Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

HAARP

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 9:11pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

I'm interested by your choice in example, because it seems contradictory to your claim. To continue your example, if a judgement is "more true" then other judgements, it would also be correct to say that it is the "least false" of the other judgements. By its nature, then, it qualifies for both prepositions: it can lay a claim to be both A) true, and B) false. While the concept of true and false is mutually exclusive on paper, in practice the norm is for some form of equilibrium to be met between the two conditions. "More true", as you say.

Think of it like this. Ideas are a compliation of many things. They have reasons behind them, causes, different expressions, and variations. Each idea is composed of hundreds or thousands of "true/false" things. These are evaluated individually, and then quantified later to arrive at whether something is "more true" or "better."

For example with food, you're not looking at one aspect. You're looking at taste of individual parts, texture, appearance, flavor, temperature, proportions, preparation, serving, finesse, and many other things. Each of these you can break down to a statement of what is 'better' than another.

So for let's say a hamburger, we have the meat. You arrive at the conclusion it's better than another. Why is that? Different people have different tastes, who are you to say it's better? Well, you're looking at it in an objective way (hopefully) and evaluating everything, even if it's not consciously. At some point, you found how cooked it was arguably better. But why? That's still an opinion, isn't it? So then we look at what it actually is. Are there any raw spots? Y/N. Is it still tender? Y/N. Does it still retain the juices? Y/N.

Taking that further, you can break down to why raw spots are 'better' or worse than fully cooked, by going into fact. Raw spots mean there might be bacteria still, so even if you like raw food, it's not 'better' than cooked food.

I could go on like this for a while, because there's really no end to it. Each component is made up of parts which is made up of different areas which are evaluated based on certain criteria because of arguable FACT. There IS a true/false in everything, there just can be quite a few, and in different places.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 9:17pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

Thought of a simple explanation.

The concept "shades of gray" arises from a distant look. Let's say false is white, and true is black (ironic, but hey).

If you have more black than white, it's 'more true' and 'more black.' But there's still parts that aren't 100% true. This is where the argument of "not everything is true or false" comes into play, and why I say that there is a true/false to everything.

Thus, I would argue there is no gray, just truth and falsehoods, and a lot of them.

Think of a pixel image, hundreds of millions of them.

 

Posted Jun 27, '13 at 11:01pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,673 posts

Knight

Unfortunately the world is not so black and white.

There is a site on the internet with the address armorgames.com.

Is that statement true regardless of whether it's believed or not or is it true for some but wrong to others?

Reality isn't something mutable by opinion and belief.

 

Posted Jun 28, '13 at 3:21am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,003 posts

Knight

I don't see any reason why gravity would be less then.

The spin of Earth, I think, has been shown to decrease. If we assume Earth spun faster during the Triassic period, would that have influenced gravity?

 

Posted Jun 28, '13 at 7:46pm

Maverick4

Maverick4

3,707 posts

I could go on like this for a while, because there's really no end to it. Each component is made up of parts which is made up of different areas which are evaluated based on certain criteria because of arguable FACT. There IS a true/false in everything, there just can be quite a few, and in different places.

This is all fine from and individual point of view, but what happens when two applications of this meet? Say, you make a valid reason for why rare meat is the best, and i for why well-done meat is the best. If both are supported with valid points, and the evidence for each side is correct, how can we determine which is true?

To set up truth and falseness as being mutually exclusive and opposite to each other is dine at a philosophical or metaphysical level, but it has no place in being applied to a tangible reality because the real world doesn't simplify down into a simple "either/or" supposition.

Let's say you have two judges in charge of a contest, to determine which singer is best among three. Judge One decides that Singer A gets first place, Singer B gets second, and Singer C gets third. Judge Two aggrees that Singer A should get first, but digresses in that Singer C should get second and Singer B third.

To take a holistic approach in which one judge must be entirely right, and the other entirely wrong, we arrive at a nice conumdrum. If Judge One is correct in his choices, than Judge Two must be wrong... Except that the the fate of Singer A recieving first is both right and wrong because it exists simultaneously in both set ups: Singer A should win because Judge One said so, but should not win because Judge Two was deemed wrong.

Holistics has a place in philosophy, but should'mt be brought to intrude where it has no place. Setting up false dichtomies to govern the individual when they can negate themselves is ridiculous.

Reality isn't something mutable by opinion and belief.

Define reality. And while you're at it, true and false. Because you keep using those words, and I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

 

Posted Jun 28, '13 at 8:16pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

As you said, it's impractical. We don't know the answer to everyone, or have any way to say conclusively what is better than another. Hence where opinions come into play. An opinion is valid as long as it has some kind of reasoning behind it, because no one can 'prove' that something is 'better' than another when it comes to a preference.

Holistics has a place in philosophy, but should'mt be brought to intrude where it has no place

I wouldn't try to, but this is going far beyond what Mage was saying.

Something either exists or it doesn't. There's no in-between.
Something either causes something or it doesn't. Even if we're wrong about what that result is, reality is irrelevant to our belief. It's still happening.

What is and is not, either is or isn't. And that's as simple as it gets. Our personal beliefs do not matter.

 

Posted Jun 28, '13 at 8:46pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,117 posts

Moderator

So we came from HAARP to arguing semantics on what is and isn't absolute fact.

While I myself contributed to the problem by pointing out that Science must be countered by Science, we gotta make sure to also dispute for or against HAARP as well.

 

Posted Jun 28, '13 at 8:52pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,673 posts

Knight

Define reality.

What actually exists and existed, regardless of whether it's been observed or conceived.

And while you're at it, true and false.

True; The actual state of something.

False; Not the actual state of something, untrue. This can be intentionally deceptive or not.

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 9:53am

KnightDeclan

KnightDeclan

487 posts

Are you guys denying HAARP's existence or just it's power?

 

Posted Jul 1, '13 at 10:22am

HahiHa

HahiHa

5,003 posts

Knight

It is an existing research station, no doubt on that; there's the facility, the "open doors"-day, the webcams, etc.

The problem is that it is incapable of doing what conspiracists say it does; or looking at it from another angle, independent of its capacities, it isn't that strong anymore; several radio stations including the BBC send out signals at least as energetical, if not more, than the HAARP. Simply it is broadcast all over the world, while the HAARP does specific research.

So if you're afraid of the HAARP, be very afraid of radio stations...

 
Reply to HAARP

You must be logged in to post a reply!