I don't exist. According to some philosophers they don't exist and I don't exist... . - Page 9

JoeBentley · 7th November 2012, 06:42 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

This response is a non-sequitur.

That must make Tsig a really good philosophizer then.

Twiler · 7th November 2012, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

That must make Tsig a really good philosophizer then.

Is this one of those claims I'm supposed to take seriously, or is it in the same class as:

Quote:

99.99% of all philosophy and 99.999999% of all coffee shop intellectual level fauxosophy became null and void with the birth of modern neuroscience

JoeBentley · 8th November 2012, 04:54 AM

You can take them however you like, I stand behind them. People are giving far too much credence to simply playing around with the language and trying to get some grand meaning out of silly word games.

Twiler · 8th November 2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

You can take them however you like, I stand behind them. People are giving far too much credence to simply playing around with the language and trying to get some grand meaning out of silly word games.

So, where is the evidence demonstrating that a non-sequitur would make tsig a 'really good philosophizer'?

dafydd · 8th November 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, where is the evidence demonstrating that a non-sequitur would make tsig a 'really good philosophizer'?

Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.

JoeBentley · 8th November 2012, 06:11 PM

What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.

Twiler · 9th November 2012, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.

That's just meaningless hyperbole. You can't have a universal non-sequitur, because the classification of something as a non-sequitur is based on context.

Quote:

What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.

So, are you objecting to 'what passes for philosophy on this forum', or philosophy in general?

And what's the point of throwing in a percentage that's obviously made up?

dafydd · 9th November 2012, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

That's just meaningless hyperbole. You can't have a universal non-sequitur, because the classification of something as a non-sequitur is based on context.

Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.

marplots · 9th November 2012, 03:43 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.

I'll give you a few and you can pick one.

Self-reflection, self-knowledge, the ability to construct a valid argument, to think clearly and critically, to look at difficult questions in a systemic way, to test the grounds for beliefs.

You don't have to go far to see this in action, JREF is full of philosophical arguments.

Science is lost without it. Why? Because there is more data in the world than we can ever capture and we need a method to help us decide which questions are worth investigating. Questions about value are philosophical questions.

Maybe, like the man who discovered he'd been writing prose all along, we just don't notice how philosophical we actually are. Some of the larger questions: How should I be governed? What constitutes a good life? What is my relationship with and my obligations to my fellow men? The fact that these questions have not been answered doesn't mean they aren't worth exploring, and philosophy is the way we do that.

Merton · 9th November 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Science is lost without it.

^This

Epistemology (the branch of Philosophy that deals with knowledge) is absolutely necessary for science to operate. One could probably make the same argument for Metaphysics, but there's a lot of crap in Metaphysics as well (this is where you get all that inane solipsism). Also, Ethics and Political Philosophy are relevant to everyone on the planet, so it's absolutely absurd to have such a distaste for Philosophy*.

*I mean the academic discipline, not the mystical BS people will try to peddle off as Metaphysics.

JoeBentley · 9th November 2012, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Questions about value are philosophical questions.

No they aren't. Questions about value that people don't want to argue rationally are philosophical arguments. Many of us have values we can actually back up with reasons.

Merton · 9th November 2012, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

No they aren't. Questions about value that people don't want to argue rationally are philosophical arguments. Many of us have values we can actually back up with reasons.

I think you'll find that when you dig into it, those reasons require previously held values that are indeed philosophical.

Twiler · 9th November 2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.

No, that's defending the proposition 'Philosophy is useless.'

The proposition you made was 'Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.'

I think you're trying to change the subject.

JoeBentley · 9th November 2012, 12:13 PM

So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps."

Great because that works so well explaining the God concept.

If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.

Merton · 9th November 2012, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps."

Great because that works so well explaining the God concept.

If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.

What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.

dafydd · 9th November 2012, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Self-reflection, self-knowledge, the ability to construct a valid argument, to think clearly and critically, to look at difficult questions in a systemic way, to test the grounds for beliefs.

I'd call that common sense.

marplots · 9th November 2012, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps."

Great because that works so well explaining the God concept.

If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.

I highlighted the philosophical statement for you.

marplots · 9th November 2012, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I'd call that common sense.

Good call. Philosophy is formalized common sense. I can buy that. But, of course, so is science and agriculture.

JoeBentley · 9th November 2012, 09:27 PM

Go philsophize me up a cure for cancer, then I'll be impressed.

marplots · 9th November 2012, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

Go philsophize me up a cure for cancer, then I'll be impressed.

Tough standard. I suppose you don't much care for paleontology or cosmology either?

Did you know Georgetown University offers a dual degree in medicine (MD) and philosophy (PhD)? http://philosophy.georgetown.edu/gra...ograms/dualmd/

Someone thinks it's worthwhile -- even worthwhile in the practice of medicine.

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 04:29 AM

I tripped over a dog yesterday and I think I've cracked a rib. I'll go and see if my doctor can philosophize it away.

marplots · 10th November 2012, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I tripped over a dog yesterday and I think I've cracked a rib. I'll go and see if my doctor can philosophize it away.

The dog or the rib?

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

The dog or the rib?

The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?

Twiler · 10th November 2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?

You haven't considered using Mathematics or Linguistics?

marplots · 10th November 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?

Platonic. Plato recommends you go see a doctor.

Although Kant has some good points about why a doctor is a better choice than a florist.

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by marplots

Platonic. Plato recommends you go see a doctor.

Although Kant has some good points about why a doctor is a better choice than a florist.

Which brings us back to common sense. If you need a philosopher to tell you when to see a doctor then something is wrong.

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You haven't considered using Mathematics or Linguistics?

I'll stick with non-philosophical radiography.

Twiler · 10th November 2012, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I'll stick with non-philosophical radiography.

You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use?

You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides.

I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.

marplots · 10th November 2012, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use?

You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides.

I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.

In one sense it's sinking, but it captures a common complaint: philosophy is too esoteric to be of any use and can thus be ignored. It's a stance with some merit and it parallels how I might feel about art or classical music.

I think there's another theme as well: philosophy being as much a pretentious and bloated ego salve as a Lamborghini. As much as I might tout the engineering feat the car embodies, it will still seem like it has to be a phallic symbol and sign of a character flaw to some.

I don't own a sports car, but I can read philosophy. I think what surprises me is how often logical fallacies are presented as a tool here at JREF without any recognition they belong most properly to the field of philosophy, not mathematics. As I mentioned before, they are writing prose without knowing it.

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use?

You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides.

I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.

I would dispute the statement that philosophy is a field of knowledge. Speculation, yes, knowledge, no.

Twiler · 10th November 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

I would dispute the statement that philosophy is a field of knowledge. Speculation, yes, knowledge, no.

Would you consider the Law of Identity, (i.e., for any entity A, A = A) to be speculation, or knowledge?

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

Would you consider the Law of Identity, (i.e., for any entity A, A = A) to be speculation, or knowledge?

An object is the same as itself? A child knows that. Common sense again.

Twiler · 10th November 2012, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

An object is the same as itself? A child knows that. Common sense again.

So, is it speculation, or knowledge?

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

So, is it speculation, or knowledge?

It's obvious.

Twiler · 10th November 2012, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

It's obvious.

You could have answered the question in the time it took you to type that.

Is it speculation, or is it knowledge?

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You could have answered the question in the time it took you to type that.

Is it speculation, or is it knowledge?

Is something the same as itself? The answer is obvious.

Twiler · 10th November 2012, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by dafydd

The answer is obvious.

You failed to answer the question and you had three opportunities.

I'm going to assume you mean it's knowledge, which would mean that philosophy is a field of knowledge, because the law of identity is within its purview.

EDIT: Oh, that's what you meant. I don't think being 'obvious' excludes it from being speculation or knowledge.

dafydd · 10th November 2012, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Twiler

You failed to answer the question and you had three opportunities.

I'm going to assume you mean it's knowledge, which would mean that philosophy is a field of knowledge, because the law of identity is within its purview.

EDIT: Oh, that's what you meant. I don't think being 'obvious' excludes it from being speculation or knowledge.

Philosophers have different opinions. Which philosopher, past or present, had the real knowledge?

JoeBentley · 10th November 2012, 09:56 PM

Philosophy (as it is generally used here) is meaningless because it's unfalsifiable, it by definition can't give us any answers because it's all meaningless wordplay about the definitions themselves.

Philosophy prides itself in asking unanswerable questions which to me is a tacit admission that it's doing nothing but mental masturbation.

yog_sothoth · 10th November 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.

Have you read any philosophy texts? That sums up just about all of it. They make tons of unsupported assertions and try to hide this behind the densest hard-to-read gibberish possible.

7th November 2012, 06:42 AM	#321
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,552	Originally Posted by Twiler This response is a non-sequitur. That must make Tsig a really good philosophizer then.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

7th November 2012, 04:04 PM	#322
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by JoeBentley That must make Tsig a really good philosophizer then. Is this one of those claims I'm supposed to take seriously, or is it in the same class as: Quote: 99.99% of all philosophy and 99.999999% of all coffee shop intellectual level fauxosophy became null and void with the birth of modern neuroscience
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

8th November 2012, 04:54 AM	#323
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,552	You can take them however you like, I stand behind them. People are giving far too much credence to simply playing around with the language and trying to get some grand meaning out of silly word games.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

8th November 2012, 12:05 PM	#324
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by JoeBentley You can take them however you like, I stand behind them. People are giving far too much credence to simply playing around with the language and trying to get some grand meaning out of silly word games. So, where is the evidence demonstrating that a non-sequitur would make tsig a 'really good philosophizer'?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

8th November 2012, 03:47 PM	#325
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler So, where is the evidence demonstrating that a non-sequitur would make tsig a 'really good philosophizer'? Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

8th November 2012, 06:11 PM	#326
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,552	What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

9th November 2012, 12:22 AM	#327
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter. That's just meaningless hyperbole. You can't have a universal non-sequitur, because the classification of something as a non-sequitur is based on context. Quote: What Dafydd said. Because what passes for philosophy on this forum is 99.99% meaningless word games. So, are you objecting to 'what passes for philosophy on this forum', or philosophy in general? And what's the point of throwing in a percentage that's obviously made up?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

9th November 2012, 03:25 AM	#328
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler That's just meaningless hyperbole. You can't have a universal non-sequitur, because the classification of something as a non-sequitur is based on context. Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

9th November 2012, 03:43 AM	#329
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by dafydd Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name. I'll give you a few and you can pick one. Self-reflection, self-knowledge, the ability to construct a valid argument, to think clearly and critically, to look at difficult questions in a systemic way, to test the grounds for beliefs. You don't have to go far to see this in action, JREF is full of philosophical arguments. Science is lost without it. Why? Because there is more data in the world than we can ever capture and we need a method to help us decide which questions are worth investigating. Questions about value are philosophical questions. Maybe, like the man who discovered he'd been writing prose all along, we just don't notice how philosophical we actually are. Some of the larger questions: How should I be governed? What constitutes a good life? What is my relationship with and my obligations to my fellow men? The fact that these questions have not been answered doesn't mean they aren't worth exploring, and philosophy is the way we do that.
	Last edited by marplots; 9th November 2012 at 03:46 AM.

9th November 2012, 10:17 AM	#330
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 576	Originally Posted by marplots Science is lost without it. ^This Epistemology (the branch of Philosophy that deals with knowledge) is absolutely necessary for science to operate. One could probably make the same argument for Metaphysics, but there's a lot of crap in Metaphysics as well (this is where you get all that inane solipsism). Also, Ethics and Political Philosophy are relevant to everyone on the planet, so it's absolutely absurd to have such a distaste for Philosophy. I mean the academic discipline, not the mystical BS people will try to peddle off as Metaphysics.
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 576	__________________ "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

9th November 2012, 11:10 AM	#331
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,552	Originally Posted by marplots Questions about value are philosophical questions. No they aren't. Questions about value that people don't want to argue rationally are philosophical arguments. Many of us have values we can actually back up with reasons.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

9th November 2012, 11:26 AM	#332
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 576	Originally Posted by JoeBentley No they aren't. Questions about value that people don't want to argue rationally are philosophical arguments. Many of us have values we can actually back up with reasons. I think you'll find that when you dig into it, those reasons require previously held values that are indeed philosophical.
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 576	__________________ "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

9th November 2012, 12:11 PM	#333
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd Name one practical benefit that philosophy has brought to mankind. Leave out the Natural Philosophy of Newton and the Royal Society, that was science by another name. No, that's defending the proposition 'Philosophy is useless.' The proposition you made was 'Philosophy is one huge non-sequiter.' I think you're trying to change the subject.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

9th November 2012, 12:13 PM	#334
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,552	So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps." Great because that works so well explaining the God concept. If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

9th November 2012, 12:21 PM	#335
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 576	Originally Posted by JoeBentley So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps." Great because that works so well explaining the God concept. If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless. What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.
Merton Muse Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 576	__________________ "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." - Thomas Paine "We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." - Mikhail Bakunin

9th November 2012, 12:33 PM	#336
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by marplots Self-reflection, self-knowledge, the ability to construct a valid argument, to think clearly and critically, to look at difficult questions in a systemic way, to test the grounds for beliefs. I'd call that common sense.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

9th November 2012, 06:20 PM	#337
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by JoeBentley So basically it "Philosophy of the Gaps." Great because that works so well explaining the God concept. If it can't be backed up with evidence or falsified/supported by experimentation, it's meaningless. I highlighted the philosophical statement for you.

9th November 2012, 06:21 PM	#338
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by dafydd I'd call that common sense. Good call. Philosophy is formalized common sense. I can buy that. But, of course, so is science and agriculture.

9th November 2012, 09:27 PM	#339
JoeBentley Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 7,552	Go philsophize me up a cure for cancer, then I'll be impressed.
	__________________ Hemingway once wrote that "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

9th November 2012, 09:49 PM	#340
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by JoeBentley Go philsophize me up a cure for cancer, then I'll be impressed. Tough standard. I suppose you don't much care for paleontology or cosmology either? Did you know Georgetown University offers a dual degree in medicine (MD) and philosophy (PhD)? http://philosophy.georgetown.edu/gra...ograms/dualmd/ Someone thinks it's worthwhile -- even worthwhile in the practice of medicine.

10th November 2012, 04:29 AM	#341
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	I tripped over a dog yesterday and I think I've cracked a rib. I'll go and see if my doctor can philosophize it away.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 05:16 AM	#342
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by dafydd I tripped over a dog yesterday and I think I've cracked a rib. I'll go and see if my doctor can philosophize it away. The dog or the rib?

10th November 2012, 08:11 AM	#343
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by marplots The dog or the rib? The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy?
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 08:45 AM	#344
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy? You haven't considered using Mathematics or Linguistics?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

10th November 2012, 09:03 AM	#345
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by dafydd The pain in my rib. Should I use Kantian or Platonic philosophy? Platonic. Plato recommends you go see a doctor. Although Kant has some good points about why a doctor is a better choice than a florist.

10th November 2012, 10:17 AM	#346
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by marplots Platonic. Plato recommends you go see a doctor. Although Kant has some good points about why a doctor is a better choice than a florist. Which brings us back to common sense. If you need a philosopher to tell you when to see a doctor then something is wrong.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 10:18 AM	#347
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler You haven't considered using Mathematics or Linguistics? I'll stick with non-philosophical radiography.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 10:48 AM	#348
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd I'll stick with non-philosophical radiography. You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use? You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides. I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level.
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

10th November 2012, 12:08 PM	#349
marplots Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 29,167	Originally Posted by Twiler You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use? You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides. I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level. In one sense it's sinking, but it captures a common complaint: philosophy is too esoteric to be of any use and can thus be ignored. It's a stance with some merit and it parallels how I might feel about art or classical music. I think there's another theme as well: philosophy being as much a pretentious and bloated ego salve as a Lamborghini. As much as I might tout the engineering feat the car embodies, it will still seem like it has to be a phallic symbol and sign of a character flaw to some. I don't own a sports car, but I can read philosophy. I think what surprises me is how often logical fallacies are presented as a tool here at JREF without any recognition they belong most properly to the field of philosophy, not mathematics. As I mentioned before, they are writing prose without knowing it.
	Last edited by marplots; 10th November 2012 at 12:10 PM.

10th November 2012, 02:09 PM	#350
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler You do realize that this is just a reskinned version of the 'Evolution can't provide moral principles' argument that creationists use? You're criticizing a field of knowledge for not providing things that another field provides. I can understand why you might not like philosophy, but you shouldn't sink to this level. I would dispute the statement that philosophy is a field of knowledge. Speculation, yes, knowledge, no.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 02:30 PM	#351
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd I would dispute the statement that philosophy is a field of knowledge. Speculation, yes, knowledge, no. Would you consider the Law of Identity, (i.e., for any entity A, A = A) to be speculation, or knowledge?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

10th November 2012, 02:37 PM	#352
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler Would you consider the Law of Identity, (i.e., for any entity A, A = A) to be speculation, or knowledge? An object is the same as itself? A child knows that. Common sense again.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 03:03 PM	#353
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd An object is the same as itself? A child knows that. Common sense again. So, is it speculation, or knowledge?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482

10th November 2012, 03:43 PM	#354
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398	Originally Posted by Twiler So, is it speculation, or knowledge? It's obvious.
dafydd Banned Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 35,398

10th November 2012, 03:47 PM	#355
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482	Originally Posted by dafydd It's obvious. You could have answered the question in the time it took you to type that. Is it speculation, or is it knowledge?
Twiler Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,482