It is time: Ramshutu AMA

Author: Ramshutu

Posts

Total: 219
#211
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
Please show me a way in which you can use your feelings of thoughts to change the wavelength of light coming from the sky because you believe in solipsism.
That wasn't the point of me saying that. I'll attack your point directly then. 

Your argument boils down to an appeal to popularity. If everyone was blind there would be able to observe observable evidence. If everyone was deaf they wouldn't be able to observe evidence that can be heard. If your argument was not an appeal to popularity do clarify this statement:
Observing something external, having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing, and it’s inherent nature does very much make it an objective observation
#212
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
The more important problem of an appeal of popularity is that if everyone lets say are biased into believing something and use that to influence what is right or wrong then what you consider to be right wouldn't be found or discovered. A clear example is when Christians falsely use science to support their beliefs. Since the Christian community is much larger than the Atheist community they are more popular therefore correct. 

Topic's author
#213
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
It’s not an appeal to popularity - I would suggest you google that too.

The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations. The idea that the sky is blue is objective is based on the observation being independent of any individual mind.

This is just getting even more obtuse now, and quite frankly I am not interested in being your teacher and walking you through basic terminology any more.


If you can explain to me how your thoughts and feelings can make the light coming from the sky something other than a wavelength of 380-500nm, then I will agree that the colour of the sky is subjective. The reason you are unable to do that - is because it’s not a subjective piece of information.

I’ve already spent too long entertaining this nonsense.


#214
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
It’s not an appeal to popularity - I would suggest you google that too.
An appeal to popularity: It happens when someone tries to argue that something is right because lots of people believe in it.
Your statement:
having multiple other people observe that something, and all agree both on what they are seeing
It is an appeal to popularity.
The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations. 
So now you mention this. I wonder why. Maybe it is because you can't actually defend your objective standard is just an appeal to popularity.
This is just getting even more obtuse now, and quite frankly I am not interested in being your teacher and walking you through basic terminology any more.
Like how you couldn't be bothered to debunk your objective standard not being an appeal to popularity.
If you can explain to me how your thoughts and feelings can make the light coming from the sky something other than a wavelength of 380-500nm, then I will agree that the colour of the sky is subjective. 
I feel like the sky is white. Is that what you want me to say? 
I’ve already spent too long entertaining this nonsense.
I call you out for an appeal to popularity and like the time I questioned you about it you didn't even try to debunk. It makes me wonder if you can actually defend your objective standard. 
Topic's author
#215
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Good lord. It’s not an appeal to popularity. I debunked why in the last post. You’ve been ignoring absolutely everything I’m saying.

An appeal to popularity is when you use how many people believe a thing to show the validity of that thing: I’ve specifically shown multiple reasons outside merely the popularity why the ubiquity is a measurement lends credibility to the claim it is not subjective.

You're being frankly ridiculous; and it is not my job to educate you in a thread that wasn’t intended to be dedicated to an individual who refuses to listen to anything being said when it suits him.


The sky isn’t white: the ubiquitous measurements of the light from the sky show it to have a wavelength of between 380nm -500nm. That corresponds to blue.

This is the whole reason it’s objective. Now please, can you stop posting this garbage.



#216
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve specifically shown multiple reasons outside merely the popularity why the ubiquity is a measurement lends credibility to the claim it is not subjective.
You have conceded one of your arguments. Off to the next until you think of another. Why not give me the best argument you have instead of giving me ones that are fallacious?
The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations.
That is from a person who doesn't believe in God. I know from Mopac he would state the simplest answer is that the sky is blue because of God. Doubtful you would make the same claim. I know that wasn't the original claim but it is easier to make your claim "sky is blue and no I don't think God did it" would help you see how the simplest explanation to you is not the simplest explanation for other people like Mopac. I have shown you a flaw with using the simplest explanation given the differences of what people define to be simple. 
The sky isn’t white : the ubiquitous measurements of the light from the sky show it to have a wavelength of between 380nm -500nm. 
The sky is white. I use a tool to show that whenever I look up with lets say with glasses it looks white. Your argument here is that X is X because a tool said so. So for me to show a counter is to use a tool designed for the sky to look white. Want to add other conditions? 
Topic's author
#217
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@TheRealNihilist
I’ve not conceded anything, you’re literally not listening to anything I’m saying.

You’ve conceded that if we’re not all suffering from subjective delusion - then these facts are indeed objective. I demonstrated why these facts are objective even if we are. You haven’t been able to even come close to showing how the things you claim are subjective are subjective, and are just throwing nonsense about like appeal to popularity; and even the very words subjective and objective.

This ceased to be an intellectual conversation about three pages ago - and all you’re doing is doing block quotes and trying to say something against each line - regardless of whether it makes sense in your position as a whole.

So please, can you just get of this thread, and start a thread in the philosophy forum where someone else can educate you about your confusion between epistemological truth, objective and subjective facts.




#218
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@Ramshutu
I’ve not conceded anything, you’re literally not listening to anything I’m sayin
You literally didn't bring a counter to my appeal to popularity claim nor do you have a counter for the Occam's Razor rebuttal.

You’ve conceded that if we’re not all suffering from subjective delusion
When did I call it suffering? You sure I am the one straw-manning?
So please, can you just get of this thread, and start a thread in the philosophy forum where someone else can educate you about your confusion between epistemological truth, objective and subjective facts.
I already have. I have shown your Occam's Razor is not universal therefore not objective and how an appeal to popularity is not objective. I have also shown how a tool can be used to get the sky to be white and with all of that if that is your best defenses for your arguments. I expected more. I didn't even need to think of my rebuttals for a while to find problems with what you said yet you don't see it. Not my problem you can't see how bad your arguments are. I only demonstrated it and hoped you would see the problems but you didn't. 
Topic's author
#219
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
“The basis for believing the claim that the sky is blue - is Occams Razor - that it’s the simplest explanations. The idea that the sky is blue is objective is based on the observation being independent of any individual mind.”
An appeal to popularity is when you use how many people believe a thing to show the validity of that thing: I’ve specifically shown multiple reasons outside merely the popularity why the ubiquity is a measurement lends credibility to the claim it is not subjective.
It’s not an appeal to popularity for the above reasons - as outlined.

Read what is posted.