tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5057205213656689479..comments2024-03-28T10:44:57.324-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Spiering on Neo-Scholastic EssaysEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7359779690128615142016-05-10T13:21:37.087-07:002016-05-10T13:21:37.087-07:00pck said...
DNW:
PCK, I think it was, and...<i>pck said...<br /><br /> DNW:<br /> PCK, I think it was, and pardon me if it was someone else, remarked to me sometime ago that I was making an ad hominem argument.<br /><br /> It wasn't me. (And you're forgiven.)<br /><br /> May 8, 2016 at 10:51 AM</i><br /><br /><br />Thank you. <br /><br />And you, as a quick search revealed, are correct. <br /><br />The time stamp link doesn't work, so ...:<br /><br /><br /><br />"All Scientists Should Beg Lawrence Krauss to Shut the Hell Up Already <br />Chris Kirk said...<br /><br /> DNW, that is technically an ad hominem argument. Not a fallacy, but a limited argument. ...<br /> Chris-Kirk<br /> October 3, 2015 at 11:08 AM "DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37035651638224851272016-05-08T10:51:21.697-07:002016-05-08T10:51:21.697-07:00DNW:
PCK, I think it was, and pardon me if it was ...DNW:<br /><i>PCK, I think it was, and pardon me if it was someone else, remarked to me sometime ago that I was making an ad hominem argument.</i><br /><br />It wasn't me. (And you're forgiven.)<br />pcknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-19007252781632702082016-05-04T08:44:06.338-07:002016-05-04T08:44:06.338-07:00Well, if you are going to ask if you you have free...Well, if you are going to ask if you you have free will, you might as well ask what it would mean, or look like, not to exercise a free will.<br /><br />Somewhere in between we might be able to discover what is meant by the particular version of free will we are discussing.<br /><br /><br />Let's suppose for example that we do not mean the conscious freedom to arbitrarily will whatever we will will from some vantage place outside ourselves, but merely mean that the organism has the manifest ability to go on about its business without directive interference from another intending entity.<br /><br />A man sees a fallen tree. He intends to cut it up for firewood. Demons from Planet Clintonus send a wave to his brain which causes him to take drugs making him sterile and homosexually compliant instead.<br /><br />Has his will been interfered with? Was it in some sense free before?<br /><br />Is this overt interference at least not part of what it would mean to lose the freedom of the will?<br /><br />If this seems trivial, and not to address the idea that a homunculus dwells inside the human head insulated from all of the autonomic and feedback systems, then I am not sure that the idea of free will being disputed ever made much sense in the first place.<br /><br /><br />DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-89591877007572972862016-05-04T06:53:45.702-07:002016-05-04T06:53:45.702-07:00Taylor, have you tried classicaltheism.boardhost.c...Taylor, have you tried classicaltheism.boardhost.com/ ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82605359557074142122016-05-04T02:37:29.847-07:002016-05-04T02:37:29.847-07:00Hey, did you read Feser's posts about neurosci...Hey, did you read Feser's posts about neuroscience? <br /><br />Maybe it will help! Feser takes on some of the major objections that "prove" naturalism<br /><br />U_U ok I admit... I got tired of pop science stuff, can't read them no more just like I can't read anything Dawkins... Must start my scientific databank project.<br /><br />Anyways my bad I suck, gonna go back into my mancave.<br /><br />----------<br /><br />Crap I went on and read this piece<br /><br />Anyways this objection is common and Feser posts touch on them. I personally think that being conscious of an action and deciding on it are well... obviously different. Second, how the heck one knows when you are conscious about an action? If you hit the method of concluding what brain state is the one you can conclude that the subject is conscious of the stimuli then the conclusion falls, and Feser has arguments that if successful would pretty much make impossible to conclude much from brain detections or stuff like that.<br /><br />Anyways I can't access the papers, not a subscriber. But just like philosophy every step on the lab has to be well argued, and it can be criticized. That is why papers today suck lol... They are all made to be read by people that already assume the same things that you assumed. Might be different on neuroscience but I doubt, science is incredibly homogenizing in terms of ideas.<br /><br />Which explain scientists leftist leanings ;-)Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53989592048042662542016-05-04T00:03:56.158-07:002016-05-04T00:03:56.158-07:00Since this comment has been rather silent, and had...Since this comment has been rather silent, and had changed topics anyway, does anyone have any thoughts on that 'new' article making it's rounds on social media about free will And neuroscience?<br /><br />http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/what-neuroscience-says-about-free-will/?platform=hootsuite<br /><br />Also, can someone on the Facebook Thomist group please accept my request? I've been trying to join for well over a year. Besides here, I need somewhere to discuss these sorts of things with well-informed people...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967193210015790617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47029197096868765862016-04-30T18:09:41.963-07:002016-04-30T18:09:41.963-07:00You pretty confident!?! You pretty certain XD.
I ...You pretty confident!?! You pretty certain XD.<br /><br />I fold my hand bro... Those three sentences were too much for my rather limited vocabulary.<br /><br />Anyways, I do agree that that which ever is the word-salad... ... Hmmm ..... Which one is the salad!?!<br /><br />U_U damn your highly especialized mathematical vocabulary<br /><br />#IamsojelloEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-35280098555329030382016-04-30T15:09:18.114-07:002016-04-30T15:09:18.114-07:00^I guess #2. Sounds perverse.^I guess #2. Sounds perverse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-71103849991523658662016-04-30T14:14:11.866-07:002016-04-30T14:14:11.866-07:00@Eduardo:
"The word salad non-criticism is a...@Eduardo:<br /><br />"The word salad non-criticism is a very common one."<br /><br />Right.<br /><br />Consider the following three sentences:<br /><br />1. Every paracompact, Hausdorff, normal, second-countable differentiable manifold admits a triangulation.<br /><br />2. The category of perverse sheaves is the heart of the perverse t-structure on the bounded derived category of sheaves of an analytic space with constructible cohomology.<br /><br />3. The triangulation of a complex of sheaves of finite height is isomorphic to its dual.<br /><br />One sentence is true, one is false and the other is a "word salad", but I am pretty confident that only a mathematician could tell which is which.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76745033247220639352016-04-30T11:31:07.335-07:002016-04-30T11:31:07.335-07:00Well this is not an echo chamber, an echo chamber ...<br />Well this is not an echo chamber, an echo chamber is just to massage the ego of the blogger, so critics don't exist, all posts are meant to pu the blogger on a pedestal or to inferiorize others. This place here is definately NOT an echo chamber, this is just an insult/half-truth by the great skeppy.<br /><br />Errr have he criticized any concept that demonstrated that he knows the subject? As far as I can tell the answer is a big no yet he is arrogant enough to believe he has done a great work. Skeppy has complained that people should bring science into the conversation, alright it makes sense but since he has no idea what he is criticizing it just becomes rapidly clear that it doesn't matter what part of science you bring you would not know how to make it work against something you have no idea what it is. The good and old strong critic that is ignorant and by his ignorance ruins the discussion, there you guys have it.<br /><br />Now Skeppy says that nobody has given an answer that was satisfying to his scientific-minded skeptic mind. Well has he given a list of things he expects on a answer and why? Of course not! We have no idea what is the answer he wants, but if we are to assume he is not cherry picking what he wants to hear, and we know he is because seceral answers were given yet he never replied to them because it would derail the thread, then we know he doesn,t want to hear: "You got wrong on this passage, that is not how it works" or "Well this is a misconception so that is just wrong". I think he wants to either that anyone that criticizes him demonstrate to know Scholastic methaphysics or whatever other subject, that he has no way to judge if you do or not because he doesn't know the subject, ORRR he wants people to enunciate a scientific theory and show that theory leads to scholastic position. Now I believe he was the this last one, he wants people to bring science into the talk, no matter what or how. Oh you have an argument against that... Well too bad it doesn't matter because WE NEED TO BRING SCIENCE.... You got the idea.<br /><br />So what will convince Skeppo is using science as a premise, is there any part of science that could lead necessarily to Scholastic metaphysics? Well I have no idea. Maybe there is, but it seems it will fall on something that could be taken as interpretation and inevitably you could offer several replies and the draw-breaker would be other arguments... You know those pesky metaphysical arguments that do not convince the scientism-minded... I meant scientific-minded teehee.<br /><br />The word salad non-criticism is a very common one. It only works if you use as premise or use as an assumption: 1 - Scientism or any other epistemology that makes any concept in the argument and non-knowledge, so is just word salad (of course you would begging the question but who cares!). 2 - assume a philosophical theory of meaning that eliminates the meaning of your adversary concepts, this one is rich! And is the dumbest thing I can hear a philosopher say. Just imagine you using as an example an unicorn but because I never saw an unicorn, unicorn doesn't refer to anything... Yeah insane people get Ph.D's too.<br /><br />Now on this blog Feser talked about divine simplicity, I have no idea if Skeppy have read those or not, but I would go with... Nahhhh! <br /><br />Scientifically-minded heehehhe, riiiight. Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44701487124035021042016-04-30T09:55:07.721-07:002016-04-30T09:55:07.721-07:00im-septical has shredded divine simplicity in his ...im-septical has shredded divine simplicity in his latest offering. A+ stuff!<br /><br />Excerpts:<br /><br />"I previously discussed some problems with the Thomistic metaphysical concept of the act and potency. As expected, it resulted in lots of harsh commentary from the good folks at Feser's echo chamber. One thing that didn't happen is any kind of cogent rebuttal to the issues I raised. I am not arrogant enough to think that I am an expert on scholastic metaphysics, or to think that these issues haven't been raised before. But I can say with confidence that they haven't been answered in a way that is intellectually satisfying to a scientifically-minded skeptic."<br /><br />"Of course, we have all heard that the doctrine of the trinity is incompatible with divine simplicity. How can God manifest himself in these different ways and still be simple? The standard answer to this question is that the three persons of the trinity are not "parts" of God. They are a unity in three persons, distinguished by their relationships with each other. Well, that settles it, then. We just play a little game of word salad, and pretend that we have made a cogent response to the question."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-9217587796472087562016-04-30T08:46:32.711-07:002016-04-30T08:46:32.711-07:00PCK, I think it was, and pardon me if it was someo...PCK, I think it was, and pardon me if it was someone else, remarked to me sometime ago that I was making an ad hominem argument.<br /><br />I asked how this was possible since I did not try to impeach or refute the man's argument by asserting that he was a miscreant, I was instead merely describing the miscreant.<br /><br />He pointed out to me that he had not said I was engaging in an <i>ad hominem</i> <b>fallacy</b>, and that what I said might have been true, but just that it was an argument of some kind directed at the man himself.<br /><br />And I suppose that might have been true enough, and a fair observation.<br /><br />Call me mean and cruel, call me heartless too ... call me a psychopath if it makes you feel better, just don't call me ... illogical.<br /><br />And now, for the flip side, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNMKIGD07F8" rel="nofollow">we will listen to Elvis ...</a> Lyrics by SantiDNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85699020392121475712016-04-30T08:26:28.012-07:002016-04-30T08:26:28.012-07:00Oh, heck, I am just lost in pleasure reading Feser...Oh, heck, I am just lost in pleasure reading Feser's "opening salvo". It hardly much matters if the claims are entirely accurate or not - he's not engaging in <i>shooting</i> at the enemy, he's engaging in <i>laughing</i> at the enemy. It's just pure, fun insult. Anyone who can't appreciate the art in that continuing line of insults is stupid. <br /><br />Now, I do notice that Feser insults the BOOK, not the person. Of course I know that insulting the book <i>ends up</i> insulting the person, by derivation. That's true. But in this business (of writing insults in a book or article) Coyne has to be able to take it if he dishes it out. If Coyne can't take having his <i>person</i> insulted by reason of having his book insulted, he shouldn't publish a book in the first place, and certainly not one in which he uses insult himself. <br /><br />(How could some of those insults be <i>INaccurate</i>, anyway? They talk about things that aren't susceptible of precise determination: what kind of proof could be offered that gnu atheist books are NOT "metastasizing"? ) Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69665717338027937762016-04-30T08:25:07.085-07:002016-04-30T08:25:07.085-07:00Anonymous,
"What next? Will we all start dis...Anonymous,<br /><br /><i>"What next? Will we all start discussing the latest article on Santi's blog or what Don Jindra has to say about New Vs. Old Atheism?"</i><br /><br />I've said virtually nothing about New Vs. Old Atheism. I agree that what little I have said would make a boring discussion.Don Jindrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05550378223563435764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24423065912105848452016-04-30T08:06:16.236-07:002016-04-30T08:06:16.236-07:00Jesus. It is clear that im-spectacular hasn't ...Jesus. It is clear that im-spectacular hasn't ever written a review of a book (except maybe on his blog or something, where he has direct control over the amount of space), and thus has no clue what the purpose, structure, or limitations are of doing so...<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01967193210015790617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84230552773666946622016-04-30T04:50:49.022-07:002016-04-30T04:50:49.022-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Feser's opening salvo do...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Feser's opening salvo does say the book is bad, but the argument is based on the failings of the author by comparison to other New Atheist authors."<br /><br />The "opening salvo" is not supposed to be an *argument* -- there are no premises, logical inferences, etc. Feser is only characterizing, with unfailing rhetorical justice, the utter moronic character of the mentioned books. The justification for the adjectives -- the arguments -- come later. This is something that anyone with the most minimal of reading comprehension skills can grasp -- the difference between a piece of rhetoric and an argument.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-77050289927889411032016-04-29T22:42:50.232-07:002016-04-29T22:42:50.232-07:00Oh damn it forgot to complete the first paragraph,...Oh damn it forgot to complete the first paragraph, I was so sad for Paps and his insanity that...<br /><br />So anyways, dguller use to post here, I wonder what happened to him and his favorite debate pal, which I forgot the name. He was a awesome critic. But he was one dude. Among many Paps LOL.<br /><br />So I think critics just stiff the conversation because people stop calmly discussing something, to start engaging the angry dude in the room.<br /><br />So you know, being rough in the internet ended up being a must... But I wish I could just not care and just forgive all the A-holes, but I can't stand lying, and lying is number one tactic on the internet, so I just don't know! XDEduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34167771897629689942016-04-29T22:29:55.230-07:002016-04-29T22:29:55.230-07:00To be quite sincere anon, I personally believe tha...To be quite sincere anon, I personally believe that having strong critics around kind of stiff the conversation. Having a critic can be a blessing or it can be a curse. For instance Paps is a critic and we can all agree having him NOT AROUND is a huge blassing XD. Oh boy! I really felt sorry for him when he did that neologism, I sincerely think he should get help because he is sounding insane now, and is not even Boghossian (New-atheist dude) concern-trolling/insulting, I really do felt bad for him, it sounds like the guy thinks he is THAT deep, when he obviously is someone with a big-words dictionary. Seriously... I felt bad for Paps.<br /><br />Skeppo here is just... Clueless. But at least he attempts to be somewhat serious... Maybe. But at least there is that.<br /><br />Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15615816720762229542016-04-29T22:25:53.919-07:002016-04-29T22:25:53.919-07:00What Skept means is that Feser, he alleges, didn&#...What Skept means is that Feser, he alleges, didn't support his comparisons by referring to the contents of Coyne's book. Aside from being misleading, as the paragraph in question is the introduction of a review in which Feser does delve into the contents of the book, this is not an ad hominem fallacy. It might be, if true, another failing, but Skept doesn't seem to know the difference.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80483252776592179332016-04-29T22:17:07.495-07:002016-04-29T22:17:07.495-07:00The failings of the author's work, is compared...The failings of the author's work, is compared... To other authors works... No ad hominem Bubba.Eduardonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16099903596967992012016-04-29T22:12:26.104-07:002016-04-29T22:12:26.104-07:00And before you start down your familiar lane of cr...And before you start down your familiar lane of criticism, Feser critiques how Coyne understand religion and science in the book. This is a criticism of the contents of the book. In fact, as the work is about religion and science, this is in fact a criticism by Feser of a central aspect of the book. It is, as someone on your own blog pointed out, simply like critiquing an anti-evolution book's misunderstanding of the very definition and meaning of evolution. <br /><br />You seem to wish Feser had gone into more minutiae. This doesn't change the fact that Feser takes aim at the central pillars of Coyne's work, besides which the other contents is but details. He no doubt only had limited space and did not see the need to go into other issues with the work. Any criticism you can make on this score, so far as it is legitimate at all, can only be stylistic. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67447614854716509402016-04-29T22:02:28.271-07:002016-04-29T22:02:28.271-07:00What argument? That first paragraph is the introdu...What argument? That first paragraph is the introduction to the review. Later Feser delves more deeply into what the book says. And of course those insults have directly to do with what the book says - they are about the book. You even say this yourself, unless you think Feser is insulting the paper quality or the pictures on the cover. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26350635140149968982016-04-29T20:42:39.382-07:002016-04-29T20:42:39.382-07:00psycho,
Feser's opening salvo does say the bo...psycho,<br /><br />Feser's opening salvo does say the book is bad, but the argument is based on the failings of the author by comparison to other New Atheist authors. It consists of a series of insults that have nothing to do with what the book actually says.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-12766131927633839432016-04-29T20:26:31.986-07:002016-04-29T20:26:31.986-07:00It is a bit harsh, but in internet discussion I th...It is a bit harsh, but in internet discussion I think you sometimes need to smack down people like Skept or Papalinton. They are the sort of people who either can't understand or don't want to understand not only many of the issues they often sound off on, but also basic aspects of argumentation and reasoning. Yet they like to swan around arrogantly shooting their mouths off. Such people need taking down a peg or two from time to time, or where would the online world be. Even the poster who calls us psychopaths, Ryan M, comes straight out against the idiocy of Skept in that thread. As long as a line is not crossed, a little sternness here is a good thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72543878294078648622016-04-29T19:53:09.760-07:002016-04-29T19:53:09.760-07:00LOL.
Well I am pretty damn sure I am not neurotyp...LOL.<br /><br />Well I am pretty damn sure I am not neurotypic but I am not a psychopath and neither are you folks. Psychopaths are usually people very cold and usually they don't care about other people. You people are too nice and kind. I on the other an just an ass... Yep I said, I admit and do it on purpose because trolls.<br /><br />Being an ass is not psychopathy though But saying otherwise is just insanity 8P<br /><br />-------<br /><br />Dude we care because that is a picture of a lot of people's mentality... Sad but true.<br /><br />-----------<br /><br />Skeppo dodges the the exposute and doubles down at... LOL... Well I guess having an opinion about other people's work is an ad hominem attack.... Well in fact no it is not. The initial claim is that THE BOOK, not Coyne, was pretty pretty bad. That is not freaking EVEN, a personal attack. Actually the whole review has 2 comments that directed at Coyne for real. The rest is just directed at his work.<br /><br />Seriously, being a psycho is sounding like being sane at this point.PsychoEddynoreply@blogger.com