Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
It seems to me that BF is guilty of failing to apply his own framework. He is forever telling us that OS012 does this and that and that it ensures certain outcomes. That sounds like he is making objective statements and claims. And that is what I have been assuming he has been doing when I have replied to him. Now he is saying that he has no evidence (of the kind that would stand up to scientific scritiny) that it does what he says it does. By his own definition, that means that it doesn't belong in the TRUE category.
Now if he had said all along that it was his subjective opinion that it works, we could have reached agreement ages ago - we would just reply that it is our subjective opinion that it probably won't work. In fact using his own bizarre terminology, he would have to have said that the idea "OS012 is successful at resolving conflict in a win win result every time" = FALSE. Then we would have all definitely agreed with him.
We would even have agreed with him if he said it was unknown, or mystery whether it would work.
Finally, we have been touching upon the issue of whether we can ever regard anything other than the fact that we (meaning I personally) have experiences - as definitely true. BF seems to believe that his framework can lead us to deduce that all sorts of other things are true. How can it possibly do this? There is always the possibility - not matter how infinitessimally small, that any other thing generally regarded as true is merely a hallucination. If you are regarding anything other than the existence of your own personal experience as TRUE, then you are just doing what everyone else does. Deciding that you can ignore certain other possibilities because they are very small, and instead ascribing the idea as truth. We just diuffer in where we put the boundaries of what we allow into our true and false categories from the morrass of uncertainty surrounding us. I do it, you do it and Randi does it. We just each use different criteria to help us to do it and so we come to different conclusions. At least science gives us guidelines for doing it in certain arenas, so we can at least be working on the same framework.
Now if he had said all along that it was his subjective opinion that it works, we could have reached agreement ages ago - we would just reply that it is our subjective opinion that it probably won't work. In fact using his own bizarre terminology, he would have to have said that the idea "OS012 is successful at resolving conflict in a win win result every time" = FALSE. Then we would have all definitely agreed with him.
We would even have agreed with him if he said it was unknown, or mystery whether it would work.
Finally, we have been touching upon the issue of whether we can ever regard anything other than the fact that we (meaning I personally) have experiences - as definitely true. BF seems to believe that his framework can lead us to deduce that all sorts of other things are true. How can it possibly do this? There is always the possibility - not matter how infinitessimally small, that any other thing generally regarded as true is merely a hallucination. If you are regarding anything other than the existence of your own personal experience as TRUE, then you are just doing what everyone else does. Deciding that you can ignore certain other possibilities because they are very small, and instead ascribing the idea as truth. We just diuffer in where we put the boundaries of what we allow into our true and false categories from the morrass of uncertainty surrounding us. I do it, you do it and Randi does it. We just each use different criteria to help us to do it and so we come to different conclusions. At least science gives us guidelines for doing it in certain arenas, so we can at least be working on the same framework.
Last edited:
