Can we save the world via Just Proof?

[swansont]

"To be objective, it should be recorded" is mostly reasonable statement. "If it is recorded, it is objective" is an error of logic (if this were presented as a syllogism, it would be affirming the consequent).

You have more time to study from different angles even if you like what exactly happened apart from what you as a participant subjectively thought that happened. So you can tae more information out of what happened for one.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) it is stated it has issues so maybe you want to comment on the par that says: " Objectivity is often attributed to the property of scientific measurement, as the accuracy of a measurement can be tested independent from the individual scientist who first reports it.^{[citation needed]} It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world."

 

Anyway you've been checkmated on your position already in the previous post. It is norm dependent, yet you have clearly only learned to think in dogmatical terms of applying one norm in any context.

 

Or to make it even more understandable as a physicist when a scientist called let's say: Swansont looks at the needle of his measurement equipment and says it reads 0.089 having a video of what that needle has done would that be more or the same or less objective in your expert opinion. I'd say more.

 

Sure, asking questions is the hallmark of dogmatical thinking. That makes as much sense as the rest of this.

 

It would save a lot of time if you would just admit you aren't going to answer my questions, or actually answer them. I find this middle-ground tap dancing to be boring (which is subjective; I am not claiming that it is objectively boring, even though it is being recorded. Someone out there might find this most intriguing.)

[kristalris]

 

"To be objective, it should be recorded" is mostly reasonable statement. "If it is recorded, it is objective" is an error of logic (if this were presented as a syllogism, it would be affirming the consequent).

 

Sure, asking questions is the hallmark of dogmatical thinking. That makes as much sense as the rest of this.

 

It would save a lot of time if you would just admit you aren't going to answer my questions, or actually answer them. I find this middle-ground tap dancing to be boring (which is subjective; I am not claiming that it is objectively boring, even though it is being recorded. Someone out there might find this most intriguing.)

 

You sound like a gramophone with a scratch on it. Restating that I haven't actually answered your question again and again, where as I can't for the life of me see what I then haven't answered? No middle ground. I've bashed your position from absolute truth all the way to a subjective point of view. All you subsequently do is state: "you haven't answered my question". Well that's easy.

 

Where you do state something you sate a strawman. The way in which you record something adds to its objectivity. They are interlinked recording method and obejtivity. As the Wikipedia page also shows. Apart from that your question was off topic all along anyway. Because I stated you don't need to use a video in the casus.

[Strange]

Get it?

 

Yep. You need to buy a better dictionary that has the words "subjective" and "objective" in it. You clearly don't have a clue what they mean.

[kristalris]

 

Yep. You need to buy a better dictionary that has the words "subjective" and "objective" in it. You clearly don't have a clue what they mean.

Then please correct Wikipedia.

 

You can look onto objective in a Bayesian or in a deterministic way. The latter excludes the former, the former includes the latter. You use the latter in an area law psychology where you should use the former. Yet your authoritative (= religious) bible of exact science prohibits you to even think in terms of grey. it is only black or white.

Edited July 16, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

You sound like a gramophone with a scratch on it. Restating that I haven't actually answered your question again and again, where as I can't for the life of me see what I then haven't answered? No middle ground. I've bashed your position from absolute truth all the way to a subjective point of view. All you subsequently do is state: "you haven't answered my question". Well that's easy.

 

Where you do state something you sate a strawman. The way in which you record something adds to its objectivity. They are interlinked recording method and obejtivity. As the Wikipedia page also shows. Apart from that your question was off topic all along anyway. Because I stated you don't need to use a video in the casus.

 

I did more that tell you that you haven't answered my question. I pointed out the logical fallacy that was included in it, rendering it unacceptable. Recording does not make something objective even if objectivity requires recording. Before that you stated verification and objectivity are closely interlinked but did not explain how/why that is so.

 

The current question is: How does the act of recording make something objective?

 

Unacceptable answers would include (but not are not limited to) answering some other question, irrelevant links, the logical fallacy previously given, and assertion without evidence.

 

(Prior to that was asking for the objective criteria for open-mindedness, which led us to the current morass. We'll get back to that if you ever answer the question I have bolded above)

[Endy0816]

Meh, this idea is deeply flawed and by any reasonable standard OP would fail their own test.

 

Open minded would include being able to consider alternate definitions of open minded, let alone standard definitions of words found in a dictionary.

 

The main mistake here is one of hubris. You are certainly free to think you know better than society, but you had better consider the negatives that might follow. Failure to do so was what got other such 'innovators', also known as some of the most reviled individuals in history, into trouble.

 

I'm out. I don't see any more point continuing with an obvious lack of mutual understanding or even rational consideration.

[Ophiolite]

Ah your back? Thought you left us. Guess my horrid way of maltreating even raping the beauty of the English language especially falling short of your expert word wizard way has drawn you in again.

Let us be clear as to what happened. I noted that your posts were incoherent through poor structure. Implicitly my criticism was of your logical flow, rather than your command of language. My intent was to encourage you to organise your thoughts more effectively so you readers could follow your arguments.

 

You took offense at this and attacked my own command of English, though you ignored my offer to have you identify where there was a shortfall in my language. I acknowledged implicitly and I think explicitly my admiration for multi-lingual people, such as yourself. You just continued to be bitchy about being criticised. That was not very helpful.

 

 

There are many ways to do something, indeed. It is outdated if you subscribe to DSMV. Do you subscribe to DSMV? I.e. that 47,5 % of the populace including Einstein is mad?

What? What does this have to do with anything?

 

 

 

You demand of me that I communicate with you in a direct mode correct?

No. I recommend that you communicate in the direct mode appropriate for a discussion like this. I advise you that the style you are using is rambling, confusing, contradictory and illogical. Other members appear to have similar views of your style. Consequently you are not convincing anyone. A smart move would be adapt your style to your audience. You might get somewhere.

 

 

 

And what do you believe? Are you so arrogant as to find that 47,5 % of the population is mad, except you and your mates then?

I have no idea what you are waffling about. You are randomly assigning viewpoints to me I do not possess, then attacking those viewpoints. Can you explain the intention in such an approach?

 

What makes you think Endy is in need of your help? Can't he fend for himself?

This is a discussion forum. Any member is free to respond to the post of any other member. (It's part of our open minded approach.) Endy is more than capable of making his point I was making mine: you were wrong.

 

Just Proof: don't try to measure high voltage with a low voltage voltmeter. It says plop! or even BOOM!! Use the high voltage for that and measure the low voltage with the low voltage meter between the ears. Get it?

Analogies are often a valuable way of simplifying a complex concept. Other times they just don't work. This is the second type.

[Strange]

 

You are randomly assigning viewpoints to me I do not possess, then attacking those viewpoints.

 

He is found of doing that.

[kristalris]

 

I did more that tell you that you haven't answered my question. I pointed out the logical fallacy that was included in it, rendering it unacceptable. Recording does not make something objective even if objectivity requires recording. Before that you stated verification and objectivity are closely interlinked but did not explain how/why that is so.

 

The current question is: How does the act of recording make something objective?

 

Unacceptable answers would include (but not are not limited to) answering some other question, irrelevant links, the logical fallacy previously given, and assertion without evidence.

 

(Prior to that was asking for the objective criteria for open-mindedness, which led us to the current morass. We'll get back to that if you ever answer the question I have bolded above)

ob·jec·tive [uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA

noun

1.

something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target:the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

2.

Grammar .

a.

Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the useof a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.

b.

a word in that case.

3.

Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics. (in a telescope, microscope, camera,or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from theobject and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate orscreen, as in a camera. See diag. under microscope.

adjective

4.

being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.

5.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: anobjective opinion.

6.

intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as aperson or a book.

7.

being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to thethinking subject (opposed to subjective ).

8.

of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of anobject; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

​If we take this as the definition on a Just Proof norm I'd say it suffices as a definition to be used for teaching up to a creative intelligence level of a 12 year old Einstein. Because on that definition given more difficult questions it leads to errors in reasoning such as the answer that recording given this definition doesn't make something objective.

​Now if we subsequently - given more complex problems - heighten the norm to that of a 16 year old Einstein then as a temporary Just Proof approved definition you get the following full Wikipedia page I gave earlier and you'd best then study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

​Within that page you see the following text:

Objectivity in measurement[edit]

To avoid the variety in subjective (equivocal) interpretation of quantifying terms such as "green", "hot", "large", "considerable", and "negligible", scientists strive, where possible, to eliminate human senses by the use of standardized measuring tools like meter sticks, stopwatches, thermometers, electromechanical measuring instruments, spectrometers, voltmeters, timers, oscilloscopes, and gravimeters. This eliminates much of the perceptive variability of individual observers. The results of measurements are expressed on a numerical scale of standard units so that everybody else understands them the same way. Where nominal data must be used, the ideal is to use "hard", objective criteria for assigning the classifications (see Operational definition), such that different classifiers would produce the same assignments.^{[citation needed]}

^{Now after the words "standardized measuring tools like..." you add video (and the act of recording).}

^{After you've done that you will conclude - as explained in a high speed train reflective style way earlier to you - that the objectivity has been heightened by this act.}

^{A video is a measuring device it measures and registers at the same time. And if you want to nitpick take a digital one it measures in 1 and 0.}

 

^{And to add to the next point you want to make: you add the social process of multi-individuals:}

 

 

The role of the scientific community[edit]

Various scientific processes, such as peer reviews, the discussions at scientific conferences, and other meetings where scientific results are presented, are part of a social process whose purpose is to strengthen the objective aspect of the scientific method.^{[citation needed]}

 

^{In effect you then have the feelings of many individuals on an object of study that has properly been registered leading to high-tend objectivity even in physics.}

 

^{And Just Proof simply adds to the list of measuring devises the instrument between the ears. No fallacy.}

 

 

^{Ergo Just Proof is peer reviewed by the appointing committee. That it self if you want can be verified by the video. Yet, again I see no need to video.}

 

 

Edited July 17, 2014 by kristalris

[swansont]

The dictionary list of definitions is supposed to help in what way, exactly? Are we free to choose any of them? Are you asserting that lenses have something to do with the discussion? If not (and I assume not), then I fail to see how this is helpful at all. We are using a specific definition here: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice.

Videotaping or recording is not inherently a measuring tool. It is not a standard against which one is making a comparison. Claiming that 'Now after the words "standardized measuring tools like..." you add video tapes (and the act of recording).' means you are changing the definition to suit your needs, without justification. (I didn't see that one coming) You have done nothing to actually explain HOW this achieves the status of objective measurement, unless you're also redefining "waffling" to mean "answering the question".

So you've pasted info from an irrelevant link and repeated the logical fallacy, and still come no closer to answering the actual question of how recording can make a subjective observation into an objective one.

[kristalris]

Meh, this idea is deeply flawed and by any reasonable standard OP would fail their own test.

 

Open minded would include being able to consider alternate definitions of open minded, let alone standard definitions of words found in a dictionary.

 

The main mistake here is one of hubris. You are certainly free to think you know better than society, but you had better consider the negatives that might follow. Failure to do so was what got other such 'innovators', also known as some of the most reviled individuals in history, into trouble.

 

I'm out. I don't see any more point continuing with an obvious lack of mutual understanding or even rational consideration.

 

Okay, in a scientific discussion on law, if you pose position you prove position. You posed this position in effect earlier and were asked an appropriate question that you now via posturing try to dodge. Normal conclusion if you leave the battle of wit after being asked to to clarify that you have lost the debate. By withdraw or fleeing.

 

Endy0816, on 16 Jul 2014 - 02:39 AM, said:

 

 

In your example, in either case you have two witnesses stating that Harry made remarks of a sexual nature to a 12 year old.

 

Could ethically and legally seek to find him guilty of verbal molestation.

 

Not exactly, anyway it is not tradition for some odd reason to have the judge or jury passing the verdict: "suspect Harry could be found guilty"

 

So then I'll make it more simple: we have the witness and what the 12 year said and Harry saying he helped her up but didn't molest her and the DNA.

 

Now would you take your feeling into consideration in passing a verdict? If not why not? If so how then? How good would you say as a LR would be in ascertaining whether a open minded person is credible is in comparison to open minded people?

 

So pass verdict and say what you do given the different feelings.

 

 

Not be-known to the judge or jury but to us now is that Harry is in fact innocent and is an open minded character.

END QUOTE EARLIER POST

Well then what was your answer or have you indeed fled, after a while maybe hoping everybody forgot the question put forward to you?

Your present post has just been dealt with in the answer to Swansont and the rest are general not substantiated, general remarks. You further forget the change is minimal. The predicted effect great. If it proves not to work you simply change it back. For logic has it that if there is indeed a fundamental and serious urgent problem you need to change something and not leave it at that unless you state that there is no problem.

 

The dictionary list of definitions is supposed to help in what way, exactly? Are we free to choose any of them? Are you asserting that lenses have something to do with the discussion? If not (and I assume not), then I fail to see how this is helpful at all. We are using a specific definition here: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations or prejudice.

Videotaping or recording is not inherently a measuring tool. It is not a standard against which one is making a comparison. Claiming that 'Now after the words "standardized measuring tools like..." you add video tapes (and the act of recording).' means you are changing the definition to suit your needs, without justification. (I didn't see that one coming) You have done nothing to actually explain HOW this achieves the status of objective measurement, unless you're also redefining "waffling" to mean "answering the question".

So you've pasted info from an irrelevant link and repeated the logical fallacy, and still come no closer to answering the actual question of how recording can make a subjective observation into an objective one.

 

Ergo you only agree with the first dictionary way of defining what is to be understood under the term "objective" . If that is so then you are right and we agree. Yet that is only for simple problems, and I guess you don't agree with that.

 

Yet then you must oppose the better definition of Wikipedia. The link is titled objectivity and deals exactly with the problem at hand. So it can't be irrelevant but only incorrect then. Yet you don't state that. For obvious reasons for it is correct and far superior and more deeply thought through analysis of the definition. So you leave us in the dark if you don't exactly state what in your opinion is wrong with the definition in the Wikipedia I gave.

 

So, until you clarify I can hold you are trying to obfuscate the issue. First things first: is that page on what "objectivity" means and is fully correct or not? And if not, please correct it so that we might reach consensus on what is to be understood even in current science as Wikipedia IMO correctly portrays contrary to your position?

 

Science uses video for measuring all the time BTW. In biology and what not. You are nitpicking because cornered. The police BTW in France measure car-speeds with a video. Now I would like to see you argue your way out of a speeding ticket in French courts because it isn't an objective measurement.

Edited July 17, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

So, until you clarify I can hold you are trying to obfuscate the issue.

 

YOU are the one who needs to clarify what you think the word "objective" means, rather than throwing every possible definition into the thread in order to obfuscate and hide your confusion.

 

It is very obvious what objective evidence means in a scientific context (see below). It isn't what you are describing.

 

 

The police BTW in France measure car-speeds with a video.

 

They don't do that by videoing a group of policemen making a subjective judgement about the speed, and then declare "that must be objective because we videoed it".

 

They do it by measuring the times and distance involved, in quantitative units.

 

Just to be clear: measuring.

 

That is: M E A S U R I N G.

 

Something that you are not doing.

 

What units are you measuring "open mindedness" in? Holes per square meter? And how do you extract this from the video? If you are making objective measurements, then there is clearly no need to interview the candidates - just make the measurement.

[Ophiolite]

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

[physica]

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

 

You can't. When I discussed paradoxes with this Kristalris. He misread one of my posts and got my argument the wrong way round forming a lengthy argument in turn backing my point without knowing it. When I quoted myself and pointed out that he got it the wrong way round. He then just completely changed is post and guess what a lengthy post still opposing me. This guy doesn't bother with details. That's why multiple people have pointed out that his sentences don't even make sense most of the time and his points are not backed up and vague and he shows no effort or even acknowledgement.

[kristalris]

Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

Oh Ophiolite, can't you see in th' oceans sea lies what you miss, that is to embrace this pestilence cast on thee, for isn't truth of anti-these what needs be? You fled once and welcomed back now try cast the dagger in my back? Or do you stand your ground however inept the opponent be? Yet at wits end maybe, remember the flame of stake is not the Just cling flung right or left yet wrong. Art thou religious maybe? For independence of thought foolish to no end, is that not the heart and soul of science you portray to defend? What is the thought to thee on the nicked remark: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." ?

 

The Shakespeare society will have me hanging from my balls of the yardarm for this pitiful exercise in incorrect English. For who was it said: "By the way Shakespearean style English would be inappropriate on a 21st century science forum. But I am sure that, as an honourable man, you know that."?. Now with whom do you guess would Shakespeare agree?

BTW with all the fun, I haven't even got round to your previous post. Sorry for that. yet in due course...

Edited July 17, 2014 by kristalris

[physica]

You fled once and welcomed back now try cast the dagger in my back?

definition of backstabbing:

the action of criticizing someone in a treacherous manner despite pretending friendship with them.

 

how is he doing this????

 

 

Or do you stand your ground however inept the opponent be?

 

which means: or do you resist an attack however inept you opponent is?

 

what kind of question is that???

 

seriously do you understand most of the words you use??? It isn't looking like it.

BTW with all the fun, I haven't even got round to your previous post. Sorry for that. yet in due course...

well get round to it instead of talking rubbish, you've done enough of that already

[swansont]

Science uses video for measuring all the time BTW. In biology and what not.

Yes, they do. I have not claimed otherwise. They key is in how they use the video, not the mere use of it. I refer you to the syllogistic fallacy I have already mentioned. Would a Venn diagram help?

 

 

You are nitpicking because cornered.

 

You really need to stop making this personal.

 

 

 

The police BTW in France measure car-speeds with a video. Now I would like to see you argue your way out of a speeding ticket in French courts because it isn't an objective measurement.

If it was only a videotape of me driving, it would be trivial. Strange has explained the details already.

[kristalris]

definition of backstabbing:

the action of criticizing someone in a treacherous manner despite pretending friendship with them.

 

how is he doing this????

 

 

 

which means: or do you resist an attack however inept you opponent is?

 

what kind of question is that???

 

seriously do you understand most of the words you use??? It isn't looking like it.

well get round to it instead of talking rubbish, you've done enough of that already

Well the topic being to assess Just Proof and in part that has boiled down to the question whether or not it is possible to objectively assess whether or not a judge candidate can be found to reside in the R&D. More precise to assess whether or not the candidate has sufficient active and passive mastery of irony and active and passive mastery of lateral humour. As you in your post #114 as in this post as well have not been very friendly to me quid pro quo the following:

 

After laboriously having set up an experiment in order to Justly prove my point by digging a large pitfall and covering it up, I placed a large sign in front of it reading "Shakespeare!" yet made the cover up via a reference towards a post of Ophilite's objection of me using Shakespeare style language in the 21st century. .

 

Now the test goes as follows: I chalk up a 1 if someone falls in the pitfall irony and a 1 for the pitfall humour a 1/2 irrelevant if nothing happens and a 0 if someone reacts explicitly calling out the humour and the irony.

 

So I noticed I got two bad rep points after several people viewed my post. This is irrelevant thus 1/2.

 

Now your post to which I'm reacting now whilst peeking over the rim of the pitfall you've entered and observing - objectively - you barking at me whether or not I understand the literal meaning of several words I would say I can objectively chalk up a 1 on a LR (I can leave out whether that would be a 2; 10; 100 or what not towards lack of irony and a 1 on a LR anyway also > 1 on lack of humour for you not spotting this evident humour and irony. Albeit that in this case because I tested both humour and irony at the same time lack of humour only in one sense of it but that is the same as what I've measured with irony. Being agitated by the irony might have made you blind for the other Einstein form of lateral humour. So on that a 1/2. Mind, this is not about assessing you but about assessing Just Proof, yet you have participated in a scientific quid pro quo test. Of the same sort that Swansont had tried in vain to set up for me as he remarked he hadn't foreseen the turn that would inevitably be made.

 

Why is it evident you might then ask? Well I assume you at least have had some general knowledge at school or elsewhere on the existence of Shakespeare? If not please google his name and see what you can learn of the use of irony, colourfull metaphor; exaggeration et cetera et cetera et cetera. You evidently missed all that unless you for instance where to state that you deliberately knowing full well that it was a pitfall decided to help me prove my point by jumping in and starting to bark at me.

 

Now there are people who incorrectly would conclude that you've acted or even are a bloody idiot. Neither is true. First of all because an idiot falls outside the normal distribution of normal people when defined via Just Proof. And secondly to quote Shakespeare on this "a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool". We are all IMO as in fact correct use of DSMV as DSM 6 or even DSM 7 entails all each and every one of us both geniuses and fools at the same time. All in different areas. Further more you can not conclude on one test like this anything about you because you are not part of what is to be assessed either. An actual and correct assessment of someone is of course done differently.

 

Yet what we can conclude is that it is possible in this way of assessing people - as is the current textbook of behavioral science to assess that someone has certain personality traits. And put a quantifiable number on it. And if done verbally could of been videoed. So that the assessed person can say that he didn't say this or that. We can hold a survey and see what points large groups of people hold as to the question at hand based on the objective data. That is thus also quantifiable and thus measurable. That makes it inter-subjective and thus more objective.

 

And we can send this post to a peer group of people who are widely recognized such as certain stand up comedians or what not as to ascertain whether it was humour and irony et cetera.

 

Oh and BTW in the fact that I used irony you can conclude that I'm less probably as good an Einstein as Einstein even if I had the same fast brain as he, which I probably don't have either.

 

And, thank you again for proving several points in one post by you.

Yes, they do. I have not claimed otherwise. They key is in how they use the video, not the mere use of it. I refer you to the syllogistic fallacy I have already mentioned. Would a Venn diagram help?

 

 

 

You really need to stop making this personal.

 

 

 

If it was only a videotape of me driving, it would be trivial. Strange has explained the details already.

I saw the French police use the video actually it was a webcam in a laptop by a guy in shorts who was communicating with the police further ahead. and think they used a computer-program that can calculate the speed of a car that is driving past. The police a bit further stopped several cars that where clearly speeding and let the ones that where not pass. This should be possible IMO, Whether indeed it was done that way or the way Strange implies is actually immaterial for it should be possible to use the webcam (= video) in this way as part of a measuring device. For you can register an object and subsequently either inter-subjectively (= quantifiable) by large groups or by an other measuring device that gives of a reading to be ultimately analysed by a inter-subjective peer group. A video can thus be an indispensable tool for making objective measurement possible.

 

Now the other point is that you still haven't said what you qualms are concerning the Wikipedia definition of objectivity so I may in scientific law practice that this thread is about take it as a fact that it is indeed probably fully correct. Now then the other point I'd like to make is that it states "scientists strive, where possible, to eliminate human senses by the use of standardized measuring tools like meter sticks,.." In this case it is not possible to eliminate the human factor. Yet by using video you can measure via a survey what others think about it and you get statistics quantifiable units of people stating yes irony no irony or what not.

Edited July 18, 2014 by kristalris

[Strange]

 

I saw the French police use the video actually it was a webcam in a laptop by a guy in shorts who was communicating with the police further ahead.

 

Then it probably wasn't a camera. It was probably a radar. This is a device that measures speed. Quantitatively and objectively.

 

 

it should be possible to use the webcam (= video) in this way as part of a measuring device.

 

If so, you need to explain (quantitatively and objectively) what it is you are measuring, and how you use a video to measure it.

 

You seem to be saying that irony and "lateral humour" (whatever that is) are key attributes. Perhaps you could explain how these are measured, what the units are, and how this measurement is performed using a video camera.

 

Even if you are able to do that (which I doubt, after 6 pages of vague waffle) you then need to show (quantitatively and objectively) how these measurements relate to the goals you want to achieve.

 

 

Yet by using video you can measure via a survey what others think about it and you get statistics quantifiable units of people stating yes irony no irony or what not.

 

OK. So it is a subjective judgement after all. The only objective, quantifiable aspect is the number of people you get to vote on how ironic they think the candidate is. This does not require a video just a sheet of paper and, perhaps, a calculator. This does not give you objective data about the candidate, just about the number of people who vote.

 

And then we have to rely on your claims that irony is somehow a useful attribute in a judge.

 

What a complete waste of time.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

 

I saw the French police use the video actually it was a webcam in a laptop by a guy in shorts who was communicating with the police further ahead. and think they used a computer-program that can calculate the speed of a car that is driving past. The police a bit further stopped several cars that where clearly speeding and let the ones that where not pass. This should be possible IMO, Whether indeed it was done that way or the way Strange implies is actually immaterial for it should be possible to use the webcam (= video) in this way as part of a measuring device. For you can register an object and subsequently either inter-subjectively (= quantifiable) by large groups or by an other measuring device that gives of a reading to be ultimately analysed by a inter-subjective peer group. A video can thus be an indispensable tool for making objective measurement possible.

 

Now the other point is that you still haven't said what you qualms are concerning the Wikipedia definition of objectivity so I may in scientific law practice that this thread is about take it as a fact that it is indeed probably fully correct. Now then the other point I'd like to make is that it states "scientists strive, where possible, to eliminate human senses by the use of standardized measuring tools like meter sticks,.." In this case it is not possible to eliminate the human factor. Yet by using video you can measure via a survey what others think about it and you get statistics quantifiable units of people stating yes irony no irony or what not.

 

Ah, a computer program, using calculations in addition to the video! The video as part of the measuring device! Not supportive of an assertion that the video, by itself, is sufficient to make this objective. The video must be combined with other tools that allow a measurement to be made.

 

So I will ask, yet again, for support of your assertion that the mere act of videotaping makes something objective.

 

You make note of standardized measuring tools. I have been asking what these standardized measuring tools are, for assessing open-mindedness. Not assurances that they exist. What the standards are.

[kristalris]

 

Then it probably wasn't a camera. It was probably a radar. This is a device that measures speed. Quantitatively and objectively.

 

 

If so, you need to explain (quantitatively and objectively) what it is you are measuring, and how you use a video to measure it.

 

You seem to be saying that irony and "lateral humour" (whatever that is) are key attributes. Perhaps you could explain how these are measured, what the units are, and how this measurement is performed using a video camera.

 

Even if you are able to do that (which I doubt, after 6 pages of vague waffle) you then need to show (quantitatively and objectively) how these measurements relate to the goals you want to achieve.

 

 

OK. So it is a subjective judgement after all. The only objective, quantifiable aspect is the number of people you get to vote on how ironic they think the candidate is. This does not require a video just a sheet of paper and, perhaps, a calculator. This does not give you objective data about the candidate, just about the number of people who vote.

 

And then we have to rely on your claims that irony is somehow a useful attribute in a judge.

 

What a complete waste of time.

I just proved it to Physica how you measure and quantity irony. 1 1/2 0 and subsequently you count the statistics of people i.e. inter-subjectively = more objectivity on the basis of what the video measures and shows give us the statistics. The definition of Wikipedia that Swansont and you try to ignore yet is part of accepted current science yet soft science. You persist up to the hilt only to want to talk hard exact science and that norm. That norm is childish i.e. of a 12 year old Einstein when used in this topic.

 

Even after it has been repeatedly explained to you, in different ways and even shown how you can measure a 1 in the last Shakespeare post you still don't get it.

 

EVEN in an exact science as physics is not absolutely objective. Ultimately it is at best extremely high inter-subjective in the sense that no-one can be found that objects to the claimed quantified degree of objectivity.

 

Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0. That in a real plane it is in reality done differently is beside the point. The question is CAN a video be used as such? YES it can. And it IS used in that way in biology:

 

Take a test of Myth-busters to see if an elephant is scared by a mouse. The fact that they filmed the reaction of the elephant objectifies answering the question whether the elephant was indeed more scared of the mouse than of the control. Inter-subjectively you need to say: 1 = indeed scared 1/2 failed test or 0 not scared. How does a scared elephant behave and how do you measure that: in a more objective way: you video it. So all discussions on but the elephant wasn't scared or was can be inter-subjectively and quantifiable if you where to do a survey that is then only possible by using a video as measuring device. To communicate to the instrument between the ears.

 

"IF POSSIBLE" what do those words mean to you? It means that you can and may given the correctness of the Wikipedia that you can objectify solely by a measurement done by the instrument between the ears via the detectors eyes. More of them you quantify in units 1 1&0 0. being a quantifiable measurement and objective at a degree on the definition given by Wikipedia and used in soft science.

 

Objective is relative and not absolute.

[swansont]

The question is CAN a video be used as such? YES it can.

 

No, that's not the question. There is no question that video CAN be used as (or as part of) a measuring tool.

 

 

Do I need to restate what the actual question is?

[dimreepr]

I just proved it to Physica how you measure and quantity irony. 1 1/2 0 and subsequently you count the statistics of people i.e. inter-subjectively = more objectivity on the basis of what the video measures and shows give us the statistics.

 

 

 

At the heart of intersubjectivity (no need for the hyphen BTW) is common-sense or a shared cultural influence, given that you have been talking psychology throughout this thread, which in terms of the OP would automatically mean it couldn’t work universally; unless of course you mean one of the, several, other definitions but no doubt you have one of your own.

[kristalris]

 

No, that's not the question. There is no question that video CAN be used as (or as part of) a measuring tool.

 

 

Do I need to restate what the actual question is?

How does the act of recording make something objective?

Again it can't if we use your definition of objectivity yet can if you use the broadly held definition in soft science that also envelops the exact science.

 

In fact it is philosophy and logic that teaches this.

 

In science per overriding definition it is substance (i.e. observation of an object) over form (i.e. subjective or inter-subjective formality such as the choice of the appropriate norm for the degree of objectivity that is required before it is called "objective" i.e. is proven to be objective and thus taken as an objective fact in the subsequent reasoning.

 

The forgotten instrument between the ears is coupe to its measurement requirement such as the mark 1 mod 1 eyeballs a completely scientifically valid objective measuring device. So when a biologist sees three birds flying he measures in a quantifiable way three such objects and for the biologist constituting thus an objective scientific fact. It is immaterial whether other measuring devices such as the renown automated bird counter that provides a needle pointing at three registered birds is added between the instrument between the ears and the eyes and the object: three birds.

 

Yet for another scientist who has not seen these three birds the observation of the biologist in writing in words or any other way of communicating to him is the subjective observation of his colleague. If he trusts his colleague he will find it an objective quantified observation. The simple act of video of these three birds makes it possible to make the stated subjective observation if seen from a third party and at the same time objective observation from the biologist himself more objective. If we subsequently introduce the inter-subjective rule that only the observation of three biologists as peer group will suffice as norm for the proof of concluding that three birds (and thus not bats) where observed then after that formality may the scientific on that norm concluded conclusion be drawn that three birds have been observed flying over the South Pole mid winter for instance. having the videotape makes it thus objective when the other two weren't present when the birds were observed.

 

You don't understand relativity, or nauseating Bayesian reasoning or the fact that science is not democratic when you conclude otherwise.

 

The basic error in your reasoning is that you forget that the definitions you use are subordinate to the object and goal of science in search of truth. You make this error because you forget that the error rate in the field from which it stems and where it applies - the exact sciences such as physics the error rate is negligible. In the soft sciences it isn't. You are posing position in a soft science topic so please use the appropriate scientific applicable norms. You don't. basic error.

 

you make the same error in reasoning in your own field BTW when trying to reach a goal of unifying GR and QM.

[Ophiolite]

Would you call the flat-screen in a plane depicting an instrument showing whether the plane is in level flight, going up or down a measuring device? Does it make one iota of difference that the same flat-screen shows a video shot of the plane relative to the horizon or that the information contained in that is transformed into an artificial horizon with a picture of a plane on it? Of course not. To all intent and purposes the video when turned on and brought into communication with the pilot can be seen as a measuring device to measure going up 1, staying level 1/2 going down 0.

Pure nonsense: the flat screen is a display device. The measuring devices are gyroscopes and the like. And the 'content' of the display is much more granular than the simple digital offering you suggest.