tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post7881062933425100705..comments2024-03-28T12:18:51.521-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Dupré on the ideologizing of scienceEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger124125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5414917726836355032021-03-09T11:43:49.237-08:002021-03-09T11:43:49.237-08:00Care to respond and not call it vague?Care to respond and not call it vague?rotoscopehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10291485591906803279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26420337429695076952020-12-07T16:35:55.404-08:002020-12-07T16:35:55.404-08:00"Because, my friend, being an atheist brings ..."Because, my friend, being an atheist brings an urgency, a vibrancy, awe, preciousness, and wonder to this brief spec of time each of us has to be aware of the universe and to soak up as much of it as we can in the sliver of time we each have to do anything at all."<br /><br />I never really got that point. Why does it matter, from an individual point of view, if I am dead tomorrow or in 10 years? There will be no difference for me. So why bother doing research? If my fate is, at the end, like multiplication with zero - wouldn't it be more rational just to maximize my own wellbeing (of course this may include beeing nice to my family or maybe supporting medical research and so on - but not as a self purpose). Knowledge for the sake of knowledge or truth for the sake of truth might be pleasant for some, but it is, under the line, the same level of illusion as believing in a god because it makes life easier/helps with existential fear. If materialism was true, both doesn't matter. We shouldn't even care if we are part of the matrix (let alone taking the red pill, which makes life harder). So better sit down with a large beer and make the best of it - whatever it may be for you. Why wasting your time trying to convince theists? Is that really what gives you pleasure?The world doesn't care anyway and there is no "ought". That, my friend, is relativism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-16349636928083446482020-11-07T14:13:40.017-08:002020-11-07T14:13:40.017-08:00Unknown,
Your post is just a series of inaccurate ...Unknown,<br />Your post is just a series of inaccurate mined "quotes" in combination with vague terms you then proceed to equivocate.<br /><br />If you care to make an actual rational argument, fine.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-62721407456053941202020-11-07T13:37:05.977-08:002020-11-07T13:37:05.977-08:00Christian,
"I strongly believe that the mater...Christian,<br />"I strongly believe that the materialistic-empirical paradigm will be shortly overturned".<br />Your beliefs are not a substitute for the application of reason to scientific investigation.<br /><br />The materialistic-empirical paradigm, properly expressed, is entirely free of self-contradiction, whereas, the Christian-faith-belief-scripture paradigm is inherently self-contradictory, irrational, and lacking in evidence.<br /><br />“acceptance of some form of pan-psychism being present at the root of perceived reality.”<br />Pan-psychism is an evidence free idle speculation.<br /><br />What is the pan psyche made of? Nothing? Then in what sense do you say it exists? Something? Fine, what is that something? If the pan psyche stuff interacts with material so strongly as to manifest as our brain processes, why can’t it be scientifically detected?<br /><br />If the pan psyche pervades the universe does that mean the vacuum is conscious? Perhaps you say that pan psyche stuff is associated with material, but if that is so, why does it concentrate so acutely in the human brain, but show no accumulation in much more massive assemblages like boulders, or a coal vein, a cow's butt, or a star or a galaxy?<br /><br />How does pan psyche stuff connect to itself and coordinate its actions so intricately to account for human activity, and how does all this pan psyche stuff action link to our bodily actions, yet remain scientifically undetectable?<br /><br />Pan-psychism, like Christianity and similar religions, is just another idle, self-contradictory, irrational speculation that quickly breaks down under rational analysis and offers no realistic challenge whatever to the materialistic-empirical paradigm.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-86987728444383225642020-11-04T14:37:32.037-08:002020-11-04T14:37:32.037-08:00When I hear statements like "Joe Biden is a d...When I hear statements like "Joe Biden is a decent human being" I can't help but feel it's a right wing troll pretending to be an overeager left wing...enthusiast, let's just say. <br /><br />I consider every single paradigm in human history to be strongly associated with its cultural and economic environment. Quantum physics and the discovery of DNA radically redefined the meaning of the word "matter" and open vast new possibilities for novel fields of study. The reductionist world view of materialism is therefore, already untenable, and has been so for quite some time. Yet the scientific establishment still clings to this obsolete epistemological model largely because it is more practical for small-scale research common in most academic establishments. To go beyond that requires great vision, great minds and more importantly, great funds. The complexity of modern science makes it impossible for a single genius individual, like in the past, to drive scientific progress on their own accord. You would need a community of such geniuses working in unison. This would of course require some kind of selection program for such individuals, as well as a directed research effort as a matter of informed public policy. At the moment, this direction is stymied by lack of money and qualification, as well as great waste on unscientific programs, such as ideology driven climate change. <br /><br />In other words I do not believe that a change in paradigm is possible as long as the liberal-democratic-capitalist model remains in place, which of course is one political form of scientific materialism. However, thankfully, things are moving in the right direction, bit by bit.Christian Reptiliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82343682227820931542020-11-04T02:55:13.823-08:002020-11-04T02:55:13.823-08:00First of all, thank you for posting such a calm an... First of all, thank you for posting such a calm and measured response to the rancour which frequently appears on this site. I agree with much of what you have to say, other than the promissory shift from the 'materialistic-empirical paradigm' to some form of pansychism. It seems to me that those who disagree with or dislike this paradigm have been anticipating a shift away from it for many decades now ( often because of supposedly mounting scientific evidence for alleged paranormal phenomena ), but it is showing little sign of occurring. <br /><br />As regards the motivation of the 'extremely liberal RationalWiki types' that post on here, are you sure that they are generally sincere, but lack adequate grounding in the topics they discuss? This may be so for some, but I get the impression sometimes that there is a quite deliberate ( and often successful ) attempt going on to confuse and destabalise the thread for either ideological reasons or ones of personal entertainment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59605596170928227962020-11-03T22:44:55.482-08:002020-11-03T22:44:55.482-08:00Papalinton
Who you say that it is anti scientifi...Papalinton <br /><br />Who you say that it is anti scientific to label any human action as inhuman?<br /><br />If humans lack any objective purpose then how could anything we do be what we ought not do?<br /><br />On the grounds of science alone our minds cannot be rationally viewed as powerful enough to think science is true.<br /><br />Since it contains a great deal of truth we must abandon the view that science alone explains human minds. Even if this is uncomfortable for modern man.<br /><br />Scientific materialism does a good job of explaining the world but a terrible job of explaining the human mind. It undermines our ability to know which means it's too small it's missing part of the picture. <br /><br />This isn't surprising since it left the human mind to the side and sought to understand material reality.<br /><br />We seem to have got caught up in the hype and thought it could explain everything. <br /><br />Depending the process that made us we can have greater or lesser trust in reason. All acts of insight into reality cannot be trusted beyond that which formed our minds. A process directed towards survival can't be trusted beyond that. Any abilities given by a free agent cannot be trusted unless that free agent is sufficiently honest and non deceptive as well as sufficiently knowledgeable. Same holds if there is an agent behind this agent. Since survival is actually the thing that gives a creatures mind on materialism all the think credibility for thinking that it has. A unguided process without that such as panpsychism would perhaps have less credibility. <br /><br />A being that trusts their mind that came into existence needs a creator sufficient for that level of trust if they come to a different view of their creation they should adjust their level of trust to compensate. If this is too low to account for their theory of their creation they have a dilemma.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-6704064279806470712020-11-03T22:19:37.087-08:002020-11-03T22:19:37.087-08:00Stardust,
You are then saying that the argument f...Stardust,<br /><br />You are then saying that the argument from evil is nonsense as it is not scientific in nature. You state that science is the only way we can have some ability to know things and demonstrate a philosophy more utterly pointless than logical positivism. <br />Your argument is not scientific in nature so your argument makes no sense.<br /><br />In other places you say that all of reality is material but this not a scientific statement. <br /><br />In fact everything you write is filled with extra scientific arguments. So by your own standards your talking nonsense. <br /><br />You cannot on your grounds trust your perception of good and evil nor of there being objective values and so have no basis for moral obligations.<br /><br />You by your own admission cannot tell if a philosophical argument is true or false and are by your own view have no grounds to object except I want. <br /><br />If science is the only thing that gives probable knowledge your moral views are just your feelings. <br /><br />Yet you continue to post here because of envy?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06371150838441461067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37222716583364762472020-11-03T15:25:04.626-08:002020-11-03T15:25:04.626-08:00First of all, I'd like to say we need to stop ...First of all, I'd like to say we need to stop this verbal shit flinging. I ask for the admins of this website to interfere and sort of out the increasingly toxic discussion in the comment sections. <br /><br />Yet I must admit that I find it oddly entertaining to watch people coming from these extremely liberal rationalwiki type standpoints to launch attacks at Dr. Feser's articles without comprehending their substantial lack of qualified license to do so. This is illustrated by their tendency to use well treaded generalities or textbook definitions to "disprove" or argue against specialized knowledge, the hallmark of a dilettante. Stanford Encyclopedia essentially is a student resource intended to introduce or delineate a given subject rather than to provide a definitive conclusion to its finer points. It's ok to cite such sources when you're trying to explain something, but not as a counter-argument to statements that go beyond the measure of their boundaries. To put it in the perspective it would be like a student who just grasped the concept of fractions from the first quarter of a grade school textbook to argue with a professor about the existence of real numbers. <br /><br />Still there's nothing worse than an echo chamber and the views of such people should be taken into account and treated with respect whenever possible. I will further concede they raise solid rhetorical questions at times regarding statements that are not so clear and obvious to the average reader, so answering them is absolutely helpful and necessary, and in this they provide us with an invaluable service.<br /><br />The very fact that we show any kind of aversion to those who pose us no direct physical threat proves that there's something wrong with the way some of us think at least. <br /><br />I think we can find common ground with progressives on many grounds, not the least of which is the political. For one, I don't view capitalism as a "conservative" idea. More specifically I believe the market needs to be subjected to public needs first and foremost. Otherwise you have an oligarchy, which is the plague of civilized society. "Freemarketism" and its associated right-libertarianism is therefore a cultural pathology peculiar to the Anglosphere that should not be automatically assumed of all conservatives everywhere else.<br /><br />Soviet NKVD chief Laurenty Beria once said, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime". The relevance of this quote here is that you will never be able to grasp every concept in terms of an entirely rational, complete and integral view of the world which at the same time, happens be entirely in tune with what the scientific community deems to be "scientific" at any given point in time. In other words there will always be a time when you either have to be consistent with regards to your beliefs even if it means being branded "pseudoscientific" or embrace a slippery mentality to think in accordance with the new body of evidence (or what is more common in our pal-reviewed publishing age, body of assertions) which might as well contradict everything that you've held to be true before. <br /><br />I strongly believe that the materialistic-empirical paradigm will be shortly overturned, none other than within the mainstream academic establishment, in the next few decades or so as evidenced by a gradually growing acceptance of some form of pan-psychism being present at the root of perceived reality. This will be especially facilitated by the ongoing merging of science and technology, where AI based technological systems will essentially guide and drive scientific development to the point where the creative and the empirical would be closely aligned with each other. This would perhaps in a way, reinvigorate the perennial microcosm-macrocosm conception of the medieval natural philosopher. The scientific materialist will then be viewed as a quaint academic remnant of yesteryore, much like the historic dialectician of the orthodox Marxist school.<br />Christian Reptiliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29896352960860966562020-11-02T06:28:09.371-08:002020-11-02T06:28:09.371-08:00grodrigues,
Calling it "Undefined" or &...grodrigues,<br /><br /><i>Calling it "Undefined" or "meaningless" makes absolutely no difference for my point, neither does your change of words make a "different point" or a "different construction" in any relevant sense. God, are you *this* stupid?</i><br /><br />I am that amused. Here you are trying to lecture me about classes of models, and you don't even seem to recognize the relationship between a model and its interpretation. <br /><br /><i>So my guess was actually correct. You did meant that True or meaningless = meaningless (= in the sense of evaluation). Amazing, crank level of amazing.</i><br /><br />Indeed. Why should such a statement be true?<br /><br /><i>Evaluation is well-defined for every well formed formula, this follows from its recursive definition. So what the hell are you harping on? If what you want to say is that if ev(p) = M therefore p is meaningless, in the common sense of the word, this is just so stupid that I do not even know where to begin. Maybe ask a refund on that "graduation program"? </i><br /><br />Can't ask for a refund to something I didn't pay a penny for. I'm still waiting for a reason to take your determination of "stupid" seriously, and so far, I still don't see anything past an undergraduate level of understanding on the topic.<br /><br /><i>"Refuting a logic"? What I said what that your construction is not a logic at all, because you do not even have disjunction (and *that* is that which refutation is so obvious that it does not even merit printing). </i><br /><br />If a statement has meaning, there is disjunction. Should a statement have none, why would you need disjunction? Why would you want to inject meaningless statements into a chain of reasoning?<br /><br /><i>At any rate, to repeat myself, your construction is not a construction of a logic at all, classical or not classical, standard or not standard, ... </i><br /><br />Again, I haven't seen a reason to take you seriously on this judgement. Pomposity is not authority.<br /><br /><i>Of course, the problem is always with anyone other than yourself, in this particular case, me. </i><br /><br />Projection, much? I can and do take criticism from people that have earned my respect, and no, that does not mean people that agree with me. I read more carefully from people that disagree, when they engage in discussion.<br /><br /><i>Just like when you finally conceded that multiple values in a logic was an issue orthogonal to the principle of explosion, the problem in the end was with "my ego".</i><br /><br />?????<br /><br />My entire point in adding a third value was that the principle of explosion was an artifact of the use of only two values in classical logic. So, you're saying I "conceded" the point I was trying to make? Or, was the "concession" that you could have multiple values and retain the principle of explosion? I don't recall claiming otherwise.<br /><br /><i>Your bravado is... </i><br /><br />not bravado at all. I have nothing to lose here, except time, with the hope of securing knowledge.<br /><br />I’ll repeat this question, in case you decide to read and respond, for emphasis: Why would you want to inject meaningless statements into a chain of reasoning?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27336559530663130472020-11-02T04:48:53.824-08:002020-11-02T04:48:53.824-08:00 The comment at 11.38pm was not me ( contributor a... The comment at 11.38pm was not me ( contributor at 5.35am.). I think it quite obvious which word you intended to use, and was puzzled by the question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73479899573338029692020-11-02T03:38:00.573-08:002020-11-02T03:38:00.573-08:00Hi, Anonymous at 5:35AM. It is quite fascinating ...Hi, Anonymous at 5:35AM. It is quite fascinating trying to discern one Anonymous from the other, particularly if the comment is short and reasonable, such as the comment at 11:38AM which I am assuming is yours. On that assumption, yes, the word 'enormity' is the one I was wanting to use, synonymous with the immensity, seriousness and magnitude of that sense of understanding the conception of self. It's what Prof Scott Atran has termed, 'the tragedy of cognition' in which we truly understand the circumstantial happenstance of our existence and the inevitability of our eventual death. <br /><br />Coming back to the two Anonymouses, it's quite hilarious. It's as though, when read one after the other, one is observing the stream of consciousness of a schizophrenic, a reasonable normal persona one one hand and the psychotic other that's off their meds; angry, antisocial, discourteous.<br /><br />But it is both interesting and amusing.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80734357211226102142020-11-01T14:40:49.639-08:002020-11-01T14:40:49.639-08:00Grassley was wrong because the appointments made b...<i>Grassley was wrong because the appointments made by Obama were done so honestly, not because “packing” cannot be reasonably used in cases absent expansion.</i><br /><br />Politifact, the source you provided, disagreed with you.<br /><br /><i>Packing, be it a jury, committee, the lower courts, or the Supreme Court is the dishonest or hypocritical installation of voting members, irrespective of the mechanism by which that dishonest or hypocritical installation is accomplished.</i><br /><br />Not according to the overwhelming majority of usage. This would not be such a problem for you if you would simply admit your usage is highly atypical.<br /><br /><i>Politifact is not my “source”, as though I am somehow bound to their editorial judgments.</i><br /><br />So you provided a source you disagree with to support your argument?<br /><br /><i>Republican use of the term “court packing” in cases absent expansion is a historical fact reported by many news organizations.</i><br /><br />The group you called irrational, dishonest, and hypocritical? That's your supporting cast?<br /><br /><i>Then you had blinders on while reading.</i><br /><br />That would be Google that had blinders. In a Google search of "what is court packing", the first five pages of results had exactly one page using it as you are, and that was the leftwing Center for American Progress. Not mainstream, not reputable.<br /><br /><i>Our likely future president has correctly used the term WRT 2016 Republican court packing.</i><br /><br />He has indeed correctly used it, when he said he wasn't a fan of it when asked if he would expand the court. He has also used it in your manner, which, just like you, he is partisan and using it in a highly atypical fashion to attack Republicans and muddy the waters. Unlike you, he is likely aware of what he is doing, or at least the people telling him what to say are. <br /><br /><i>The correct use of the term “packing” as applied to the case of not expanding the court has become commonplace and mainstream since 2016</i><br /><br />Leftwing nutjobs are indeed common, but it is still highly atypical to use it in any other fashion. Asserting otherwise is quite baseless.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20751581036993452722020-11-01T09:16:21.976-08:002020-11-01T09:16:21.976-08:00Told you so.Told you so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32370555311529822292020-11-01T09:10:08.594-08:002020-11-01T09:10:08.594-08:00@Anonymous:
"Do you really have a PhD grodri...@Anonymous:<br /><br />"Do you really have a PhD grodrigues, or are you simply a bloviating charlaton?"<br /><br />Does it matter?<br /><br />"You are clearly emotionally highly unstable."<br /><br />I highly emotionally stable. AAARRRRRRGHHHHH Kill kill kill! Damned padded walls.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-64413381095712907322020-11-01T08:39:56.258-08:002020-11-01T08:39:56.258-08:00Do you really have a PhD grodrigues, or are you si...Do you really have a PhD grodrigues, or are you simply a bloviating charlaton? You are clearly emotionally highly unstable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-27423365154033904052020-11-01T08:30:42.552-08:002020-11-01T08:30:42.552-08:00@One Brow:
"Well, I do like being precise, s...@One Brow:<br /><br />"Well, I do like being precise, so this is the paragraph that set it off:"<br /><br />I explicitly stated in the original thread, several times, what I was objecting to. So this "precision" of yours is just a dishonest attempt at obfuscation.<br /><br />"Incorrect. That might be a choice for intuitionist-style mathematics, but I was trying to make a different point, and so chose a different construction."<br /><br />Calling it "Undefined" or "meaningless" makes absolutely no difference for my point, neither does your change of words make a "different point" or a "different construction" in any relevant sense. God, are you *this* stupid?<br /><br />"It would block disjunctive introduction for the introduction of meaningless statements only, and would retain disjunctive syllogism for statements with meaning."<br /><br />So my guess was actually correct. You did meant that True or meaningless = meaningless (= in the sense of evaluation). Amazing, crank level of amazing.<br /><br />"Every logic is a construction that we can use or not use as we see fit, and I agree that my construction is not standard nor classical. The notion of refuting a logic where every well-formed-formula can be evaluated is silly."<br /><br />Evaluation is well-defined for every well formed formula, this follows from its recursive definition. So what the hell are you harping on? If what you want to say is that if ev(p) = M therefore p is meaningless, in the common sense of the word, this is just so stupid that I do not even know where to begin. Maybe ask a refund on that "graduation program"? "Refuting a logic"? What I said what that your construction is not a logic at all, because you do not even have disjunction (and *that* is that which refutation is so obvious that it does not even merit printing). Is it the case that you have elementary reading comprehension problems or is it a case of intellectual dishonesty? Do you even care about the truth? Obviously not. At any rate, to repeat myself, your construction is not a construction of a logic at all, classical or not classical, standard or not standard, but dumbass bullshit that you want to pass off as if you know anything about logic. It is even less than what I originally said it was: "not disjunction but One-brow-disjunction and it is not a logic but I-don't-anything-about-logic One Brow logic".<br /><br />Pathetic.<br /><br />"because you were more interesting in winning the discussion that in understanding it."<br /><br />Of course, the problem is always with anyone other than yourself, in this particular case, me. Just like when you finally conceded that multiple values in a logic was an issue orthogonal to the principle of explosion, the problem in the end was with "my ego".<br /><br />Right, right. Projection is a bitch.<br /><br />"This is likely best for you."<br /><br />Your bravado is... Well, I do not know if you are trying to fool me or yourself, at any rate, the issue is now resolved to my satisfaction and dead and buried.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5890573819482291652020-11-01T07:35:29.239-08:002020-11-01T07:35:29.239-08:00grodrigues,
So in what consisted your quibbling? Y...grodrigues,<br /><i>So in what consisted your quibbling? You introduced a 3-valued logic with a third value that you called undefined, or U for short, </i><br /><br />Incorrect. That might be a choice for intuitionist-style mathematics, but I was trying to make a different point, and so chose a different construction. I referred to "meaningless", with the notion that having a F => T would be a meaningless statement. Meaningless statements would never be true or false.<br /><br /><i>that purportedly did not have the principle of explosion as an inference rule but had all other properties like non-contradiction, etc. This is all completely irrelevant *unless* in your model True or U = U, as you seem to imply when talking about evaluation (but my memory is admittedly hazy on this) than I concede that this would block both disjunction introduction and disjunctive syllogism, and therefore the principle of explosion, so it would be a sort of 3-valued minimal logic, I guess. </i><br /><br />It would block disjunctive introduction for the introduction of meaningless statements only, and would retain disjunctive syllogism for statements with meaning.<br /><br /><i>There is just one problem if this is what you meant; this is not disjunction but One-brow-disjunction and it is not a logic but I-don't-anything-about-logic One Brow logic. The refutation is so obvious that it is insulting to even print it.</i><br /><br />Every logic is a construction that we can use or not use as we see fit, and I agree that my construction is not standard nor classical. The notion of refuting a logic where every well-formed-formula can be evaluated is silly.<br /><br /><i>The plain matter of fact is that you know jack about the subject as is abundantly clear from the cited thread. </i><br /><br />The plain fact of the matter is that you didn't understand what you were criticizing, because you were more interesting in winning the discussion that in understanding it.<br /><br /><i>... I will continue to do it, graduation program or no graduation program, ... </i><br /><br />Then I see no reason to stop needling you about it, as the occasion arises.<br /><br /><i>... so the sooner it is buried and forgotten the better. For both of us.</i><br /><br />This is likely best for you.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79082214431784969422020-11-01T07:34:48.357-08:002020-11-01T07:34:48.357-08:00grodrigues,
"No, just highly amused that you ...grodrigues,<br /><b>"No, just highly amused that you win to win an argument based on "rank" as opposed to knowledge (a tactic I have seen you use more than once), and that every time you try it, you do so by pulling out misunderstandings of the topic so elementary that they show an undergraduate level of understanding, at best."</b><br /><br /><i>This is actually a lie, but I will address it at the end..</i><br /><br />I'm not sure which part you claimed to be a lie, because you did not address it at the end. I can link to at least one other occasion where you have tried to pull rank, and you still haven't presented any arguments that show more than an undergraduate level of understanding of logic. It's nothing to be ashamed of, your understanding seemingly surpasses 99% of humanity and 95% of the regular commentators on this board.<br /><br /><i>So let us dig some old, dry bones. To remind (and I am going by memory here, so anticipated apologies if I am misremembering something), the discussion in the thread of the post Pod People was sparked by your absolutely asinine and obviously false claim that there are no logical arguments in the empirical sciences </i><br /><br />Well, I do like being precise, so this is the paragraph that set it off:<br /><b>Non-sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Logic is the grammar of philosophy and mathematics. Science deals with evidence and models. It is a category error to introduce the concepts of logical argumentation into a scientific discussion. Evidence can be valuable or not valuable, relevant or not relevant, supportive or not supportive of a point. There are unsupported, even discredited hypotheses. There are no scientific non sequiturs, because science is not a logical argument.</b><br /><br />If you really feel that strongly about it, rather than quibble about logic, perhaps you could introduce a scientific non-sequitur that is not a discredited hypothesis?<br /><br /><i>and ended up, irony of ironies, with you quibbling with (some claims about) the principle of explosion.</i><br /><br />Threads do tend to drift off into tangents.<br /><br /><i>The principle of explosion does not arise out of nothing. ... This is all textbook stuff and can be easily checked. </i><br /><br />Exactly so.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25930847320796125512020-11-01T06:50:29.519-08:002020-11-01T06:50:29.519-08:00Says the noxious troll par excellance.Says the noxious troll par excellance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11986338546021382412020-11-01T06:43:57.418-08:002020-11-01T06:43:57.418-08:00I notice that Stardusty loves to engage in burden-...I notice that Stardusty loves to engage in burden-shifting. Notice how, when confronted with the consequences of his own moral relativism (namely, that it robbed him of any legitimate grounds on which to condemn his opponents for their moral failings, since he is not entitled to claim that any behaviour ought to be normative for anyone), he ignored the problem and instead responded with a demand that *we* prove that objective morality exists. This, needless to say, is a red herring - we don't have to prove that objective morality is true to point out the problems with subjective morality, not that that seems to matter to Stardusty.Cantushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09423694187264830935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-28640728978705402572020-11-01T05:35:11.719-08:002020-11-01T05:35:11.719-08:00Hi Papalinton
The anonymous at 5.10pm pops up re...Hi Papalinton<br /><br /> The anonymous at 5.10pm pops up regularly to abuse people, call them troll and tell them to get lost, so inevitably fuelling debate about trolls and derailing the thread. He is clearly a troll himself, whose raison d'etre is to disrupt proceedings. <br /><br /> Please ignore this loathsome creature and continue to post as you see fit. The presence of so many interesting and dissenting voices is one of the things that makes these columns worth persuing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22921113044263130712020-11-01T02:37:08.171-08:002020-11-01T02:37:08.171-08:00Kevin,
“Republican idiot Grassley also did, and yo...Kevin,<br />“Republican idiot Grassley also did, and your source Politifact nailed him on it”<br />Grassley was wrong because the appointments made by Obama were done so honestly, not because “packing” cannot be reasonably used in cases absent expansion.<br /><br />Packing, be it a jury, committee, the lower courts, or the Supreme Court is the dishonest or hypocritical installation of voting members, irrespective of the mechanism by which that dishonest or hypocritical installation is accomplished.<br /><br />“your source Politifact nailed”<br />Politifact is not my “source”, as though I am somehow bound to their editorial judgments.<br /><br />Republican use of the term “court packing” in cases absent expansion is a historical fact reported by many news organizations. <br /><br />“I found no reputable mainstream source in media, government, academia, or historical or scholarly spheres using it as you do”<br />Then you had blinders on while reading.<br /><br />“Only by you and a handful of leftwing nutjob sources and one Republican idiot.”<br />Our likely future president has correctly used the term WRT 2016 Republican court packing.<br /><br />The correct use of the term “packing” as applied to the case of not expanding the court has become commonplace and mainstream since 2016 because the actions of McConnell and his henchmen were so very obviously a case of court packing that now there is a major such instance in recent history and of immediate and critical importance.<br /><br />Prior to 2016 use of “court packing” could be correctly applied absent expansion, but since 2016 that correct usage has increased in frequency because the 2016 Republican court packing was such an obvious and consequential instance of court packing.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-63850308740285616752020-10-31T18:25:22.358-07:002020-10-31T18:25:22.358-07:00If by progressive you mean SJW, intersectional fem...<i>If by progressive you mean SJW, intersectional feminism, critical race theory, and the BLM organization, then yes the level of irrationality is highly comparable to Republicans, Christians, and Trump voters.</i><br /><br />Irrational, dishonest, and hypocritical. Ideologues like you are not rational creatures.<br /><br /><i>…one inexorably converges on secular humanism, regulated capitalism, atheism, and reductionist materialism.</i><br /><br />You got one of those right. Or so I thought...<br /><br /><i>So you admit that court packing does not necessarily refer to expanding the court.</i><br /><br />I freely acknowledged that you and select other leftwing nutjobs use it differently than all the reputable sources I listed, which was not even close to comprehensive. Republican idiot Grassley also did, and your source Politifact nailed him on it. I said I found no reputable mainstream source in media, government, academia, or historical or scholarly spheres using it as you do, not that "no one" does. And I rightly pointed out that you absolutely refused to acknowledge your usage was highly atypical.<br /><br /><i>You just admitted that what I have been saying is true, that court packing does not require expansion.</i><br /><br />So you admit that your usage is highly atypical. Finally.<br /><br />If this is the level of reasoning that leads one to atheism, secular humanism, and material reductionism, then I am seriously doubting my support for regulated capitalism.<br /><br /><i>When McConnell and all his henchmen destroyed a social and democratic norm the language adapted appropriately.</i><br /><br />Only by you and a handful of leftwing nutjob sources and one Republican idiot. Everyone else stayed the same.<br /><br /><i>I am not being even slightly irrational or dishonest in my analysis or use of language, you are</i><br /><br />Ah, another language adaptation. Prior to this exchange, your sentence would have read "I am not being even slightly rational or honest", and like court packing, the vast majority still use it in that manner.<br /><br />Though I certainly do appreciate the level of power you give your little minority, when the "little minority" that voted for Trump you completely dismiss. The double standard is a lovely thing to behold.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02593005679430527458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-38143802520156078702020-10-31T17:44:53.367-07:002020-10-31T17:44:53.367-07:00Cantus,
"Good grief, Stardusty - how on earth...Cantus,<br />"Good grief, Stardusty - how on earth do you read"<br />Simple logic. <br /><br />"That's literally the *exact opposite* of what he said."<br />Nope. He didn't say "all", he said "majority".<br /><br />If the "majority" holds X then by simple logic the minority holds other than X.<br /><br />If a word has been used in context A by the minority then it is true that context A has been a part of the general usage language in the past, and it is not true that A has not been part of general usage language in the past.<br /><br />By stating that the “majority” usage of “court packing” has been in reference to expansion Kevin admitted that “court packing” also refers to dishonestly installing justices in a fixed number of seats.<br /><br />I detailed the reasons for these various usages relative frequency above.<br /><br />Logic, folks, logic.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com