• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The study of atoms in the brain doesn't explain the redness of red;Materialism = FAKE

Robin said:
Building a straw man and then getting really angry at the straw man and getting even angrier at the people who are pointing out that you are getting angry a straw man.

Makes sense.
Click to expand...

In Joe's defense, he does seem to be winning the argument. I haven't seen a single response from his imaginary straw-man friend.
 
abaddon said:
Deepak Chopra, David Wilcox, Jim Fetzer all fall under the umbrella of philosophy. And they are utter cranks. Yet they are philosophers.
Click to expand...

Who cares and why? And who are David Wilcox and Jim Fetzer and who cares and why?

Sure, there are crappy philosophers. Just ignore them and listen to the good ones. Problem solved.

There are good authors and bad authors, good musicians and bad musicians, good tv shows and bad tv shows. Don't waste you time on the bad ones. Look them over and invest your time in the good ones. Is this not obvious?
 
Robin said:
A majority of people agreeing something is right doesn't necessarily make it right. When I was younger a majority of people thought that homosexuality was wrong.

In order to get a meaningful answer, whether from science or anything else we must first properly formulate the question.
Click to expand...

Of course. What is right in morality as in science is not voted. You give reasons. The opponents give theirs. If you are not convinced, you can hold your position.

I'm waiting for you to give the correct formulation of the question.
 
bruto said:
A cute turn of phrase if you don't bother to think too hard about it. If it's a crime to steal wallets in your society, then you are correct to allege that a crime has happened. House rules or universal rules, they're still rules. Relative values are not no values at all.
Click to expand...
If the rules are subjective, the law of the state is just as valid as the law of the mafia, the law of the gas chambers and the law of their victims who were demanding justice after the war. You have no reason to say that one is more just than the other. Either you find a reason to say that one is better than the other or everything is allowed. And if everything is allowed, you don't have the right to ask for justice when the strongest one is overpowering you.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Who cares and why? And who are David Wilcox and Jim Fetzer and who cares and why?

Sure, there are crappy philosophers. Just ignore them and listen to the good ones. Problem solved.

There are good authors and bad authors, good musicians and bad musicians, good tv shows and bad tv shows. Don't waste you time on the bad ones. Look them over and invest your time in the good ones. Is this not obvious?
Click to expand...


“Good” in this sense, seems to be “I agree with/I like them.” Which is fine as far as philosophy goes. It’s just that many of us would rather have a more accurate view of reality instead of one that conforms with how we’d like reality to be.
 
xjx388 said:
“Good” in this sense, seems to be “I agree with/I like them.” Which is fine as far as philosophy goes. It’s just that many of us would rather have a more accurate view of reality instead of one that conforms with how we’d like reality to be.
Click to expand...

And so the straw man continues relentlessly.
 
David Mo said:
Of course. What is right in morality as in science is not voted. You give reasons. The opponents give theirs. If you are not convinced, you can hold your position.

I'm waiting for you to give the correct formulation of the question.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is such a thing as the correct formulation of a question.

The things that I want to know might differ from the things you or others want to know and so we will have different questions.

My question is "Is there a fact of the matter about whether some action is right or wrong, even if that fact cannot be known with precise certainty?"

My answer is "No"

Science cannot tell us what is right or wrong because there is no fact of the matter about it. Nothing can tell us what is right or wrong.

So we are left with deciding for ourselves what we want to do and don't want to do and to negotiate with others about how we can compromise and live with each of our choices.

You don't even need science for that.
 
David Mo said:
If the rules are subjective, the law of the state is just as valid as the law of the mafia, the law of the gas chambers and the law of their victims who were demanding justice after the war. You have no reason to say that one is more just than the other. Either you find a reason to say that one is better than the other or everything is allowed. And if everything is allowed, you don't have the right to ask for justice when the strongest one is overpowering you.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for you, I'm sure, but I am not drifting aimlessly through the universe. I am part of a society with a history, and some rules are seen to apply. Acknowledging that they're not fixed and changeless forever does not seem to bar one from arguing that one rule is better than another, nor from finding reasons to back up the argument. Others make other arguments, obviously, or your reference to the mafia and the gas chambers would not be intelligible at all. But under what odd regime does the fact that rules are not eternal mean that everything is allowed?
 
Robin said:
MohamedTaqi said:
Tell me which premise you don't agree with, and we are done, instead of just repeating the same old story : "I hate such or such questions".
Click to expand...
Premise 1 needs to be supported.

I don't see how you can argue about the whole based on properties of the parts.

It is like saying that if you cannot tell that a simple two particle system obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics then you cannot tell that a heat engine obeys the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Click to expand...
Bumping this because it seems to be the only on-topic part of the discussion.
 
arthwollipot said:
Sorry, is that a tool for investigating reality?
Click to expand...
Is that what you were asking for examples of?

Let's go through this

You: "If science is not the only tool for investigating reality, what other ones are there?"

Syderoxylon: "All of the ones that have dealt with formulating ideas about the world that are not amenable to the scientific method?"

You: "For example?"

Seems to me you were asking for examples of ideas about the world that are not amenable to the scientific method, so I was giving examples of those.

Now you are saying you were asking for examples of tools that have dealt with formulating ideas about the world that are not amenable to the scientific method.

Such a tool is philosophy.
 
Robin said:
Is that what you were asking for examples of?

Let's go through this

You: "If science is not the only tool for investigating reality, what other ones are there?"

Syderoxylon: "All of the ones that have dealt with formulating ideas about the world that are not amenable to the scientific method?"

You: "For example?"

Seems to me you were asking for examples of ideas about the world that are not amenable to the scientific method, so I was giving examples of those.

Now you are saying you were asking for examples of tools that have dealt with formulating ideas about the world that are not amenable to the scientific method.

Such a tool is philosophy.
Click to expand...
I was actually asking for tools for investigating reality, not for formulating ideas about reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom