EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2466
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:00 corumjhaelen wrote: I thought that was "but god isnt a 100 thalers". I really question what you're saying man. Shut up! I'm the authority! | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:03 Plansix wrote: Dawkins is the walking avatar of people who should just stick to their own discipline. Remunds me of Hawking and AIs lol Didn't even need to go as far as philosophy to say something absurd. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
I googled "dawkins bong rips" and this is all I got Also here's this, so we can hear from someone who's not an idiot: | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:05 corumjhaelen wrote: Remunds me of Hawking and AIs lol Didn't even need to go as far as philosophy to say something absurd. He and others have spawned this internet cult of STEM worshipers that believe logic is like a super power that allows them to be experts on every discipline. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:03 Plansix wrote: Dawkins is the walking avatar of people who should just stick to their own discipline. To be fair, most of what he does is centered around evolution, you know, his discipline. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On October 30 2015 07:01 notesfromunderground wrote: So... you've done exactly what I asked you to do? Question my authority? I think I win. No. Due to your hypocrisy, it made me question your intellectual integrity, which then undermines your whole point. define philosophy. Go! If you want me to be more authoritative I can assign y'all some reading... I don't need to "define" philosophy. You tried to pass a Ph.D. in a field that is not philosophy as "basically philosophy", and then tried to use that in an authoritative manner. Also, I'm sure I could assign you some reading as well, but instead I'll just ask you this; according to your educational philosophy, why should we have conversations at all? Why should we discuss any meaningful topics between each other? Why should I be listening to you at all? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:27 frazzle wrote: To be fair, most of what he does is centered around evolution, you know, his discipline. Yeah, he mostly should stop using twitter and talking about religion. His work is fine. Its his "hot takes" currently social events that suck ass. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:29 Stratos_speAr wrote: I don't need to "define" philosophy. You tried to pass a Ph.D. in a field that is not philosophy as "basically philosophy", and then tried to use that in an authoritative manner. I do study philosophy. I feel quite confident that I have read rather more philosophy than you have, but that is not the point. In my opinion, very little philosophy gets done in American university philosophy departments. I do not recognize their authority to determine what is and is not philosophy. So despite the fact that my department does not have the word "philosophy" on the door, I am absolutely a philosopher. In fact, I came to this department (which is not in ANY particular field; I have a great deal of freedom to define my own project, which has its own benefits and disadvantages) because I despaired of every doing any philosophy in a "philosophy" department. This is really tangential to the point though. I don't really feel the need to justify myself here. Also, I'm sure I could assign you some reading as well, but instead I'll just ask you this; according to your educational philosophy, why should we have conversations at all? Why should we discuss any meaningful topics between each other? Why should I be listening to you at all? We should have conversations because we might learn something! Let's remember that this whole conversation started because I claimed that my own opinion about the intelligence of the candidates, from listening to them speak, was far more meaningful than some pseudo-scientific "study" based on flimsy quantificational metrics (like Fleish-Kincaid reading scores). | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On October 30 2015 05:29 notesfromunderground wrote: see, if you think this, you are the one who has a disdain for facts. You are a religious person, you just call your religion Science. "Science," if it exists, requires a radically skeptical epistemology. Tyson is concerned to promote the authority of Science. He promotes an anti-skeptical ideology. He is therefore an idiot. This is not an accurate representation of Tyson's position. Tyson promotes skepticism, and argues that the scientific method is the best method to increase one's knowledge of the world (through skepticism). While I do agree with Introvert that he has said some very stupid things in the past, in particular about philosophy (see below), you are misrepresenting his relation to science, which is not akin to a believer's relation to his religion. On October 30 2015 05:38 Introvert wrote: Tyson [...] completly dimisses, for instance, the use and purpose of philosophy. He's cringeworthy because he's more of a celebrity than a scientist, and consistently speaks on things he is wholly ignorant about. It's rare I agree with Introvert on something on this board, but Tyson has indeed made extremely ignorant comments on philosophy (among other topics he is not an expert on). See this excellent article by Massimo Pigliucci. On October 30 2015 05:54 xDaunt wrote: I hope all of you are paying attention. Very imporant lessons are being taught here. And that same lesson is directly applicable to the cult of science referenced earlier. It is pretty funny to see people like xDaunt enthusiastically support notesfromunderground's criticism of "Science" (while his criticism is in reality mostly a relatively uninteresting, unoriginal and deliberately provocative rant against "science as a religion" and "authority", without much actual substance to offer on the epistemological front), because it's painfully obvious that the reason xDaunt is in agreement is simply that the foundations of his reactionary positions are regularly proven to be factually wrong and that he doesn't like to be called out on that technicality. His position on climate change (he has notably argued in the past that we were now actually facing a global cooling of temperatures and that global warming was a myth) is a pretty good example of that. Unfortunately, hiding behind a pseudo-postmodern view of the scientific discourse won't help make true the factually false premises on which your positions often rest. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
For what it's worth, I spend most of my time having mudslinging fights with pomo skeptics so it's nice to come to the land of naive positivists every once in a while to remind myself that these people really do exist  Also be nice to xDaunt, he's one of the more intelligent posters here. The fact that he's wrong about numerous things is beside the point. | ||
|
frazzle
United States468 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:31 Plansix wrote: Yeah, he mostly should stop using twitter and talking about religion. His work is fine. Its his "hot takes" currently social events that suck ass. Discussing religion seems to segue with his conflict with creationism/ID teaching advocates. He, and others like Dennet and Sam Harris, do overstep sometimes and get their asses handed to them when they argue with actual religious scholars about deeper religious topics. I don't see this as a problem though as you appear to . I find the whole process edifying. The more the merrier. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:47 kwizach wrote: argues that the scientific method is the best method to increase one's knowledge of the world You know, the more I think about it, and the more I hang out with scientists, the less I believe that there is any such thing as "the scientific method." Maybe I am Feyerbendian after all. I should read Against Method... | ||
|
Jormundr
United States1678 Posts
| ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
And if by "real philosophers" you mean people who have been certified by the Official Guild of American Academic Philosophers, that is certainly a false proposition. Those people are utterly, fundamentally opposed to coming up with their own ideas. It's not allowed. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:52 frazzle wrote: Discussing religion seems to segue with his conflict with creationism/ID teaching advocates. He, and others like Dennet and Sam Harris, do overstep sometimes and get their asses handed to them when they argue with actual religious scholars about deeper religious topics. I don't see this as a problem though as you appear to . I find the whole process edifying. The more the merrier. Well my problem is that he is an asshole. It has nothing to do with his level of knowledge, its that he is a raging douchbag who thinks that beings super smart makes up for it. Fucking a great mind if you're also a huge asshole. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
(ok, while y'all are pondering that one and wondering if you have the courage to step up to the plate and actually defend such a ludicrous belief, I have to go study greek. Pro tip: If you value your sanity, don't take greek. This has really been a delight. I wish my students were this enthusiastic). | ||
|
Kickstart
United States1941 Posts
On October 30 2015 08:59 Plansix wrote: Well my problem is that he is an asshole. It has nothing to do with his level of knowledge, its that he is a raging douchbag who thinks that beings super smart makes up for it. Fucking a great mind if you're also a huge asshole. Many seem to view Dawkins this way. Usually only religious people~ Again though, he is pretty tame imo. Anyone would get aggravated with folks if your lifes work in a field was being denied by people who just stick their head in the sand and say 'nananana it isn't true' (see that dolt lady in the video fazzle linked). On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence? (ok, while y'all are pondering that one and wondering if you have the courage to step up to the plate and actually defend such a ludicrous belief, I have to go study greek. Pro tip: If you value your sanity, don't take greek. This has really been a delight. I wish my students were this enthusiastic). Not currently possible tbh. Closest thing we have is the IQ test, but it is quite flawed when used to determine intelligence. I assume that it is/eventually will be possible to determine something like someones genetic propensity for certain things, maybe their ability to grasp things like language and so on. But even then determining what factors would determine 'intelligence' would be rather difficult  | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On October 30 2015 09:58 Kickstart wrote: I assume why | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 30 2015 09:13 notesfromunderground wrote: Let's return to the original question. Who here thinks it is possible to scientifically quantify a person's level of intelligence? (ok, while y'all are pondering that one and wondering if you have the courage to step up to the plate and actually defend such a ludicrous belief, I have to go study greek. Pro tip: If you value your sanity, don't take greek. This has really been a delight. I wish my students were this enthusiastic). Having some familiarity with neuropsychology, I have to say no. | ||
| ||
