Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
“Obnoxious” and “arrogant” are not properties like “blue” or “spherical” or “rumbling” that correspond to objective phenomena independent of social context.
Yes they are.
They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your “social context” does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
“If you say the ball is spherical and everyone else around you says the ball is cubic, you are almost certainly correct despite being a minority of one.”
No you arnt… jeez, you people dont understand a damned thing about logic or scientific method.
Things arnt real just because you perceive them to be real. Their real because they can be repeatable PROVEN to be real.
What you just described is being biased to your own view. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME...
“If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant, even if you beg to difer.”
This is the complete opposite of what you just explained. Now, i’m not “certainly correct despite being a minority of one.” Because “If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant”.
If everyone around me said we should all jump off a bridge that wouldnt make them any more correct than if i was on my own saying we should all jump off a bridge.
The missing link is; evidence.
For example, if i was the only one on fire, and the bridge had water below, and was the only way i could be extinguished. Then, considering the evidence, i would be justified. But if i tried to convince others who were not on fire. Then i wouldn’t be justified.
Because YOU say so? Wheres your evidence? Coz all i see is a theory...
Yes they are. They have set definitions in dictionaries. The evidence would be a specific quote, and the explanation of how the quote achieves the criteria of the dictionary.
Your “social context” does not prove anything besides you perception. Which is hardly evidence on its own.
No you arnt… jeez, you people dont understand a damned thing about logic or scientific method.
Things arnt real just because you perceive them to be real. Their real because they can be repeatable PROVEN to be real.
What you just described is being biased to your own view. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I’VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ALL THIS TIME...
This is the complete opposite of what you just explained. Now, i’m not “certainly correct despite being a minority of one.” Because “If everyone around you says that you are obnoxious and arrogant, then you are, in fact, obnoxious and arrogant”.
If everyone around me said we should all jump off a bridge that wouldnt make them any more correct than if i was on my own saying we should all jump off a bridge.
The missing link is; evidence.
For example, if i was the only one on fire, and the bridge had water below, and was the only way i could be extinguished. Then, considering the evidence, i would be justified. But if i tried to convince others who were not on fire. Then i wouldn’t be justified.
BUT YOU!!! You would jump along with me!
Huehuehue.… aint i a stinka?