The Nonsense Fallacy

[Eodnhoj7]

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it may be best just to place this in the general section:

1. That which is sensed is subject to a point of view.

2. Thus that which is not sensed is a negative limit to a point of view; it is what the point of view is not.

3. All points of view, as subjective, are fallacious.

4. Nonsense is valid.

[Sculptor]

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it make be best just to place this in the general section:

1. That which is sensed is subject to a point of view.

2. Thus that which is not sensed is a negative limit to a point of view; it is what the point of view is not.

3. All points of view, as subjective, are fallacious.

4. Nonsense is valid.

GIBBERISH.

[Eodnhoj7]

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it make be best just to place this in the general section:

1. That which is sensed is subject to a point of view.

2. Thus that which is not sensed is a negative limit to a point of view; it is what the point of view is not.

3. All points of view, as subjective, are fallacious.

4. Nonsense is valid.

GIBBERISH.

Fallacy.

[TheVisionofEr]

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it may be best just to place this in the general section:

The common argument isn't to exclude subjectivity, but rather that observation must be subject to various strictures and to confirmation or acceptance by persons with a rigorous training. The main thing excluded in the common view on nonsense is not subjectivity, but rather free approach to the thing. In a free approach it is inevitable that one bring in the presence of possibility or future in the thing observed. And, most of all, absence as a want of something that ought to be. All understanding implies an ought. In the extreme that one ought to measure and physically describe things. That is, that one ought to do science.

The main form of the nonsense talk is: Anything that does not fit with scientific rigor is nonsense. In the strict sense scientific rigor is quantifiable measurement. This is an extreme question begging and not a serious proposition from the logical point of view. But, in the light of the modern view that the theory or law of entropy and evolution are real it is taken as the gate with which one must enter to be human in the modern sense. The talk of nonsense is the dogmatic counterpart to the superstition of the object without an ought or future.

[Eodnhoj7]

I figured with how much the word "nonsense" is used, it may be best just to place this in the general section:

The common argument isn't to exclude subjectivity, but rather that observation must be subject to various strictures and to confirmation or acceptance by persons with a rigorous training. The main thing excluded in the common view on nonsense is not subjectivity, but rather free approach to the thing. In a free approach it is inevitable that one bring in the presence of possibility or future in the thing observed. And, most of all, absence as a want of something that ought to be. All understanding implies an ought. In the extreme that one ought to measure and physically describe things. That is, that one ought to do science.

The main form of the nonsense talk is: Anything that does not fit with scientific rigor is nonsense. In the strict sense scientific rigor is quantifiable measurement. This is an extreme question begging and not a serious proposition from the logical point of view. But, in the light of the modern view that the theory or law of entropy and evolution are real it is taken as the gate with which one must enter to be human in the modern sense. The talk of nonsense is the dogmatic counterpart to the superstition of the object without an ought or future.

Subjectivity is not sensed through an objective paradigm. That which is percieved through self reflection, or reflection between individuals, loses its subjective nature and becomes objective. Subjectivity is non-sense, the negative limits as to what objectivity is not, as not sensable.

[Skepdick]

The common argument isn't to exclude subjectivity, but rather that observation must be subject to various strictures and to confirmation or acceptance by persons with a rigorous training.

Who gets to define the acceptance and exclusion criteria for 'rigour' and 'training'?

That is, that one ought to do science.

Who ought to decide what is and is not science? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

The main form of the nonsense talk is: Anything that does not fit with scientific rigor is nonsense.

This statement is difficult to parse until we agree on how we determine what is "scientific" and what is "rigorous"

In the strict sense scientific rigor is quantifiable measurement.

Who gets to define/standardise the ruler?

When you are using a ruler to measure a table, you are also using the table to measure the ruler...

[Skepdick]

Subjectivity is not sensed through an objective paradigm. That which is percieved through self reflection, or reflection between individuals, loses its subjective nature and becomes objective. Subjectivity is non-sense, the negative limits as to what objectivity is not, as not sensable.

For that definition to work you have to exclude your perception from your set of senses.

I am not all that fond of the idea that my intuition is non-sensory. It's the loudest sense I poses.

[surreptitious57]

All points of view as subjective are fallacious

One single point of view = subjective = false
Intersubjective consensus = objective = true

Therefore all collective or universal points of view cannot be fallacious
Or absolutely everything in science not falsified is automatically false

[Eodnhoj7]

Subjectivity is not sensed through an objective paradigm. That which is percieved through self reflection, or reflection between individuals, loses its subjective nature and becomes objective. Subjectivity is non-sense, the negative limits as to what objectivity is not, as not sensable.

For that definition to work you have to exclude your perception from your set of senses.

I am not all that fond of the idea that my intuition is non-sensory. It's the loudest sense I poses.

The subjective state, sensed by the self, becomes objective through self reflection.

[Eodnhoj7]

All points of view as subjective are fallacious

One single point of view = subjective = false
Intersubjective consensus = objective = true

Therefore all collective or universal points of view cannot be fallacious
Or absolutely everything in science not falsified is automatically false

See response to skepdick.

[Skepdick]

The subjective state, sensed by the self, becomes objective through self reflection.

The observer observes itself. Sure - that's how science works.

[Eodnhoj7]

The subjective state, sensed by the self, becomes objective through self reflection.

The observer observes itself. Sure - that's how science works.

Science, philosophy and religion. The assumption of assumption is the manifestation of objective form.

[Skepdick]

Science, philosophy and religion. The assumption of assumption is the manifestation of objective form.

I am. It's not an assumption.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nonsense is valid as a negative limit to a point of view. It describes what sensed by what is not sense. Anything that is not sensed is valid as negative limits, what is sensed occurs through an isomorphism between truth and falsity.

[Eodnhoj7]

Science, philosophy and religion. The assumption of assumption is the manifestation of objective form.

I am. It's not an assumption.

We assume forms and patterns, reintegrate those patterns and filter what we assume by those patterns. Knowing is the filtering of patterns, with those patterns aligning to the forms we assumed being deemed as true. The "I" is a series of patterns we use to filter reality.