A new body every five years.

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#136

Post by Blob » Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:59 am

Please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#137

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:45 am

Blob wrote:Please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation.
I have already explained this.

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#138

Post by Blob » Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:52 am

Fortigurn wrote:
Blob wrote:Please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation.
I have already explained this.
No, you generically stated everything is subjective/open to subjective interpretation. Please demonstrate how this applies specifically to my eclipse examples I gave, I because I don't see how it does.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#139

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:59 am

Blob wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Blob wrote:Please point to why my initial eclipse examples are subjective or open to subjective interpretation.
I have already explained this.
No, you generically stated everything is subjective/open to subjective interpretation.
I did more than that, I gave an example.
Please demonstrate how this applies specifically to my eclipse examples I gave, I because I don't see how it does.
Ok:
The first lunar eclipse of 2006 is a deep penumbral event best visible from Europe and Africa. First and last penumbral contacts occur at 21:22 UT and 02:14 UT (Mar 15), respectively. The whole Moon will lie completely within the penumbral shadow from 23:18 UT to 00:18 UT (Mar 15).
I can define 'the first' here as 'the first which will occur', or 'the first which will be visible'.

I can define 'visible' a 'visible with the naked eye', or 'visible only with optical aids'.

I can define 'Europe' as 'anywhere in Europe', or 'only specific areas in Europe', and I can do the same with Africa.

I can define '2006' as '2006 AD/CE', or '2006 BC' or some other dating system.

Then of course, the strange word 'Mar' occurs in no English dictionary of which I am aware, and could mean absolutely anything.

There's plenty of room for ambguity here.

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#140

Post by Blob » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:03 am

I wrote:In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry
So pedantry it is, Fortigurn. I'm afraid that is most unconvincing of you.

BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#141

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:05 am

Blob wrote:
I wrote:In what sense are my examples subjective? (The only way I can see this could be so is by resorting to philosphical pedantry
So pedantry it is, Fortigurn. I'm afraid that is most unconvincing of you.
What's pedantic about that? I mean come on, you didn't define half the terms. What's 'Mar' supposed to be for goodness' sake? :D
BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
No, but atheists do, and I am totally certain that you would also.

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#142

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:08 am

By the way, just so you know I'm not being completely pedantic, you do realise that here in Taiwan it's not the year 2005, it's the year 94? Look on official documents, and you'll see this for yourself.

As an example, the birthdate recorded on my national health card is the year 62. I was in fact born in 1973.

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#143

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:17 am

My example does demonstrate that you can't propose a date which will be universally recognised as a reference to the precise time to which you refer.

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#144

Post by Blob » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:21 am

Fortigurn wrote:
BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
No, but atheists do, and I am totally certain that you would also.
I would not deliberately refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the words, no.
By the way, just so you know I'm not being completely pedantic, you do realise that here in Taiwan it's not the year 2005, it's the year 94?
You were not expressing genuine confusion or doubt, but being completely pedantic.
My example does demonstrate that you can't propose a date which will be universally recognised as a reference to the precise time to which you refer.
Can you honestly say you have genuine doubt or confusion as to what the predictions are saying and when it will occur?
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#145

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 3:33 am

Blob wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
BTW do you apply the same pedantry to biblical prophecy?
No, but atheists do, and I am totally certain that you would also.
I would not deliberately refuse to acknowledge the meaning of the words, no.
Thank you. We shall see.
By the way, just so you know I'm not being completely pedantic, you do realise that here in Taiwan it's not the year 2005, it's the year 94?
You were not expressing genuine confusion or doubt, but being completely pedantic.
I wasn't expressing genuine confusion or doubt, no. I was supplying the example for which you asked - an example of how your 'prediction' could be read subjectively.
My example does demonstrate that you can't propose a date which will be universally recognised as a reference to the precise time to which you refer.
Can you honestly say you have genuine doubt or confusion as to what the predictions are saying and when it will occur?
No, but that wasn't my point. Someone in Taiwan could, very easily.

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#146

Post by Blob » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:10 am

Fortigurn wrote:I wasn't expressing genuine confusion or doubt, no. I was supplying the example for which you asked - an example of how your 'prediction' could be read subjectively.
I was hoping for a genuine example and had already stated pedantry is possible.
No, but that wasn't my point. Someone in Taiwan could, very easily.
Yes they could, I see your point.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#147

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:13 am

Blob wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:I wasn't expressing genuine confusion or doubt, no. I was supplying the example for which you asked - an example of how your 'prediction' could be read subjectively.
I was hoping for a genuine example and had already stated pedantry is possible.
I gave you a genuine example.
No, but that wasn't my point. Someone in Taiwan could, very easily.
Yes they could, I see your point.
Thank you. I am prepared to offer you a prediction without a date. I am prepared to offer it to you and have you evaluate the language for subjectivity. How does that sound?

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#148

Post by Blob » Mon Oct 31, 2005 5:02 am

That sounds fine - though perhaps in a new thread.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky

Fortigurn
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 4:29 pm
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

#149

Post by Fortigurn » Mon Oct 31, 2005 8:29 am

Certainly, thank you.

Post Reply