|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 22, 2018 8:47:12 GMT
FF: Nutrition is seen as a good thing. Pizza is nutritious. Therefore pizza is a good thing. Arlon: Not everyone agrees that pizza is a good thing. In fact some parents limit the amount of pizza their children can have because pizza does not have enough vegetables even with the toppings and is too high in carbohydrates (crust) and fat (cheese). So your claim that "pizza is nutritious" falls on its face. You are not reading thoroughly. Look back, and you will notice that I added a reasonable caveat: "in moderation and proportionate to the individual". One, after all, can have too much of a good thing. But that does not affect my definition overall, or the fact that good food is nutritious. This is somewhat disingenuous since nutrition values can be measured scientifically, whereas 'delicious' is almost wholly subjective. But in any case this does not change the fact that you asked for an idea of how pizza can be seen as good, and why, and to which I gave a perfectly reasonable reply. This of course does not mean that pizza is always good, good for every one, or even that this 'good' is the only type that can be argued for, or against. But that is not what you asked for. As noted above, one measure is reasonably objective, the other is not. You would be hard pressed to find a food scientist who would say that pizza is not a nutritious food, especially when part of a balanced diet. Not everyone however likes, or can eat, pizza: well, duh. First off, the obvious point is that just because there is disagreement over how nutritious a food is does not mean that something which is nutritious is not good per se, and the reasons for that are clear and well understood. My point really. Second, as noted earlier in this thread, criteria and definition are not the same thing, although they may be related. Hence, the principle, or standard, by which something can be measured may vary, but the definition of terms will remain standard, else how can they be measured? So, you are perfectly at liberty to argue that too much pizza makes one fat and so on that accounting at least, it can be held as bad. But this view still entails you having a definition of what constitutes 'good' or 'bad'. Or to put it another way, calling white, black arbitrarily does not alter what we mean by the terms, for we must know them to dispute them. This does not mean of course that every definition is necessarily set in stone, or agreed upon; but to assert this is the uncertainty is the case for all things (especially where agreement outside is widespread is clear and well-established) which one incidentally finds inconvenient in argument, is just, well, plain self-serving.. If you claim you do not accept definitions (as you do) unless they are 'mutually agreed and arbitrary', that just leaves you with your own subjective, voluntary definitions - which may be convenient to your arguments, as we have seen here, but bear no resemblance to anything others recognise. This is rather like claiming a supermodel I have never met as my 'girlfriend' using criteria which no one recognises. But we all know what 'girlfriend' means to recognise the absurdity involved. It also, as noted now quite a few times - at least in those instances where your personal and arbitrary definitions are not mutually agreed - means being logically unable to define anything to the satisfaction of others. That would be why, typically, so few here are satisfied by your, regularly unsubstantiated, opinions LOL. I hope that helps. But it won't. Your ongoing issues with science, and its limits, are showing again and are not really germane to the current exchange. To which the obvious reply is that as the history of religion shows, mutual agreement on key dogma has long been the source of endless schisms, wars and inquisitions. Even today the churches are hardly united on key moral issues. (And, since there is not 'mutual, arbitrary agreement' on what the Bible says, for instance, presumably by your yardstick it is impossible to define exactly what it says.) I will continue to point out where you employ logical fallacies. But thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 22, 2018 11:40:30 GMT
What then is not good in moderation? The object here is to distinguish good from not good. By your definition all food is good. Anything you can eat without dying is good. Air and water are good too, aren't they? Bullets are good in moderation too, no? Poisonous snakes that eat vermin? For your definition of "gnostic" to be useful you need to be able to distinguish who is and who is not a gnostic, something else you never did. It is something you cannot do because you have no criteria. Perhaps you were not aware of how experts disagree on what is nutritious. The differences are numerous and stunning. List of diets on WikipediaNine most popular diets rated by expertsNine Most Popular diets rated by science (curiously not the same nine) Thirty eight diets ranked best to worst Your obvious mistake is that you still believe "science" is always indisputable. Science can indeed be indisputable as long as it never tries to solve issues in society. Science can be indisputable on things like the boiling point of water or the acceleration due to gravity. Science cannot help you with the definition of good. Many people, including some on this board, think that ability to be indisputable extends to issues in society. As you can see from the above links, it does not, even on something as "scientific" as nutrition. Although you complain that you realize science is no help, you continue to believe your claims are as "indisputable" as the acceleration due to gravity. Not only have your claims been disputed, they were dismissed as wrong. Everyone believes they are "reasonable," some of us are able to distinguish what is and is not reasonable with criteria. Apparently not. The concept of utility in definitions continues to escape you. Your "definition" of good is not useful in distinguishing whether pizza is any more or less good than were I to punch you in the face. What we need for careful critical and constructive debate are definitions that we can use to distinguish one thing from another. You still fail to do that or understand why you need to do that. Dictionaries do not do that in the case of "good" because there is no definition. Dictionaries just list synonyms instead, which also do not distinguish one thing from another. They are merely other labels with no more criteria to offer. And you without. Why is murder wrong? People mutually agree it's wrong. Why is stealing wrong? People mutually agree it's wrong. There is no more science to it then that. Religion is a systematic approach to mutually agreeing what is and is not wrong. Science cannot help. Not without considerably more exercise of logic than you ever had.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 22, 2018 13:10:37 GMT
What then is not good in moderation? The object here is to distinguish good from not good. By your definition all food is good. Anything you can eat without dying is good. Air and water are good too, aren't they? Bullets are good in moderation too, no? Poisonous snakes that eat vermin? For your definition of "gnostic" to be useful you need to be able to distinguish who is and who is not a gnostic, something else you never did. It is something you cannot do because you have no criteria. You are trying too hard since I have already, patiently and at length, made a necessary distinction between definitions and criteria. The former are reasonably well-known and not commonly seen as a matter for subjectivity. The latter can vary and be argued over. Whether or not one finds a definition useful is really irrelevant here and a matter of pure subjectivity. I have also given reasonable caveats, in the case of what constitutes healthy eating, like having too much of a good thing.
Since you have suddenly dragged in gnostics again for some reason all I can say is that if, as the OED would define it (very briefly put), gnostic 'relates to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge', or more specifically 'relating to Gnosticism', then, duh, someone who does not so relate is not a gnostic. Details of the nature of the particular esoteric mystical knowledge concerned can be found easily enough if you are worrying how to decide the criteria what makes up Gnosticism - an issue which, as I have explained is a connected, but different, consideration.. Of course, you may also have your own more convenient and outlandish definition (probably so, since I remember you appear to find it hard distinguishing between gnostic and agnostic - something more to do with an acknowledgement of uncertainty of knowledge, your confusion in this area being what led to the spat, not disagreement over arcane epistemological criteria) But that, for reasons already made clear, does not make non-arbitrary, standard definitions invalid or unusable - except perhaps for you lol.
*sigh* But it does not mean that something which contributes to health and growth, in proportion and where appropriate, is seen by experts as bad. Opinion is overwhelming, in favour of the opposite view. Experts may, yes, disagree over criteria (how much pizza is good for one), but not over the overall idea of what would define the notion of healthy food (something eaten which is nutritious, say, and which sustains health and growth). So my initial response stands ... and now I am plain bored with repeating myself. Once again, although I appreciate your efforts in interjecting your opinions of the limits of science (the existence of which no one disputes) into every discussion this is not really relevant. But sadly, given that your idea of 'science' on these boards often varies considerably from how it is, and works - enough, at least so that the understanding cannot be said to be 'mutually agreeable', even if you think matters are good enough when arbitrary - then it is worth reminding you that, again by your own yardstick, you cannot form a definition of what science is. And so, that being the case, how can you pass meaningful comment so much as you think you do? Don't have me point out what is logically obvious again. And I can only repeat that what you asked for was a reason why pizza is seen as good, and why. You may not agree with my reply, but it was perfectly factual and logical. Just because you think definitions must be mutually agreeable to be acceptable may be expedient for the convenience and success of some of your treasured opinions, does not mean they are not in plain, standard use everywhere else, whether one likes it or not. Arlon: Apparently not. But none of those sources you have referred to dispute that nutritious food, with the usual caveats, is good food - although, yes, no one disputes that they may vary on how such assessments might be made, 'the criteria'. QED. But here you just argue too much. And, it appears, are back to arguing with dictionaries again. And the case for more utilitarian definitions is really no guarantee of progress anyway, especially when one has been arguing, as you have, that they would have to be arbitrary and subject to mutual agreement, since on that basis anything fresh could just be rejected out of hand on a purely subjective basis. Just how, as we have seen, it suits you to do when the convenience arises. And here you ultimately seem to be arguing against yourself, since it would appear that by this yardstick, a serial killer with his or her own definition ('God told me to') for killing would then make murder right and good (for them). But the rest of us, clearly know murder is wrong, and can define it, whether or not the notion is 'mutually agreeable' to the criminal. In fact it is fair to say that the criminal courts are full of the convicted for whom the legal definition (verdict) over what they did is not 'mutually agreeable'. Furthermore, for the rest of us the crime of murder is not arbitrary (the second part of your test as to when a definition is acceptable for you, it seems) since the definition is clear in law for all to see. See how this works? Since I have not suggested it can, then this is just another straw man. But as already pointed out, the 'systematic mutual agreement' within religion has had some serious problems and still has. And if one lacks 'mutual agreement' with the interpretation of dogma within scripture, and pulls out interpretation in an arbitrary fashion, it appears all one is left with is an inevitable pick-n-mix approach to morality. Try it and see. Arguing with dictionaries, and thinking you win, does not mean what is widely understood as a definition will just go away lol
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 22, 2018 23:25:56 GMT
< repeated same thing yet again > Okay here is your scorecard Showed that people who think pizza with natural ingredients is good commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 1. Showed that military accepting male recruits more often than females commits a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 2. Showed that judges awarding custody to women more often than men commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 3. Showed that states with laws that are different according to geography commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 4. Do you still claim that nature cannot define what is good? So far it is doing a much better job than you are. Showed how to distinguish good from not good. So far you have failed 5. Showed how to distinguish gnostic from agnostic. So far you have failed 6. (Note: prefers not to be reminded here.) A sensible definition of "good" is in fact "conforming to some standard of good." Dictionaries typically do not go further than that since people often exhibit various standards of good, especially lately. You have been shown a multitude of standards with no consensus. In such cases dictionaries merely list synonyms, which likewise provide no standard or criteria. You claim that doesn't matter. It does especially lately since there is a need for a definition with a standard, whereas in the past the differences were less obvious. You are not fully aware that you lack a standard because your thinking is not clear enough. When you become aware you need a standard you will still have no idea how to get one, and will probably continue to avoid consulting nature while people with normal intelligence do. You will probably continue to fail to understand why nothing is getting done and the revolt against you is building. Showed that your insults are any less insulting than anyone else. So far you have failed 7. Please understand that after some number of retries I will disregard you attempts entirely.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 8:49:31 GMT
Showed that people who think pizza with natural ingredients is good commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 1. Showed that military accepting male recruits more often than females commits a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 2. Showed that judges awarding custody to women more often than men commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 3. Showed that states with laws that are different according to geography commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 4. When I ever, actually attempt to argue these exact points, (or, in the case of no.s 2 & 3 they are even mentioned as a topic between us) then be sure and score me again. In the case of 1. all that is needed is a reminder that natural ingredients can include things bad for one. One can get food poisoning from natural ingredients. You will remember the dispute from you is more over whether you accept logical fallacies are common to your disputation habits and whether, as I do, they can be flagged up (a process you apparently find 'insulting'). All we see from you in regards to your list above is another actual fallacy unfortunately common to you: that of a straw man. QED. The idea that nature can tell us what is good is, still, just the Appeal to Nature Fallacy pointed out back at the start, Arlon, no matter how you wriggle. Sorry about that. Let's just leave it that you apparently don't think one can tell, even if others clearly can LOL. For someone who can't say, or decide, whether he is a Christian or not, it would certainly explain a lot lol The plain fact is that, if people were really unable to define the difference between good and bad, as an effective working measure across the range of human activities, society would not function. But here's an obvious thing you haven't addressed and you would do better to: that, if you yourself, like all others, were really unable to distinguish between the good and bad, you would most logically view all I ever say in dispute here quite neutrally, as being equally as good, or bad, as things you might have to say. Or to put it another away, without 'mutual agreement' on the truth of each of our contesting assertions, you should be unable, or unwilling to define, or recognise, what I say negatively .. apparently. But you do. Funny that, isn't it? There's a name for this sort of thing. I guess you didn't read my last, still patient, answer addressing this very distinction and with substantiation, did you? By this time I am very surprised that you haven't learnt the difference, which is really quite clear. And the usual point stands: that, by your own yardstick, if definitions for either of these terms are not mutually agreed and arbitrary, then you say you don't recognise them. Since you have not agreed with my definitions here and any dictionary definitions I used are not arbitrary, then, if you don't know the definitions, how can you know I am wrong? But, keep going. I would say it is reasonable to assert that being called a 'retard' and 'grunt' etc is much more of a personal insult than just being reminded of common, and repeated, flaws in rhetoric. Not least since otherwise teachers of logic would be among the rudest in society. So you protest too much. That's very kind of you.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 10:29:25 GMT
Showed that people who think pizza with natural ingredients is good commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 1. Showed that military accepting male recruits more often than females commits a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 2. Showed that judges awarding custody to women more often than men commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 3. Showed that states with laws that are different according to geography commit a logical fallacy. So far you have failed 4. When I ever, actually attempt to argue these exact points, (or, in the case of no.s 2 & 3 they are even mentioned as a topic between us) then be sure and score me again. In the case of 1. all that is needed is a reminder that natural ingredients can include things bad for one. One can get food poisoning from natural ingredients. You will remember the dispute from you is more over whether you accept logical fallacies are common to your disputation habits and whether, as I do, they can be flagged up (a process you apparently find 'insulting'). All we see from you in regards to your list above is another actual fallacy unfortunately common to you: that of a straw man. QED. The idea that nature can tell us what is good is, still, just the Appeal to Nature Fallacy pointed out back at the start, Arlon, no matter how you wriggle. Sorry about that. Let's just leave it that you apparently don't think one can tell, even if others clearly can LOL. For someone who can't say, or decide, whether he is a Christian or not, it would certainly explain a lot lol The plain fact is that, if people were really unable to define the difference between good and bad, as an effective working measure across the range of human activities, society would not function. But here's an obvious thing you haven't addressed and you would do better to: that, if you yourself, like all others, were really unable to distinguish between the good and bad, you would most logically view all I ever say in dispute here quite neutrally, as being equally as good, or bad, as things you might have to say. Or to put it another away, without 'mutual agreement' on the truth of each of our contesting assertions, you should be unable, or unwilling to define, or recognise, what I say negatively .. apparently. But you do. Funny that, isn't it? There's a name for this sort of thing. I guess you didn't read my last, still patient, answer addressing this very distinction and with substantiation, did you? By this time I am very surprised that you haven't learnt the difference, which is really quite clear. And the usual point stands: that, by your own yardstick, if definitions for either of these terms are not mutually agreed and arbitrary, then you say you don't recognise them. Since you have not agreed with my definitions here and any dictionary definitions I used are not arbitrary, then, if you don't know the definitions, how can you know I am wrong? But, keep going. I would say it is reasonable to assert that being called a 'retard' and 'grunt' etc is much more of a personal insult than just being reminded of common, and repeated, flaws in rhetoric. Not least since otherwise teachers of logic would be among the rudest in society. So you protest too much. That's very kind of you. At this point you are simply too ridiculous to merit any response. You are an example of the Dunning Kruger effect. You still think you have a point when you actually have no idea what's going on.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 10:33:15 GMT
At this point you are simply too ridiculous to merit any response.
Since the term 'ridiculous' has not been mutually agreed by way of definition I have no idea what you mean. But if it is meant to be negative then you are still seeing our exchanges in terms of bad and good replies when, without mutual agreement on the definitions pertaining one cannot know what is meant. I know this since you told me so.
But as the "grunt" you would have me, I did enjoy the unconscious irony of you referring to a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. Personal insult though is. still. not. an. argument. It is fallacious to think so.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 10:41:20 GMT
At this point you are simply too ridiculous to merit any response.
Since the term 'ridiculous' has not been mutually agreed by way of definition I have no idea what you mean.
And personal insult is. still. not. an. argument. It is fallacious to think so.
But as a "grunt" I did enjoy the unconscious irony of you referring to a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
So by your definition of "good" is a crashing bore good?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 10:45:27 GMT
Since the term 'ridiculous' has not been mutually agreed by way of definition I have no idea what you mean.
And personal insult is. still. not. an. argument. It is fallacious to think so.
But as a "grunt" I did enjoy the unconscious irony of you referring to a cognitive bias wherein relatively unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate.
So by your definition of "good" is a crashing bore good? Now now, Arlon; you just said I was too ridiculous to speak to any more. And as already said, by your yardstick you cannot know if I am right or wrong since definitions pertaining are not mutually agreed. See how it, still, apparently works?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 11:00:04 GMT
So by your definition of "good" is a crashing bore good? Now now, Arlon; you just said I was too ridiculous to speak to any more. And as already said, by your yardstick you cannot know if I am right or wrong since definitions pertaining are not mutually agreed. See how it, still, apparently works? I was introducing another topic, but you're welcome to forget it. I generally do have new content when I post a message, but that might be too difficult for you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 11:06:51 GMT
Now now, Arlon; you just said I was too ridiculous to speak to any more. And as already said, by your yardstick you cannot know if I am right or wrong since definitions pertaining are not mutually agreed. See how it, still, apparently works? I was introducing another topic, but you're welcome to forget it. It's not really a new topic is it though? It is just addressing one of the few things we apparently agree on, that criteria can vary and so rather pointless. To be fair, you do occasionally strike out, but very often - as with your obsession with science not knowing everything (again, not a very contentious point in itself), the role of government, the low level of public intelligence as you see it etc etc - it is unfortunately the same-old, same-old. But thank you for your final condescension.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 11:11:10 GMT
I was introducing another topic, but you're welcome to forget it. It's not really a new topic is it though? It is just addressing one of the few things we apparently agree on, that criteria can vary and so rather pointless. To be fair, you do occasionally strike out, but very often - as with your obsession with science not knowing everything (again, not a very contentious point in itself), the role of government, the low level of public intelligence as you see it etc etc - it is unfortunately the same-old, same-old. But thank you for your final condescension. The answers to questions are generally the same, so I am bound by that. Your ability to use more words than are necessary to make a point is not a sign of your appreciation of the utility of words. It rather demonstrates your fascination with irrelevance.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 11:15:14 GMT
The answers to question are generally the same, so I am bound by that. One however is not bound by your answers, as I have discovered. This is pretty rich, given the extended nature of some of your OPs and arlon-sequiturs!
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 23, 2018 11:21:26 GMT
The answers to question are generally the same, so I am bound by that. One however is not bound by your answers, as I have discovered. This is pretty rich, given the extended nature of some of your OPs and arlon-sequiturs! A minor correction, you are not bound to my answers yet.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 23, 2018 11:25:18 GMT
you are not bound to my answers yet. As frequently observed we still await one of your more prominent and potentially earth-shaking answers, that copyrighted appeal of the Dover Trial verdict.. That 'yet' has been long time coming.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 27, 2018 11:46:09 GMT
you are not bound to my answers yet. As frequently observed we still await one of your more prominent and potentially earth-shaking answers, that copyrighted appeal of the Dover Trial verdict.. That 'yet' has been long time coming. Perhaps part of the problem is that people still can't see the logic in it. You for example appear to have admitted that our laws and ethics are indeed shaped by nature in the four examples I cited, yet still accuse me of committing a logical fallacy in shaping rules by nature. I have never at any time even suggested that nature is always good to people no matter how good they are and cited examples of that as well, including a Bible verse on it. What then do you imagine I have done wrong?
|
|