Can there be shared community values?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:19 pm

prof wrote:
Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:36 pm
leaving aside all the Argumentum ad Hominem fallacies
Look, I expect to have to tell PhilX when he is misusing that accusation because he has no philosophical background and is not very bright.
But you claim to teach philosophy, so you do know the difference between criticism, insult and ad hom. You soil yourself further each time you scrape the barrel with desperate gambits.

I really am surprised that subjectivity and objectivity stand in any great need of clarification. But I suppose we can get there fairly quickly within context by defining through usage as we go.

At the most basic level, what separates a real science from a pseudo-science is that real science examines facts about the world which are independent of the observer. The energy released when two chemicals interact, which can be measured, a genomic sequence which can be read, and so on. If one researcher observes that some specific biological process occurs, he can describe it, and another researcher somewhere else in the world can look at the same stuff and see the same thing. These facts of the matter are true or false independently of the observer, which is why they are objective in nature.

Psuedo-sciences require excuses for having something else which doesn't meet those criteria, but which they will attempt to describe as being better, or just as good. Nevertheless, they cannot graduate to actual science until they can provide actual objectivity in the observations, independent of the observer.

Science is of course an incomplete project, there are arguments about how to interpret some data, and differences of opinion about some pretty fundamental stuff. Some might like to imagine this makes all science a little bit subjective. But such claims are mistaken. If the science is a real one, the debates are inevitably settled by further examination of the objective facts of the phenomenon under investigation. All the navel gazing subjective debates ultimately become interesting stories about the history of science because they stop being actual matters of current science once the controversies are resolved. For this reason, the shared subjective consensus of observers is contingent upon its current usefulness in regards to available objective data, but it is the job of a real science to jettison such consensus when it no longer accounts for observable objective facts. This has happened many, many times.

Intentionality is not even subjectively measurable. The "number of features mentioned" may be measurable, but that is not the intentional act, it is a reaction is it not? Even if we persuade ourselves that the person undergoing the experience can actually be described as truly counting the "properties" of their experience, this is of course the properties of an experience not an external thing. Other researchers cannot recreate that experience, nobody can can under any circumstances show an error has occurred. This absolute dependence on the subject for every fact of the data makes that data definitively subjective in nature.

As regards intensionality - I'm not sure I see how that came into things. I may be no expert on mister Husserl, but it is certainly the other word that I associate with him. Either way I suppose my objection remains the same.

There is no point in the Quantum Theory discussion. You have taken a metaphor and interpreted it as a description of a factual state of affairs. Likewise it may be true that the more we seek, the more we find, but that is just a cliche. What we find is either objectively true/untrue, or subjective and unaccountable.

Qualitative isn't a dirty word. Importing qualitative data into a quantitative argument is a mistake though. I shouldn't have to tell you that, and certainly not this many times.

I am not claiming that you have an audience of gullible people here. Round here you seem to have almost no audience at all. So why you keep playing to the empty gallery is a mystery.

prof
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:42 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am
(look close enough and all objects in 3 dimensional space have infinite properties... some properties ...matter more to you.{emphasis added}
The point of the foundational argument turns on those crucial words "look close enough".
The closer people look at a thing, object, situation, event,, or person, the more they are valuing it; and the more they approach the third basic dimension, Dr. R. S. Hartman offered in his analysis, namely, Intrinsic Value.

For it is the case that Intrinsic valuation entails that concentration, giving of attention, getting involved, getting into the flow, that DP was alluding to when he wrote "look close."
For most people, most of the time, do not bother to look that close, and thus they end up with either a state of indifference; or they merely Systemicly-value [give something casual attention], or they Extrinsicly-value [regard the thing or person from a socio-economic, everyday, worldly, or pragmatic, point-of-view.]

Intrinsicly-valuing is the same as loving or treasuring; and -speaking objectively, people do that every day. It's also an objective fact that acts of kindness are performed daily.

And Ethics does have a data set (in the form of statistical scores.) These are scores measuring how people rank-ordered various specific values, and value-propositions, on a carefully-designed values test. This standardized, validated, legitimate test is named The Hartman Value Profile. It is widely employed in Human Relations departments and by many psychotherapists and counselors. [See its listing in the authoritative reference manual here:
http://buros.org ]
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am
Your critics don't have problems defining terms..
Yes, actually, they do.
See if you can detect the genus and the differentia in the definitions they present - if they offer any definition at all.
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am
......you wanted "constructive" criticism. I don't think you should embed petty snipes such as that in your posts.
Huh?
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am
prof wrote:
Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:34 am
For many of these values I devote to each a chapter -showing how they fit into the big picture, and clarifying them - in my essay, Living Successfully, a link to which is here:
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf
Reviews? Evaluations?
Your contributions, Readers, are welcome!

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:08 pm

prof wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:42 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:13 am
(look close enough and all objects in 3 dimensional space have infinite properties... some properties ...matter more to you.{emphasis added}
The point of the foundational argument turns on those crucial words "look close enough".
The closer people look at a thing, object, situation, event,, or person, the more they are valuing it; and the more they approach the third basic dimension, Dr. R. S. Hartman offered in his analysis, namely, Intrinsic Value.

For it is the case that Intrinsic valuation entails that concentration, giving of attention, getting involved, getting into the flow, that DP was alluding to when he wrote "look close."
No I wasn't, you are misrepresenting me. The properties of the objects I describe are already there whether you look or don't, and the look close enough is merely a suggestion for you to actually look, not an invocation to manufacture new properties for an external object.

You seem to be stuck in a psychiatrically troubled situation of pretending publicly that you are talking to somebody else about me to my face by addressing me only in 3rd person. We are not a family in a American sitcom that must do that boring old pass the salt routine.
prof wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:42 am
For most people, most of the time, do not bother to look that close, and thus they end up with either a state of indifference; or they merely Systemicly-value [give something casual attention], or they Extrinsicly-value [regard the thing or person from a socio-economic, everyday, worldly, or pragmatic, point-of-view.]

Intrinsicly-valuing is the same as loving or treasuring; and -speaking objectively, people do that every day. It's also an objective fact that acts of kindness are performed daily.{I can add emphasis too}
This is just two more examples of your deliberate sleight of hand strategy. Time and time again you have tried to pretend that subjective data is magically converted to objective data just by finding excuses to use the word 'objective' in a nearby sentence. It's lazy, it's clumsy, and it's already a blown trick, but you just can't stop yourself.
prof wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 8:42 am
And Ethics does have a data set (in the form of statistical scores.) These are scores measuring how people rank-ordered various specific values, and value-propositions, on a carefully-designed values test. This standardized, validated, legitimate test is named The Hartman Value Profile. It is widely employed in Human Relations departments and by many psychotherapists and counselors.
Ah, those great scientists of the HR department. One day they are using the HVP, the next they are running the equally unscientific Briggs Myers test. This is almost as impressive as your 100 counsellors boast.

What is probably worst about all this is that when you finally confessed what sort of data your science would use, you didn't even notice that it doesn't measure ethics.

One other thing that worries me here is that you can't see why a collection of surveys isn't the basis for a real science, given that you wrote so extensively about what science is. You want to be treated as the equal of a real science, but physicists don't count neutrinos by posting a neutrino survey to to all their friends and then totting up the results do they? The reason why they don't is because they are actual scientists.

There's not much point writing new stuff about it though, given that I can just refer you to the last answer I gave to that sort of nonsense...
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Sun Dec 10, 2017 1:52 pm
In Appendix 1, HVP is not described. I have read the appendix and have not been informed in the least about what HVP is or how it is done. It is just a weird list of boasts about it being used to make floorplans for supermarkets and stuff. It certianly has the appearance of being based on self assessment questionnaire forms to be honest. I'm not saying those are never useful, but they should only be used with awareness of the limitations and would be a terrible thing to use as the only source of data for an actual science.

100 counsellors?

prof
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:41 am

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
...the thing being described is very clearly subjective, and therefore not suited for an objective science. Unless that definition of science you are gladly sharing doesn't require objectivity and reproducible observation?
Hi, DP

I want to wish you, and all the other readers here, a Happy, Healthy, Interesting and productive New Year!

Wouldn't you agree that there are some individuals whose rigid belief system reveals an incapacity to comprehend that something can be both objective and subjective at the same time.

Take, for instance, how a Physicist measures a neutrino - to use your example in the recent post, DP.
S/he never sees an actual neutrino, just a trace in a cloud chamber which s/he dubs "the neutrino," and then s/he gets others to agree with him (or her) that this little curve shall henceforth get that designation. There undeniably is subjectivity involved! Yet that trace - similar but not identical to the trace previously observed - supposedly occurred independently of all human activity. How reproducible it is, I take their word for it; I will grant them that it is.
Human moral behavior [conduct] falls into patterns that are remarkably alike. These repeatable patterns can now be measured with the appropriate instrument.
I agree with you about the shortcomings of the Briggs-Stratton-Myers tool.
When I wrote "100 counselors" I was being modest - trying not to brag about the many hundreds; and of the thousands of results obtained that when evaluated made a a profound difference in human lives.

prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am

Dr.Robert S. Hartman went a step further,, and applied Logic and rigor. He discovered - not invented - the universal prevalence of these dimensions of value, S, E, and I. ..

If one cares to learn - one would take a look at (or even better, a careful examination of) the chart presented in End Note 4 of the paper A Unified Theory of Ethics. Here is a link to it. See pp. 63-66 to view the chart/table.
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf


FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
Are you being serious? One of the entries there says that space has the "Systemic Value"="mathematical space"; "Extrinsic Value"="aeronautical and geographical space"; "Intrinsic Value"="Paradise".
... it's total bullshit... sad rubbish

"Paradise" is here defined as: an Intrinsically-valued space. An illustration of its use in a sentence would be "Hawaii is often described as "an Island Paradise.""

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm

Entities: "Systemic Value"="Universals"; "Extrinsic Value"="Particulars"; "Intrinsic Value"="Individuals"
Gratification: "Systemic Value"="Satisfaction"; "Extrinsic Value"="Pleasure"; "Intrinsic Value"="Joy"
In one of those, the extrinsic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym.

... thet's (sic) the entire extent of the system that gave us this awful chart.

So look properly at the things you have in that S column.... they wrote what they wanted to be in the good column and then reverse engineered the rest of the set, much of it with complete nonsense. As for the Extrinsic column, well that is just a mess.


Please, Dangerpants, help me to understand what you mean here when you write: In one of those, the extrinsic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym." Can you clarify for me what this is saying?? Make it clearer by specifying to what value exactly you refer - as opposite to what other value?
Are you claiming that an individual is not a particular person? Are you telling us that when I experience intense joy what I am feeling is only some pleasure? You do not differentiate between the two feelings :?: :!:

prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am

... Knowledge is different from information. Knowledge relates information; it connects the dots. It integrates and synthesizes random bits of data. {That is how I define "knowledge." If you have a better definition of it, I would love to hear of it. For I would then learn something valuable.}

That isn't a profound observation. It is just a guy following the boring formula: thing != related but different thing = WOW!!!!!

Is this what passes as philosophical analysis these days?

prof wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 am

The dimensions of Value that R. S. Hartman discovered to be widely-prevalent in the human universe are indeed valuable to be cognizant of ... if one wants to be aware. I thank him for enlightening me about them when he was a visiting professor at M.I.T. and I audited his courses.

Later he taught at Yale University and subsequently was awarded the high honor of being a Research Professor at two universities simultaneously. In that job one may teach at his own discretion, or he may just be permitted to write - on his own schedule. ...and get paid anyway. He was a genius. I am not. It's not about me.

Those who want to learn will do the research and will glean what is valuable from it. They will use what they learned to build on it; they will thus make a contribution. A Canadian, Daniel Kanarsky, recommends that we leave the world a better place for our having passed through it. Let it be said of you that you helped people, you made them feel better about themselves, you spread happiness and well-being.

Conclusions such as these are confirmed in the new paradigm for ethics, which is entitled: Ethics - or The Science of Moral Sense. It is a contemporary rephrasing of the findings of the Intuitionist school of the 1700s that everyone has a conscience, however rudimentary or asleep it may be.

Ethics is already a science; its experimental branch is called Moral Psychology.

Those who have an inquiring mind will judge for themselves by reading with care the entire ethical theory, as it has been so far developed even though it is in its early stages. After studying the two parts of it, let us know what you think:

Part One is available HERE:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf
and Part Two you may read HERE:
http://myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HOW%20 ... SFULLY.pdf

Did the theory contribute anything of value? Was it of interest to you? Were the writings about what you understand to be ethics? Does it qualify as an ethical theory? Let's hear some feedback!

Comments? Critiques?
Last edited by prof on Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Sun Jan 07, 2018 12:49 pm

prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:41 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
...the thing being described is very clearly subjective, and therefore not suited for an objective science. Unless that definition of science you are gladly sharing doesn't require objectivity and reproducible observation?
Wouldn't you agree that there are some individuals whose rigid belief system reveals an incapacity to comprehend that something can be both objective and subjective at the same time.
The same way that odd numbers are even numbers at the same time, and black is at the same time white.
prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:41 am
Take, for instance, how a Physicist measures a neutrino - to use your example in the recent post, DP.
S/he never sees an actual neutrino, just a trace in a cloud chamber which s/he dubs "the neutrino," and then s/he gets others to agree with him (or her) that this little curve shall henceforth get that designation. There undeniably is subjectivity involved!
The neutrino is not a subjective value, the bubbles are not subjective, the object of the experiment has independent existence. None of the actual science in this scenario is actually subjective, what subjectivity there is remains peripheral, describing the scientists not the science. That is very different from your pseudo-science where the object of investigation is entirely subjective.
prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:41 am
Human moral behavior [conduct] falls into patterns that are remarkably alike. These repeatable patterns can now be measured with the appropriate instrument.
But you claim your science is about ethics and can determine right from wrong no? So why am I to be impressed by the measurable nature of behaviour? Let me know when you are proposing a method to measure and record actual ethics.
prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:41 am
I agree with you about the shortcomings of the Briggs-Stratton-Myers tool.
When I wrote "100 counselors" I was being modest - trying not to brag about the many hundreds; and of the thousands of results obtained that when evaluated made a a profound difference in human lives.
I'm sorry, did you think it was the quantity of counselers you boasted of that failed to impress? They aren't scientists, and neither are the HR managers you boast of. You might as well tell me you have 30,000 astrologers on your side.
prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:41 am
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:45 pm
Entities: "Systemic Value"="Universals"; "Extrinsic Value"="Particulars"; "Intrinsic Value"="Individuals"
Gratification: "Systemic Value"="Satisfaction"; "Extrinsic Value"="Pleasure"; "Intrinsic Value"="Joy"
In one of those, the extrinsic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym.

... thet's (sic) the entire extent of the system that gave us this awful chart.

So look properly at the things you have in that S column.... they wrote what they wanted to be in the good column and then reverse engineered the rest of the set, much of it with complete nonsense. As for the Extrinsic column, well that is just a mess.
Please, Dangerpants, help me to understand what you mean here when you write: In one of those, the extrinsic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym." Can you clarify for me what this is saying?? Make it clearer by specifying to what value exactly you refer - as opposite to what other value?
Are you claiming that an individual is not a particular person? Are you telling us that when I experience intense joy what I am feeling is only some pleasure? You do not differentiate between the two feelings :?: :!:
Well I admit I made a fairly obvious error there, you sort of didn't really think much about it did you?
Where I wrote "the extrinsic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym." ... I should have written "the systemic value is in opposition to the intrinsic, in the other it's practically a synonym." For one of them you have universals/individuals, for the other Satisfaction/Joy.

That table is still senseless gibberish. Although I'm glad to see that you are now looking back through the thread and realising that you haven't previously made any serious attempt to address the questions your theory raises.

I did see what you did there with the some/intense thing by the way. That was another clumsy piece of sleight of hand. Do tricks like that ever get you anywhere?

prof
Posts: 970
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by prof » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:26 pm

.

Humor at times reveals truth. It does here.

I close with a quotation from someone wiser than I.
Objectivity is a delusion shared by several lunatics at once.
------------------------------------------------Bertramd Rissell

.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:20 am

"In order to be objective about a person, or a group of persons, first you must objectify that person or group of persons."

Someone much wiser than myself said that. Lawrie Wiser, if I am not mistaken.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:22 am

"No one likes to be subjected to objectivity, but everyone likes to object to subjectivity."

Lawrie Wiser again.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:24 am

"A person who is in control of his subjects, despite knowing practically nothing about his subject matter, is a king." -- L.W.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:26 am

"If you want to objectively evaluate a subject, then you must first _______________ the _________________ in the _______________."

Please fill in the blanks. (L.W.)

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 1025
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by -1- » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:33 am

prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:26 pm
.

Humor at times reveals truth. It does here.

I close with a quotation from someone wiser than I.
Objectivity is a delusion shared by several lunatics at once.
------------------------------------------------Bertramd Rissell

.
Rissel likes to reiszol.

Suckrates likes to sziv.

Simatra likes to szagol.

Arstotle is a total arse.

Rosseau likes to rosszalkodik.

Tomstoy is a toy boy. A goy toy boy. A gay goy's toy boy.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1131
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Can there be shared community values?

Post by FlashDangerpants » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:15 pm

prof wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:26 pm
.

Humor at times reveals truth. It does here.

I close with a quotation from someone wiser than I.
Objectivity is a delusion shared by several lunatics at once.
------------------------------------------------Bertramd Rissell

.
So you are just going to give up trying to rescue your theory, while learning nothing from your failure to address any of its issues.
Time for you to start a new thread with the same unsupported boasts of your success as all the others?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest