tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post8314250273669092810..comments2024-03-28T03:20:15.940-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Tales from the linksEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55476540728874064752021-04-10T04:40:22.146-07:002021-04-10T04:40:22.146-07:00https://www.colinmcginn.net/why-does-consciousness...https://www.colinmcginn.net/why-does-consciousness-exist/<br />What did you think about mcginn view on consciounessAbekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08238359491123897131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13818200684213513522021-03-20T18:42:20.715-07:002021-03-20T18:42:20.715-07:00I'd guarantee that I grew up poorer than this ...I'd guarantee that I grew up poorer than this "GoneFishing" character...Father John Nauglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01753559891670814767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60411560980534326172021-02-26T06:14:51.344-08:002021-02-26T06:14:51.344-08:00T N,
Were I cynical, I would not be here.T N,<br /><br />Were I cynical, I would not be here.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85786768724090939222021-02-26T06:13:10.801-08:002021-02-26T06:13:10.801-08:00Mister Geocon,
Well, there is the editing process...Mister Geocon,<br /><br />Well, there is the editing process. Pages on controversial topics are monitored by editors who make a commitment to reliability. I would trust the Wikipedia verbiage on, for example, evolutionary theory much more than those on Stoic philosophy, because people are much more motivated to comment on the former, so it is more closely watched by experts.<br /><br />I am still unsure on your position here. Are you saying that we need to put in more effort besides lateral thinking, that we need to use a different method, or that the entire attempt to evaluate sources is pointless?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-41540910032902341422021-02-25T11:31:13.156-08:002021-02-25T11:31:13.156-08:00There's also a STL thesis on the subject: The_...There's also a STL thesis on the subject: The_Palamite_Controversy_A_Thomistic_Analysis<br /><br />I think the author's been interviewed on R&T as well as the Classical Theism podcast.Karl Heintzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991593969870461967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85537336509666470562021-02-25T09:14:23.272-08:002021-02-25T09:14:23.272-08:00One Brow,
It's not even a 10% solution. It st...One Brow,<br /><br />It's not even a 10% solution. It still runs into the same problem: how do I know that Wikipedia is a reliable source?Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-79648414008655985662021-02-25T08:59:53.257-08:002021-02-25T08:59:53.257-08:00One Brow,
And yet, here you are on an A/T discuss...One Brow,<br /><br />And yet, here you are on an A/T discussion board, the Apostle of Cynicism, arguing about every word on every post. Tomorrow you'll come back for more and with the usual hubris and feigned indignation.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25166555134695683812021-02-25T07:18:58.778-08:002021-02-25T07:18:58.778-08:00T N,
You are unaware that smallpox has an incubat...T N,<br /><br /><i>You are unaware that smallpox has an incubation period? </i><br /><br />Every disease does. However, the lack of asymptomatic carriers eases the contact tracing and allows for the quarantining of the exposed who are not yet symptomatic. Do you understand the importance of contact tracing in disease prevention and selective quarantining?<br /><br /><i>Au contraire, I think the bureaucratic Napoleons like them quite a lot.</i><br /><br />Well, that's your paranoid fantasy.<br /><br /><i>Thus the presentation from Briand showing that is likely not the case. The one you ignore.</i><br /><br />How does Briand address the 400K excess deaths in 2020 in the US? Does she even mention them? If so, then I'll watch the video. If not, then I know beforehand it is misinformation.<br /><br /><i>Forcing people to lose their businesses is not “draconian”. Ok.</i><br /><br />People lose businesses every year. It's not ideal. I would have thought a pro-life person would have thought 'letting people die' was even more draconian, but I guess not.<br /><br /><i>Oh, Californians are rebels and Floridians are minions . . . because One Brow will have it that way. Oh, ok.</i><br /><br />There are rebels everywhere.<br /><br />However, your notion that county and city governments who implement lock downs are "minions" is quite telling. If they are the minions, who is their master?<br /><br /><i>The WHO, Unicef, CDC, The U.N., et al. project millions of deaths from lockdowns because of delayed healthcare, unreported child abuse, drug abuse, suicide, etc., etc., etc.</i><br /><br />In the US? <br /><br /><i>I guess knowing more is not what some people are into.</i><br /><br />I just prefer genuine knowledge to cherry-picking states and misuse of statistics.<br /><br /><i>Good, we have 11 months of data and . . . . again: Look at the chart for case numbers on any country, state, county, whatever, and what you will **not** see is cases falling off after masks and lockdown requirements are implemented.</i><br /><br />https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/1/20-2114_article<br /><br /><i>More charity work on my part for playing ONe Brow word games.</i><br /><br />You can stop, anytime. I won't object.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4698223685531265082021-02-25T07:03:14.344-08:002021-02-25T07:03:14.344-08:00T N,
Thank you for making clear that you want us ...T N,<br /><br />Thank you for making clear that you want us to exchange our opinions of each other.<br /><br />I appreciate that you feel entitled to decide who is worthy of participating in a discussion, and that only the topics you feel worthy of discussion should be discussed, but really, you don't understand a lot of what you read and no one hear has to care about who or what you think should be discussed. If you are looking for the narcissist, perhaps you should start in the mirror.<br /><br />As for me, I am often wrong, and one of the great joys of my life is learning how and when. I realize that you have not yet offered me that opportunity, but there is always hope.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-61361560595856858592021-02-25T06:58:19.029-08:002021-02-25T06:58:19.029-08:00Billy,
We aren't talking about quarantining t...Billy,<br /><br /><i>We aren't talking about quarantining the sick, we are talking about quarantining the healthy.</i><br /><br />I don't think that point has been in dispute.<br /><br /><i>Its simply true that there has been no indication that lockdowns have worked to reduce spread</i><br /><br />In that article you quote, the introduction refers to other studies that did find a benefit to lock downs in reducing spread (while saying they felt a different type of analysis was still needed). Your own study proved you wrong.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-88704632992381833182021-02-25T06:43:00.824-08:002021-02-25T06:43:00.824-08:00Mister Geocon,
I am often amused when certain pos...Mister Geocon,<br /><br />I am often amused when certain posters feel the need to type out the specks in the eyes of others. Thanks for the chuckle.<br /><br />No, I didn't think this was a "gotcha", which is why I phrased this as a question. Occasionally I do look for opportunities to bring in "gotcha"s, but those almost always in reference to older conversations that I feel were not quite concluded. I asked because I wasn't sure what you were saying.<br /><br />If you are saying merely that this lateral thinking technique is insufficient, I agree. However, even a 10% solution to a problem is better than a 0%. Tone is difficult to assess in text, of course, so I was not clear if you meant your reference to agnotology as an effort to wo even more (without suggestions as to how) or to give up and not worry about it.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54256336028388250542021-02-25T06:35:48.589-08:002021-02-25T06:35:48.589-08:00Tony,
There is a difference between relying on th...Tony,<br /><br />There is a difference between relying on the consensus/mainstream and weeding out the unreliable opinions. Just because The Cato Institute and World Net Daily tend to the right wing does not make them equally reputable, nor would I equate the reliability of the Economic Policy Institute with The Huffington Post.One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-78058580780187404592021-02-25T04:07:34.602-08:002021-02-25T04:07:34.602-08:00Son of Ya'Kov
It'll definetely help. Than...Son of Ya'Kov<br /><br />It'll definetely help. Thanks. I've also come across this paper titled <a href="https://www.academia.edu/26922293/The_Flexibility_of_Divine_Simplicity_Aquinas_Scotus_Palamas_International_Philosophical_Quarterly_57_2_July_2017_123_139" rel="nofollow">"The Flexibility of Divine Simplicity: Aquinas, Scotus, Palamas"</a> by Mark K. Spencer.<br /><br />Another potentially good resource is Dave Armstrong's <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2006/11/orthodoxy-eastern-index-page.html" rel="nofollow">vast experience</a> debating the East. He also has a <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Catholicism-Comparison-Dave-Armstrong-ebook/dp/B08L18NB9S/ref=sr_1_7?dchild=1&keywords=dave+armstrong&qid=1612957695&sr=8-7" rel="nofollow">book</a> about it. As he's very active in his blog, I e-mailed him and he said he might take interest in Ubi Petrus, which should be good if it ever happens. <br />Aizenhttp://www.imageriametafisica.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11505065069393397272021-02-25T03:22:42.329-08:002021-02-25T03:22:42.329-08:00Floridians are hunkered down from "local lock...Floridians are hunkered down from "local lockdowns"? Remember the Super Bowl Super Spreader event in Tampa, Florida that wasn't a super spreader event? No, of course not, because the media forgets all about their failed predictions of doom when they don't happen.<br /><br />I'm not saying Covid is no bid deal. I'm saying we do not have nearly the control over it that we think we do. And I'm also saying (along with Naomi Wolf) that there are plenty of people capitalizing on the event for their own advantage.<br /><br />The more deadly a disease is, the slower it spreads; the less deadly it is the faster it spreads (for obvious reasons). They start out really bad, and then taper off over time. By next year Covid will be like the common cold.<br /><br />In any case, it isn't going to go away, ever, so we are not going to stay locking in our broom closets forever. That's just stupid.T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-74664128040188742422021-02-24T16:55:32.817-08:002021-02-24T16:55:32.817-08:00Billy,
Narcissists (One Brow) must, of course, al...Billy,<br /><br />Narcissists (One Brow) must, of course, always be correct and they can never lack knowledge. Therefore, when their failings are exposed, their goal is to get their intended victim to question their own sanity by arguing about the meaning of words, or arguing that obvious truths aren’t true, etc. They do this so that they can maintain the feeling that they are in charge. <br /><br />Narcissist jus gonna narcissist.<br />T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3645574111788608702021-02-24T16:53:23.613-08:002021-02-24T16:53:23.613-08:00One Brow,
“With smallpox, there were no asymptoma...One Brow,<br /><br />“With smallpox, there were no asymptomatic carriers.”<br /><br />You are unaware that smallpox has an incubation period? And during that time, they are contagious? You believe the WHO was unaware of this before August of 2019?<br /><br />“Everyone agrees lockdowns are a bad choice.”<br /><br />Au contraire, I think the bureaucratic Napoleons like them quite a lot. <br /><br />“Since last March, covid19 has more than 10 times as many people as all but the worst seasonal flu years.”<br /><br />Thus the presentation from Briand showing that is likely not the case. The one you ignore.<br /><br />“that were in no way "draconian"”<br /><br />Forcing people to lose their businesses is not “draconian”. Ok.<br /><br /> “California has millions of people flouting the lockdowns, and Florida has millions under local lock downs.”<br /><br />Oh, Californians are rebels and Floridians are minions . . . because One Brow will have it that way. Oh, ok.<br /><br />“she's massaging the numbers, since we have some 400K excess deaths in 2020.”<br /><br />The WHO, Unicef, CDC, The U.N., et al. project millions of deaths from lockdowns because of delayed healthcare, unreported child abuse, drug abuse, suicide, etc., etc., etc. By comparison, 400K is small. I, like Brian, think we should find out why. I guess knowing more is not what some people are into.<br /><br />“It does take about a month or so.”<br /><br />Good, we have 11 months of data and . . . . again: Look at the chart for case numbers on any country, state, county, whatever, and what you will **not** see is cases falling off after masks and lockdown requirements are implemented.<br /><br />More charity work on my part for playing ONe Brow word games. <br />T Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06287822708519943071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44637149761365674582021-02-24T16:22:47.607-08:002021-02-24T16:22:47.607-08:00Median Joe
Yes! Unfortunately, much philosophical ...Median Joe<br />Yes! Unfortunately, much philosophical writing is just philosophers writing for other philosophers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36479727983021940982021-02-24T15:15:25.645-08:002021-02-24T15:15:25.645-08:00One Brow,
Are you saying that evaluating the reli...One Brow,<br /><br /><b>Are you saying that evaluating the reliability of your sources is a bad thing? That one person can understand enough about biology, medicine, sociology, anthropology, theology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, cosmology, etc. that they can distinguish between valid views and carefully crafted nonsense without ever needing to consult outside sources?</b><br /><br />The fact that you think that this is a profound "gotcha" to my position shows that this is obviously not my position, One Brow. But given your inability to formulate reasonable arguments or lack of charity (which you've demonstrated many times in the past), this is unsurprising. For your benefit, I will clarify for you why I have a problem with the article.<br /><br />The NYT article's topic is about how to deal with misinformation on the Internet, and the author claims that critical thinking - looking deeply into the source and judging whether the arguments seem credible or not - may not be helpful because these sources may be overwhelming for the average person. This is fair enough as far as it goes, but what is his solution to this? He tells us that we ought to rely on "lateral thinking" - checking another source to see whether the source you are looking at is accurate or not. But then, why should one trust what this source has to say? The author doesn't answer this question. The assumption is that if Wikipedia says someone is a conspiracy theorist or some other type of bad person, then you ought to take them at their word. The idea that Wikipedia may be unreliable is brushed off without an argument. This is what I meant when I asked "Given agnotology, how effective do you think "lateral thinking" is?"<br /><br />Mister Geoconhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16399252824689527561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-31389114915192721722021-02-24T08:24:21.722-08:002021-02-24T08:24:21.722-08:00OneBrow,
We aren't talking about quarantining...OneBrow,<br /><br />We aren't talking about quarantining the sick, we are talking about quarantining the healthy. <br /><br />Its simply true that there has been no indication that lockdowns have worked to reduce spread:<br /><br />https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-55438356556666525332021-02-24T08:23:30.214-08:002021-02-24T08:23:30.214-08:00Hello Mysterious Brony,
In my initial comment, I ...Hello Mysterious Brony,<br /><br />In my initial comment, I was only able to name a handful of contemporary analytic atheist philosophers, however there are a good deal of competent Atheist philosophers such as William Rowe, Stephen Maitzen, Adolf Grunbaum, Evan Fales, J.L. Schellenberg, Nicholas Everitt, Michael Martin, Michael Tooley, Robin Le Poidevin, Theodore Drange, with Herman Phillipse and Matt McCormick being among them. I'm sure there are more out there as well. This is why I was very interested in seeing a post from Prof. Feser on analytic atheist philosophy from Mackie to the present, as I believe he'd provide an interesting tour of the discipline from his perspective as a Thomist and a analytic philosopher.<br /><br />I've seen that Herman Philipse's book got a fairly good review here:<br /><br />https://philosophicaldisquisitions.blogspot.com/2012/06/there-are-certain-books-that-everyone.html<br /><br />Like you, I have not read Matt McCormick's book. Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11439522164857546501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59684968721366149152021-02-24T07:12:17.403-08:002021-02-24T07:12:17.403-08:00Well, the main thrust was rather that you should o...Well, the main thrust was rather that you should outsource your decision about <i>whether</i> to read a given source to La Wiki and other purveyors of "mainstream". But yes, it ends up having the same effect. <br />Obviously, relying on the mainstream or the middle-of-the-road consensus to tell you whether a new source is worthwhile effectively is going to narrow your options to middle-of-the-road, consensus opinions. That may be useful in some contexts, but it can't be useful in regards to issues for which the heart of the question is <i>whether the so-called consensus of opinions is actually reasonable</i>. If the new source is, specifically, taking the consensus to task for its blinkered go-along-to-get-along groupthink, lack of critical thinking, then checking with the consensus to see if it a worthwhile source is kind of silly. <br /><br />Here's an example: for perhaps 3 decades, it was firm, unquestioned consensus that old people should take a baby aspirin a day, especially anyone with cardio-vascular issues. Some 15 or so years ago, there was a series of new medical studies that actually showed that such a regimen actually increased morbidity, health care interventions (and cost), and lost year-lives to various problems. A friend of mine (in his 70's) went to his cardiologist - who had been telling him to take baby aspirin - and told him about the studies and the new medical opinion, and the cardiologist's off-the-cuff response was to reject <i>considering</i> the new information precisely because it conflicted with the heretofore consensus. Whatever the merits of the new studies, that was a bad reason to refuse to consider them and think about them critically. <br /><br /><i>Also all ignorant people are necessarily liars.</i> <br /><br />BTO, that's really funny. <br /><br />Sometimes, though, it is hard to detect sarcasm / irony in a blog post, so it took me a second to see it. Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07159134209092031897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-85083608612571006122021-02-24T06:24:48.252-08:002021-02-24T06:24:48.252-08:00T N,
Smallpox was not cured by quarantining the he...T N,<br /><i>Smallpox was not cured by quarantining the healthy. As late as July 2019, the W.H.O. recommended against lockdowns (1)</i><br /><br />With smallpox, there were no asymptomatic carriers. <br /><br />Everyone agrees lockdowns are a bad choice. You only use them when facing a worse choice.<br /><br /><i>The flu is a seasonal respiratory virus with a comparable lethality rate to Covid-19 ...</i><br /><br />Since last March, covid19 has more than 10 times as many people as all but the worst seasonal flu years. Only the innumerate think an order of magnitude is "comparable".<br /><br />I agree Florida has no statewide lockdowns, and California did have some (that were in no way "draconian"). <br /><br />I believe you understand the difference between <i>de jure</i> and <i>de facto</i>. California has millions of people flouting the lockdowns, and Florida has millions under local lock downs. <br /><br />It's also a selective comparison, as Florida has one of the lowest rates in the nation among anti-lockdown states, and and California one of the highest.<br /><br />https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100k<br /><br /><i>Dr. Genevieve Briand of John’s Hopkins demonstrates ... that deaths from all other causes have fallen sharply as Covid deaths have risen by the same amount.</i><br /><br />Then I already know she's massaging the numbers, since we have some 400K excess deaths in 2020. The same death rates would lead to very few excess deaths.<br /><br /><i>Again, Look at the chart for case numbers on any country, state, county, whatever, and what you will **not** see is cases falling off after masks and lockdown requirements are implemented.</i><br /><br />It does take about a month or so.<br /><br />One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-26211349573656810892021-02-24T06:19:24.911-08:002021-02-24T06:19:24.911-08:00Learning is hard! I think it boils down to that. :...Learning is hard! I think it boils down to that. :)<br /><br /><br />OK, so just trying to break the Simpson Abstract down to manageable chunks. <br /><br />1.He starts off by describing the primitive ontology approach to quantum mechanics. It seeks to account for quantum phenomena [such as quantum entanglement among other strange things] in terms of <br /> A - distribution of matter in three dimensional space. <br /> B - A law of nature that describes its temporal development. [daniel - the temporal development of matter in three dimensional space or quantum phenomena in general?]<br /><br />2-He then states that this approach is compatible with either Humean or Powerist accounts of laws. [daniel - by this I take it he is referring specifically to the law of nature that describes temporal development (like A or B theory of time that Ed talks about?)]<br /><br />3-Now he specifies the purpose of his paper which is to offer a “powerist ontology in which the law is specified by Bohmian mechanics for a global configuration of particles.”<br /><br />4-He then distinguishes his powerist ontology from those grounded in structure power instantiated by global configuration. His powerist ontology is based on Aristotle’s doctrine of hylomorphism such that the cosmos itself is a substance with an intrinsic power to choreograph the trajectories of particles. [daniel - By intrinsic power, I think of matter/form, or material cause and formal cause. ]<br /><br />Just did a quick key word search. It looks like he provides definitions for what he thinks the material and formal causes should be: <br /><br />“By supplying a persisting substrate with the potential to bear causal powers, the Power-Atoms serve as the material cause of the cosmic whole. “<br /><br />OK. Now what the heck is a power-atom? LOL<br /><br />“Likewise, in my model, the Cosmic Form is analogous to the Aristotelian concept of substantial form, although there is only a single form. By grounding the physical powers of the Power-Atoms, the Cosmic Form acts as the formal cause of the Cosmic Substance.”<br /><br />Next to define is Cosmic Form. <br /><br />So power atoms and cosmic form make up the cosmic substance. Cool. And the intrinsic powers of this cosmic substance help to explain quantum entanglement. <br /><br />Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17479435356630882897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-4568708585829827882021-02-24T06:01:51.742-08:002021-02-24T06:01:51.742-08:00Mister Geocon,
Are you saying that evaluating the...Mister Geocon,<br /><br />Are you saying that evaluating the reliability of your sources is a bad thing? That one person can understand enough about biology, medicine, sociology, anthropology, theology, physics, chemistry, mathematics, geology, cosmology, etc. that they can distinguish between valid views and carefully crafted nonsense without ever needing to consult outside sources?One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-52298865309233036892021-02-24T04:58:31.177-08:002021-02-24T04:58:31.177-08:00"With Quentin Smith now passing away, I'm..."With Quentin Smith now passing away, I'm wondering which Atheist philosophers now left do you still consider serious thinkers. Are Graham Oppy and Paul Draper the only ones left now?"<br /><br />Some years ago Prof. Feser had an online, multipart dialogue with atheist philosopher Keith Parsons. Parsons has said he doesn't do professional work on Philosophy of Religion anymore, though.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.com