Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-02-2017, 11:40 AM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
hi Naielis.

I think you're missing the point between.

"Understanding very well"

and

"Understanding well enough to catch the subtle vagarities in language that other people are placing upon words"

At the moment.

Thumbsup

Cheers

P.S. Sorry for the spelling errors.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 11:48 AM (This post was last modified: 09-02-2017 12:00 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:09 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's pathetic and I reserve the right to talk down to people who constantly insult others but, when pressed, fail to deliver anything of value.

Kind of like you. And so do I. You have not said anything of value here. You can't even support your cosmological argument post.
You said he knew more about science than anyone.
That's demonstrably false, AND I told you why. The REASON I gave was in no way dependent on Wiki. It stands on it's own.
You chose to ignore the REASON I gave you that refuted your ignorant unsubstantiated statement as you ARE an ignorant child and can't handle that fact.
You are so constantly arrogant, you don't even get it. AND you were not talking to me.

Not failing a science class in the Bible Belt is hardly any sort of accomplishment. Weeping
The people who write for Wiki know a LOT more than you ever will, AND if you disagree with an specific entry, you must refute it specifically.
Demonizing and delegitimizing Wikipedia in a generalization is invalid, Mr. Know-It-All-Baby-Philosopher. Shame on you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:05 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:09 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's pathetic and I reserve the right to talk down to people who constantly insult others but, when pressed, fail to deliver anything of value.

Kind of like you. And so do I. You have not said anything of value here. You can't even support your cosmological argument post.
You said he knew more about science than anyone.
That's demonstrably false, AND I told you why.
You chose to ignore the REASON I gave you that refuted your ignorant unsubstantiated statement as you ARE an ignorant child and can't handle that fact.
You are so constantly arrogant, you don't even get it. AND you were not talking to me.

Not failing a science class in the Bible Belt is hardly any sort of accomplishment. Weeping

I didn't ignore anything. And I already admitted that the claim that Kuhn knew more about science than anyone here was false. You stated that Kuhn wasn't revolutionary before you even read his works or any works about him. He's one of the most influential philosophers of science. As far as my school goes, I attend a progressive private school in northern Kentucky. It's hardly the deep South. It's not really the heart of the Bible belt. Most of the people in my area are non-religious or completely atheistic. My school isn't teaching nonsense about the Bible in science classes, trust me.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The people who write for Wiki know a LOT more than you ever will, AND if you disagree with an specific entry, you must refute it specifically.
Demonizing and delegitimizing Wikipedia in a generalization is invalid, Mr. Know-It-All-Baby-Philosopher. Shame on you.

I didn't claim to know more than Wikipedia authors. And I'm not demonizing Wikipedia. It's just not appropriate for research. It gives a general idea. If you want to make a claim about a revolutionary in any given field, please research more beforehand.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:20 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:40 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, it can't. Nothing can lead to solipsism, because solipsism is incoherent.

The fact that you think that skepticism can lead to solipsism is a demonstration of your poor grasp on semantics, as well as the details of both positions. This has been explained to you repeatedly, and at length.

Of course skepticism can lead to solipsism. Skepticism is incoherent. But it's a threat to other incoherent worldviews such as pragmatism.

Quote:You demonstrably do not, because you consistently fail to understand what it says about minds. You instead post things like "liking one type of music over another implies dualism", or "materialism cannot deal with the existence of minds", and so on.

You can say that you understand these things all you like, but your responses continually show this to not be the case. And there is nothing wrong with this - showing an interest in things you do not understand is a good thing - but you need to stop assuming that you already understand things when the people who actually study them are continually forced to correct you.

I demonstratably do. Materialism doesn't allow for the mind to even exist. It holds that ALL things are material. Minds aren't material. Even if you argue that minds are entailed by chemical reactions in the brain, you aren't avoiding the problem. It seems you confuse supervenience physicalism for materialism. They are not the same. You are advocating for supervenience physicalism.

"The two broad, traditional and competing theories of mind are dualism and materialism (or physicalism). While there are many versions of each, the former generally holds that the conscious mind or a conscious mental state is non-physical in some sense, whereas the latter holds that, to put it crudely, the mind is the brain, or is caused by neural activity."
Source: http://www.iep.utm.edu/consciou/

If you hold that the mind and brain are identical, then you are a strict materialist. If you hold that the mind is caused by the brain, then you're talking about physicalism or another form of materialism.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 11:48 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The people who write for Wiki know a LOT more than you ever will, AND if you disagree with an specific entry, you must refute it specifically.
Demonizing and delegitimizing Wikipedia in a generalization is invalid, Mr. Know-It-All-Baby-Philosopher. Shame on you.

I didn't claim to know more than Wikipedia authors. And I'm not demonizing Wikipedia. It's just not appropriate for research. It gives a general idea. If you want to make a claim about a revolutionary in any given field, please research more beforehand.

You have IN NO WAY demonstrated he was "revolutionary" in any way. Just claimed it, and expected us to buy your nonsense.

For some reason you think YOU get to make unsubstantiated assertions, and others can't. If you really were remarkably smart you would be in college right now. Your demonstrated knowledge of science is pathetically lacking. You also are in no position to tell anyone anything, least of all how they use resources, and I repeat, IF you object to something, (anywhere), you must specifically refute it, not make generalizations about where it was written.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 10:13 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Some aspects of the sound waves are not material.

When an audio engineer designs a speaker with a vibrating membrane and a box around it, and a huge magnet and a coil, when he designs that speaker to create well directed waves of pressure that propagate through a room full of air, how does he (accidentally?) include the transportation of your "not material" *feeling* that a brain has when listening to this music? What is it and how is it transported from the speaker to the ear?

When a little membrane and a few tiny bones in your ear are moved by the force of the propagating waves of pressure, what is it and how is it transported from the ear to the brain?

When i am designing an audio amplifier with BPTs, FETs, MOSFETs, diodes, resistors, capacitors (non polarised and polarized) and chokes, with ASICs and off the shelf ICs, with digital ones, analog ones and mixed signal devices, when i specifically and carefully design them to make electric current flow and make the electromagnet in the audio engineers speaker move the membrane and produce well directed waves of air pressure, at what point did i (accidentally?) include the mechanism that affects the listeners brain with feelings? What is it that is transported on my PCB and how is this *carrier of feeling* transported on my PCB exactly to the speaker?

Please tell me, i am all ears, and i bet all the hundreds of software and hardware engineers, as well as mechanical engineers at my office will be literally excited by the breaking news i am going to report after you enlightened me (and everyone else on TTA).

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
09-02-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 11:38 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  You're arrogant because you act as if you know more than anyone else. You don't discuss, you pontificate. We're not a bunch of children that you can lecture to. You might want to consider the possibility that some people here know more than you do, and act accordingly.

Also: if you think that language is mathematics, try reading some Shakespeare, or even better, dip into James Joyce's Finnegans Wake. Language is a wonderfully mutable thing -- it's nothing like mathematics. Logicians invented symbolic logic precisely because language is much too slippery and imprecise for logical argument.

My speaking and writing style is similar to lecture. I'm not talking down to you I promise. I assume in any given conversation that the person I'm talking to knows more. This perception can change throughout the discussion, but I've seen nothing in this conversation to indicate that. And I didn't say langage is math. Math is a language. Languages can operate similarly to math.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:24 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:22 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Languages can operate similarly to math.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2017, 12:26 PM
RE: Skepticism is a Problem for the Pragmatist
(09-02-2017 12:21 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-02-2017 12:09 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I didn't claim to know more than Wikipedia authors. And I'm not demonizing Wikipedia. It's just not appropriate for research. It gives a general idea. If you want to make a claim about a revolutionary in any given field, please research more beforehand.

You have IN NO WAY demonstrated he was "revolutionary" in any way. Just claimed it, and expected us to buy your nonsense.

For some reason you think YOU get to make unsubstantiated assertions, and others can't. If you really were remarkably smart you would be in college right now. Your demonstrated knowledge of science is pathetically lacking. You also are in no position to tell anyone anything, least of all how they use resources, and I repeat, IF you object to something, (anywhere), you must specifically refute it, not make generalizations about where it was written.

I gave you these links that all demonstrate Kuhn was in fact a revolutionary. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-S-Kuhn
http://www.iep.utm.edu/kuhn-ts/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...fic-truth/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/kuhn/

If I were remarkable smart I'd be in college? What? So everyone is just mildly intelligent and then they enter college and gain 20 IQ points? Being smart does not mean you're in college. And having been to college doesn't grant you intelligence.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: