Non-Cognitive statements

[Skepdick]

I'm not talking about my feelings.

Telling me what you aren't talking about instead of telling me what you are talking about is a good way of telling me you don't know what you are talking about.

I suppose it's similar to assuming others are (conveniently) looking at things that match up with one's one-trick-pony viewpoint.

Do you even have any tricks, pony?

[promethean75]

"It isn't any different. Do you feel that Star Trek has a "duration"? Do you feel that this "duration" (that Star Trek has) amounts to something you might call "1 hour"?"

C'mon, skep. (I gotchu, lucky.)

What would skep ask of someone who felt that star trek wasn't a good show, but also noticed it was an hour long?

Whether one thinks star trek is a 'good' or 'bad' show is immaterial (and the statement is non-cognitive) by comparison to how long it is, which can be measured by an objective standard; the hands on a clock. Good or bad, it's still an hour long. One doesn't 'feel' this like they do their enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the show.

Hey skep, how can u be so fuckin smaht but then not make the simplest of distinctions between values and facts concerning the nature of their objectivity?

"Your analysis of "I like Star Trek" is accurate, however put "Star Trek is a good show" to the same test." - Lucky

And there it is. The former statement is emotive and objective; it is true for me too that lucky likes star trek. But if i don't like star trek, the latter statement is not true for me and therefore can't be an objective fact (like the former statement).

[Skepdick]

which can be measured by an objective standard; the hands on a clock.

"Objective standard" is an oxymoron. The definition of an hour is arbitrary, anthropocentric and tautological. It's based in some observable periodicity.

Historically 1 hour = 1/24th of a day. OK. How long's a day?
Well, a day is the time period of a full rotation of the Earth with respect to the Sun. OK... How long is the time period of a full rotation of the Earth with respect to the Sun?

So, I reject your arbitrary base unit of Earth-laps around the Sun and I replace it with my own base unit: the exact duration of a Star Trek episode!

What's the duration of Star Trek episode? You wouldn't fucking believe it! It's EXACTLY as long as itself.

[Harbal]

which can be measured by an objective standard; the hands on a clock.

"Objective standard" is an oxymoron.

Try telling that to Immanuel Can.

[promethean75]

"It goes without saying that "Star Trek is a good show." has the implicit prefix of "I feel that....Star Trek is a good show."

U confused yourself with that comment there, skep. U turned the statement 'star trek is a good show' back into a non-cognitive emotive statement by the implication 'i feel that', which makes it once again 'i like star trek'.

In which case no, there wouldn't seem to u to be any problem here.

Now about the recent thing with the hour long star trek. Okay substitute 'star trek is a TV show' for 'star trek is an hour long' then.

Can we disagree about what constitutes a TV show like we can disagree about what constitutes a 'good' show?

If no, then we have two different categories of statement here. One contains cognitive truth-apt (as they put it) facts and the other contains non-cognitive emotive facts that are equivalent to expressions like 'boo!' or 'yay!', nothing more.

When one of us says 'star trek is a TV show', we aren't expressing values, preferences, likes or dislikes.