Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that neutrality in respect to the original premise is the best policy. Wikipedia calls this the principle of maximum entropy.
The problem with science and logic is that science normally operates thus:
We have theory T that makes predictions P.
We have observed P in the real world.
So, T is true (or likely to be true or supported or whatever).
However, this is a textbook logical fallacy.
Perhaps that's why most published research findings are false.
If you are going to invent things, at least invent things you can know, not something you can never know.
Verificationism is dead — dead as a door nail. There are no zero philosophers willing to defend verificationism. The consensus is that verificationism has been soundly refuted. Whether you want to talk about Chomsky's critique of behaviorism or Quine's work on the synthetic vs analytic or any of a number of fields, no serious scholar anywhere will defend verificationism.
And then I come onto a forum like this and a bunch of people who probably know absolutely zero about philosophy start talking about the need for verification. Seriously, you look dumber than a Christian trying to prove that the flood occurred by appealing to Genesis.
I don't believe in logic?! I scored perfect on the critical reasoning section of the LSAT and made a living teaching critical reasoning to applicants to law school for three years! How is that "not believing in logic?"
This is a stupid conversation. I never championed idealism, and you know it.
No, my reply to you was a wholesale plagiarism of Karl Popper's thoughts on the matter, all of which can be read at Karl Popper on the empirical base of science - critical rationalism blogcritical rationalism blog
I have added absolutely nothing of my own thoughts to what he said. You, however, are so determined to trumpet your failed case for atheism that you will attack my quotation of someone who is probably the finest philosopher of science who ever lived. You will claim that I reject logic because I agree with one of the finest minds of the last century and dared to paraphrase him to you.
Well that is a load of irrelevant assertions that ignore the evidence, and buzzword side tracking.
If you must get on your high horse, make sure you first have a horse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zosimus
In short, the atheistic worldview is completely without any logical basis, and you should be ashamed of yourself for believing such drivel.
Once again, what is the probability that an intelligent being just exists for no reason? Think Boltzmann brains.
Exactly, the God hypothesis is the least likely answer as to why we are here (and actually explains nothing), which means !God is the most likely. You can call mathematics drivel if you want, but you are fooling no one.
I will admit that I am "triggered" by the intelligent intellectual presentation of philosophy unlike Arq's, concrete, pragmatic, common sense ignorance of it and its applicability to the God issues. Unfortunately, the TOS has been structured to make such discussions "persona non grata" and my presence here is on a hair trigger if I remotely broach any banned content. But kudos to you and your knowledge Zosimus but I fear it is "pearls before swine."
He is doing an Arach and throwing buzzwords in. But if you read his arguments you can see Zosimus has no credible arguments, just like Vic.
Perhaps if you read what Zosimus actually says instead of your usual ad hominems.
He is doing an Arach and throwing buzzwords in. But if you read his arguments you can see Zosimus has no credible arguments, just like Vic.
Perhaps if you read what Zosimus actually says instead of your usual ad hominems.
He can't. Because if he does he would have to admit that he uses exactly the same 'buzzword' technique to defend his own "intelligent intellectual presentation of" science.
hes right harry. You ignore evidence that counters your European crusade to america to smash other beliefs and insert your, as you say, better for humanity, beliefs.
If you are going to invent things, at least invent things you can know, not something you can never know.
Since you highlighted my point that most published research findings are false, I assume that's what you're referring to. You have an annoying habit of making cryptic comments and then pretending that people should understand what you say.
Verificationalism may be dead, but verification is alive and well. We already did this, when you were Vic. several times.
Oh my. Now the abuse starts. The problem seems to be that so many of those who mug up on philosophy as much as you claim to do, somehow seem to be able to apply it rationally and lose sight of reality, and how one can apply it is the real world. just as you did (as Vic) in denying that the problem of evil was valid because 'God must have some good reason' is in fact of no practical use.
Where did i say that you did? I said that you were playing the 100% proof card and ignoring the weight of evidence. You were falling into the very common 'believe or not' trap. if that is what you call 'idealism' then you were arguing, if not, then i never said that you did.
No, my reply to you was a wholesale plagiarism of Karl Popper's thoughts on the matter, all of which can be read at Karl Popper on the empirical base of science - critical rationalism blogcritical rationalism blog
I have added absolutely nothing of my own thoughts to what he said. You, however, are so determined to trumpet your failed case for atheism that you will attack my quotation of someone who is probably the finest philosopher of science who ever lived. You will claim that I reject logic because I agree with one of the finest minds of the last century and dared to paraphrase him to you.
In short, the atheistic worldview is completely without any logical basis, and you should be ashamed of yourself for believing such drivel.[/quote]
I'm afraid your appeal to authority will get you nowhere. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Karl Popper and it is hardly his fault is a wad of his text is cut and pasted in hopes to intimidate us into letting pass your wrongheaded (if not indeed theist-minded) inability to actually think straight. I've an idea that you referenced Popper in your previous efforts as 'Vic'. Without much more success.
Nether will you attempt to simply abuse atheism into submission get you anywhere or garner you any support (other than Mystic who would thumbs up a monkey farting if it was in the direction of atheism).[/quote]
Verificationalism may be dead, but verification is alive and well. We already did this, when you were Vic. several times.
I don't know who Vic is. I am Hiram. As I have already pointed out, it's impossible to verify anything because the verifications must also be verified on and on ad infinitum.
Quote:
Oh my. Now the abuse starts. The problem seems to be that so many of those who mug up on philosophy as much as you claim to do, somehow seem to be able to apply it rationally and lose sight of reality, and how one can apply it is the real world. just as you did (as Vic) in denying that the problem of evil was valid because 'God must have some good reason' is in fact of no practical use.
I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm being unfair. I expect you to know my philosophers, but I'm not open to yours. I recommend reading In Defense of Pure Reason by Laurence Bonjour. Perhaps you could recommend a book by your favorite philosopher? Perhaps something by Bill Nye, the Science Guy?
Quote:
Where did i say that you did? I said that you were playing the 100% proof card and ignoring the weight of evidence. You were falling into the very common 'believe or not' trap. if that is what you call 'idealism' then you were arguing, if not, then i never said that you did.
In philosophy, idealism is the group of metaphysical philosophies that assert that reality, or reality as humans can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.
Quote:
I'm afraid your appeal to authority will get you nowhere. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Karl Popper and it is hardly his fault is a wad of his text is cut and pasted in hopes to intimidate us into letting pass your wrongheaded (if not indeed theist-minded) inability to actually think straight. I've an idea that you referenced Popper in your previous efforts as 'Vic'. Without much more success.
Nether will you attempt to simply abuse atheism into submission get you anywhere or garner you any support (other than Mystic who would thumbs up a monkey farting if it was in the direction of atheism).
Well, other than your claims that I'm Vic (20), you have not posted any real arguments of any kind. If you can't post any, I'll just leave and do something more challenging such as playing checkers against a blind gerbil.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi Vic. 
Now the abuse starts. The problem seems to be that so many of those who mug up on philosophy as much as you claim to do, somehow seem to be able to apply it rationally and lose sight of reality, and how one can apply it is the real world. just as you did (as Vic) in denying that the problem of evil was valid because 'God must have some good reason' is in fact of no practical use.
I'm afraid your appeal to authority will get you nowhere. I have nothing but the greatest respect for Karl Popper and it is hardly his fault is a wad of his text is cut and pasted in hopes to intimidate us into letting pass your wrongheaded (if not indeed theist-minded) inability to actually think straight. I've an idea that you referenced Popper in your previous efforts as 'Vic'. Without much more success.
