beauty" does not appear in the math, but blackbody radiation at 700 nm, or 600, or 599, does. "Beauty" is simply an inappropriate comparison.
There are a couple things amiss, there:
Do you understand what I've just put to you? Please let me know, because this is important if you and I are going to have a good faith discussion about this.
As you were just caught↑ misrepresenting↑ me, you should probably be very careful about how you use the words "good faith".
There's nothing mysterious about what I mean. I gave you a simple (first order) test for distinguishing attributes from entities. If you're still confused, I don't know how much more I can help you. I've spent most of this thread patiently trying to educate arfa brane about this. I doubt you've read through all of that. Now you want me to start the process again just for you, it seems.
While that paragraph is nonsense, it's also rude; the primary purpose of your posting is the condescension. You praise yourself easily along the way—
Now, I thought I did a pretty good job in my last reply to you, filling you in and trying to get you up to speed on what arfa and I have been arguing about. But it seems you're stuck in approximately the same place he is.
—but what's actually missing is anything more substantial and useful. Of course you thought you did a pretty good job; it's part of what you do, as expected as your misrepresentation of others.
Maybe I'm just wrong when I think that this stuff ought not be hard for most people. Maybe most people have a trouble distinguishing entities from attributes, concepts from objects etc. Maybe the people I mix with most often are outliers, and you and arfa represent the norm. It's a surprising discovery, if so.
Maybe you could to try being honest; that ought not be so hard for you.
What you said doesn't address my point (from the thing you quoted), at all. Can't you see that?
Did you not understand what you quoted from me? If you did, why the non sequitur response? Why not engage with what I wrote, instead?
See, James, that's just nonsense. "Why not engage with what you wrote?" you ask, but go back and actually look at what was quoted: I acknowledged your side issue that gravity and lightning are different: "Yes," I said, "but that's a different discussion." And then I addressed your fake indignance: Don't put words in your mouth? I didn't, so quit complaining about make-believe. Again, it ought not be so hard for you to be honest.
You're following arfa's playbook - attempting argument by ridicule or argument from incredulity. You need to do better than that.
And that sort of fluff is the easy way to skip out on making any more substantial argument.
You wrote↗, "If "red" is "something we do", then "red" cannot be "a fundamental part of the rose." This is fallacious, and then you retreat into "even if". The problem is in your misrepresentation: I said, "Calling the 'color' 'red' is something we do"; this is different from, "If 'red' is 'something we do' …". You need to stop misrepresenting people.
Not in dispute (at least, for the purposes of this current debate).
Well, remember, James, something you call putting words in your mouth might simply be someone observing an inevitable result of your argument.
Note your wording, though: the wavelengths we describe as red. Interesting that "we" are somehow involved, again, in this rose, despite your assertion that the redness is entirely to be found in the rose.
The "assertion that the redness is entirely to be found in the rose" is your own misrepresentation.
If the wavelengths we describe as red still exist even if we are not there to observe and describe them, then your focus on the point "that 'we' are somehow involved" is fallacious at best.
You missed the point, again. This is not an argument about language or the words we use to label things.
Fallacious. Your focus on the point "that 'we' are somehow involved" is a ridiculous word game. What we call red is our decision; those wavelenghts exist regardless of what we call them.
If you were coming to this argument in good faith, I presumed you would have taken some time to read what came before - you know, so you would be up to speed on what arfa and I have been arguing about, and so you could usefully contribute.
Instead, it seems you've just jumped in, not having bothered to find out what the discussion is about, and now you expect me to get you up to speed by repeating the things I have already spent many posts explaining to arfa.
Of course, you're not coming to this in good faith, so it doesn't matter to you that you're trying to make me jump through those hoops again. In fact, that might be your aim, for all I know.
If you could take your focus off trying to one-up me, for a moment, you might actually learn something. But I don't think you want to do that.
Do you feel better for having said all that? Those four paragraphs are actually exemplary of what appears to be your specialty. Remember, that there was "no value in retreading common ground" was part of a word game.
Again, someone who misrepresents as much as you do ought to be very careful when using the words "good faith". For instance:
I skipped over them because they were irrelevant. None of what you wrote about the relativity of velocity is in dispute. Therefore, there's no reason to side-track into that, here.
Well, remember that you huffed about, "There is no way, without an observer specified", yet all three paragraphs in question include observers. The whole point of the huff was to huff so you could feel good about wagging, "Getting the picture yet?"
We might, then, take the moment to notice the contrast: That something is not in dispute is what you say later, but in the moment you wagged according to false pretenses. The later statement that something was not in dispute does not necessarily have anything to do with what was said in the moment.
You missed the point, again … Let's not have you confusing Usage #1 and usage #2 again in this discussion. Okay?
The ellipsis omits seven return-strikes spent in setup for the condescending punch line. Anyway, like I said↑, dorkjoking the difference between weight and mass might be something one in twelve American high school physics teachers might try, but your usage didn't really go anywhere.
Now, think about your statement "the mass of the rose is the rose". Is your use of the word "mass" there a usage #1 or a usage #2? Are you talking about the entity, or the attribute?
Are you unaware that sometimes it actually matters what the mass actually is?
What seems to be the problem is that you would refuse to look at any context in which that is actually true.
If you're not sure, you shouldn't be having this discussion, and you especially shouldn't be trying argue that I am wrong or have argued "fallaciously".
Such admonitions are the most apparent purpose of your word-games; again, this is not out of character for you. And the string of false pretenses required to reach this point illustrates what I mean↑ by the flip side being no words at all insofar as addressing your sleights and fallacies is futile; each time around, it's just a shift of subject and more huff and wag.
Which, to bring it 'round, is why—
Do you understand what I've just put to you? Please let me know, because this is important if you and I are going to have a good faith discussion about this.
—you should probably be very careful about how you use the words "good faith".
Usage #1, yes. But I have been talking about Usage #2 with arfa.
Do you understand what this discussion is about, yet?
There are a couple answers to that, James: One is to suggest it's about you insisting on a definition you were careful to design, but when asked about how it works you would evade by referring to Arf, and I still don't see why he should be the one explaining your definition. Just a shift of subject, and more huff and wag.
There isn't one. It doesn't matter. The point is: beauty is an attribute, not an entity.
It is not simply an extraordinary comparison, but also—
We might say something like "red light has wavelengths in the range 600 to 700 nanometres", sure. But even that is a pretty fuzzy definition. (Is somebody really going to quibble and say "That light has a wavelength of 599 nanometres, so it's definitely not red!"?)
—extraordinarily weak. I mean, come on, James, that one is laughable. "Beauty" versus "599 nanometres"? Did you lose an argument, once, about whether something was orange or red? Or, more seriously: In all that occurs in the Universe, according to its rules such that, as we have it, the math works out, "beauty" does not appear in the math, but blackbody radiation at 700 nm, or 600, or 599, does. "Beauty" is simply an inappropriate comparison.
But it doesn't really matter. Having a scientific definition doesn't make something an entity, in the sense I have defined it.
There are a couple things amiss, there:
• "Having a scientific definition doesn't make something an entity" — This appears to be fallacious. You are not going to convince me that a whale is a fruit.
• "in the sense I have defined it" — And there it is. How reliable is that definition?
• "in the sense I have defined it" — And there it is. How reliable is that definition?
[1/2]