Does anything exist?

[JoeMorgue]

Stop saying "literally" when using a metaphor! Damn, it's annoying.

If you think what Joe is doing is a fringe reset then this confirms that you have no idea what the term means. It doesn't just mean "repetition".

It's amazing how many people's method of discourse only makes sense if you assume they "factually correct" doesn't factor in their world view.

"I've explained to 50 times why 2+2=4" and "I've explained to you 50 times why 2+2=5" are not the same thing.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Of course not, because you're philosophofizing. Which means you will take a long route to actually saying anything, including the things which directly contradict other things you didn't say.

Why are you arguing with me about something I didn't say, instead of arguing about the substance of what I actually posted?

Opposed? Where?

Look at my post number 790 & 814. I quoted Stanford University and Albert Einstein. Nobody has addressed the substance of those posts. All I have received is mockery, satire involving multiple participants, & strawman (Arguments about something I never said).

The participants of the discussion. You know, how debates work.

Again, did you read the thread? If not, how can you know any of this? And if you did, then you should be aware of the objections.

I am not going to read through 21 pages of discussions that you had with somebody else to find a rebuttal for what I have posted. That is not how debate and dialectics functions. That would be a monologue.

 

[Belz...]

Look at my post number 790 & 814. I quoted Stanford University and Albert Einstein.

Why should anyone care what Einstein said about philosophy? The man was a physics guy. As for your link to Britanica, it only discusses epistemology, not the branches of philosophy. That was a claim you posted but didn't support. In any case, as I've argued before logic is not part of philosophy, except under extremely broad and useless definitions. In fact it's been argued that philosophy _uses_ logic, which shows that it's not a branch of it. Logic is way more fundamental than any attempt at philosophy.

I am not going to read through 21 pages of discussions that you had with somebody else to find a rebuttal for what I have posted.

And you prefer starting over at square 1 every time a new poster comes into the thread? That sounds very inefficient. I've many times looked through an entire thread to follow the conversation. 20 pages is not long to avoid having everyone cater to your ignorance of the conversation and repeat all of their points over and over.

That would be a monologue.

Not if you understand what that word means.

 

[IanS]

Starting off with a disparaging remark. That is a virtue of somebody who is anti-intellectual. That is telling since you are the one claiming others are anti-intellectual.

Rejected by whom? Two guys on the internet whose opinions are opposed to one of the most prestigious universities (Stanford) in the United States. What are you accolades?

Do you also deny the wisdom of an old white guy that died since indoor plumbing?





I am unsure who this was directed at. As of yet, I haven't said that Philosophy can teach us something that science cannot.

I think that perhaps you may not have read all the posts in this thread? And perhaps you are unaware of the previous dozen or more very similar threads where it became obvious that 2 of the posters, whilst actually saying that they are big fans of science and that they have studied it very extensively (what? really? ... I do not believe them), were actually making claims of mysticism &/or anti-scientific claims of saying that either things do not exist or that science cannot tell what exists and so forth.

Some of us have lost patience with that sort of thing after a thousand or more posts in the various threads ... and especially lost patience with philosopy supporting participants who present themselves as very knowledge about science, when it's obvious they have almost no proper education or understanding in/of core science (which is the part of science that we are always talking about in these threads). In the end it's hard t maintain respect for people when they post repeatedly like that in thread after thread.

 

[abaddon]

Do you also deny the wisdom of an old white guy that died since indoor plumbing?

Einstein lived in Roman times? Or Babbylon? Or China?

Just what kind of mess is your view of history?

 

[Belz...]

Einstein lived in Roman times? Or Babbylon? Or China?

He said "since", abaddon.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The fact that science sees Einstein as a respected expert within his field, not as an authority on everything to be named dropped, is lost on Philosophers.

Science isn't philosophy. You can't just go "Well this famous smart person so and so said..."

 

[abaddon]

He said "since", abaddon.

Not inclined to excuse nonsense with weasel words being inserted.

 

[Belz...]

Not inclined to excuse nonsense with weasel words being inserted.

No, what I mean is that he didn't claim Einstein was from classical times. He's asking Joe if Einstein's claims are more credible than those of someone before plumbing.

 

[Belz...]

The fact that science sees Einstein as a respected expert within his field, not as an authority on everything to be named dropped, is lost on Philosophers.

Science isn't philosophy. You can't just go "Well this famous smart person so and so said..."

That's something that's lost on a LOT of people in these discussions ad elsewhere. What scientist X said at some point is completely uninteresting to other scientists, especially outside of that person's field. This isn't a book reading club, where quoting Shakespeare gets you brownie points from the assembled groupies.

 

[abaddon]

No, what I mean is that he didn't claim Einstein was from classical times.

Sure, That is his escape hatch. I am unwilling to allow it.

He's asking Joe if Einstein's claims are more credible than those of someone before plumbing.

And the answer is NO.

No more that his claims are more credible that Einsteins simply because Einstein is a century ago. Claims are never assessed for credibility on the basis of how recent they might be. That would be daft. If I claimed tomorrow that I have a real Unicorn up my fundament, would you rate such a claim more likely to be true because I will make it tomorrow? Course not.

 

[JoeMorgue]

//Deleted, going to rewrite it to make more sense/flow better/

 

[Belz...]

And the answer is NO.

Of course it is. I'm just clarifying what he said.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

I used the expression 'competing hypothesis' you introduced the terms adapted / replaced into the discussion . . . Did Copernicus adapt or replace Ptolemic astronomy? . . . really, who cares . . . No one should expect any current scientific hypothesis to stand 500 years in any thing resembling its current form.

Ludicrous nonsense.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm starting to get a whiff of new version of "It's better to be consistantly wrong than inconstantly right" thing here.

Philosophy says some mixture of obvious truism and meaningless gibberish that doesn't actually tell us anything, so it doesn't have to be revised, expanded, and yes sometimes even corrected like the process of science does.

But it's still a lot of egotistical leaps in logic to make starting at "Prove me reality is real" and never moving on from that more intellectual than "The Earth is center of the universe from our current observations... okay the sun is... okay neither of them are... okay we're in a galaxy... okay there's a lot of galaxies..."

 

[Belz...]

I'm starting to get a whiff of new version of "It's better to be consistantly wrong than inconstantly right" thing here.

One of the theists' favourites.

 

[LarryS]

No one should expect any current scientific hypothesis to stand 500 years in any thing resembling its current form.

Ludicrous nonsense.

Are you suggesting that certain scientific theories or hypothesis are 'sacred', or are beyond reproach? What standards are you appealing to - could you provide a link? How do we know which theories will stand through the ages, or is this an intuition you have. You can't simply say 'Ludicrous nonsense.'

 

[Belz...]

No one should expect any current scientific hypothesis to stand 500 years in any thing resembling its current form.

You said that already. When challenged you responded with a platitude.

 

[Myriad]

No one should expect any current scientific hypothesis to stand 500 years in any thing resembling its current form.

Are you suggesting that certain scientific theories or hypothesis are 'sacred', or are beyond reproach? What standards are you appealing to - could you provide a link? How do we know which theories will stand through the ages, or is this an intuition you have. You can't simply say 'Ludicrous nonsense.'

I would suggest that replacing a theory of physics with a better one has become exponentially more expensive over time. At some point, possibly relatively soon, we will likely reach the most complete theory we can afford.

You might be thinking something like, "but someday the United Federation of Planets will show up with warp drives and artificial gravity and transporter beams, and we'll need whole new understandings of physics to explain how they work." But it's quite likely that instead, our present and future understanding of physics will continue to correctly suggest that those technologies are impossible.

 

[Darat]

No one should expect any current scientific hypothesis to stand 500 years in any thing resembling its current form.

…snip..

Why will common table salt no longer be the result of a combination of chlorine and sodium in 500 years?