What are you taking this semester?

[GePap]

To quote Asher:

Public universities are subsidized to help society in some way. Throwing money into monetary black holes that have obviously done diddly squat for the past fifty years does not benefit society, and takes funding away from noble causes such as cancer research.

Now, you say you used that figure in the following way:

I was asking YOU guys if there had been any, since I wasn't aware of any. There is a difference.

Interstingly enough, that first statement is not framed as a question, but a statement.......

[Asher]

Because I'd asked you 99 times before that to quote some innovations. You couldn't provide any, hence it was assumed thereafter there were none.

[GePap]

Ah, an elemetary mistake that someone who's taken philosohy might not make. I mean, it is pretty obvious that no answer does not equal an affirmative response. Given that you could not possibly know why I or Agathon or Elok have not answered (uless you are telepathic) it is impossible for you to asume what no answer means. So you made that statement of your own free will, and hence what i say remains valid.

As for why I did not answer:I think the question biased, with regards to what a "contribution" means (which I gathered from context of your arguements, ie, what does count as a contribution).

[Asher]

You didn't answer the question because you don't have an answer. That much is obvious. And now, like a true philosopher, you're playing with semantics.

How many times must you boys prove my point?

In the real world, if you ask the same question repeatedly and pointedly and various people refuse to give an answer and ignore it the vast majority of the time and construct strawmen as distractions, it is safely assumed that they don't have an answer for you. While that might not be "proper" in philosophy, neither is the form of this entire debate, so I fail to see why you're using strict philosophy rules to selectively try to win some points when convenient.

You either have an answer, or you don't. Throw out any idea of contributions Philosophy might have made, in your eyes, and I'll let you know if I think the discovery that time warps in a curved fashion in the 6th dimension according to Jacob Blein from Manheimer University counts.

[GePap]

The difference between man and woman is just semantics (given that those are only words used to describe the things).

Philosophy contributes each and every day to society, by giving students the skills to examine the source of their knowledge and to challenge it more effectively. It adds to each and every moral and religious debate ever held (in fact, is the basis for them)..it is seen in action every single day here in Poly, in dozen of posts by dozens of posters. Your bias as to what counts (which can be spotted so simply after your snide and dissmissive attack on a important subject,semantics) as a contibution (which is then conpounded by your political biases) makes attempting to answer your question a fools errand.

So Asher, have you stopped beating your boyfriend? Yes/no?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Philosophy contributes each and every day to society, by giving students the skills to examine the source of their knowledge and to challenge it more effectively.

If you buy this product today, it will enhance your happiness and fortify your confidence with ease and no mess whatsoever.

It adds to each and every moral and religious debate ever held (in fact, is the basis for them)

Moral and religious debates?
Morals are one of the dumbest things one could argue about...
People who switch religions on the basis of debate are obviously not truly religious, as religion requires faith.

..it is seen in action every single day here in Poly, in dozen of posts by dozens of posters. Your bias as to what counts (which can be spotted so simply after your snide and dissmissive attack on a important subject,semantics)

semantics exist as a way to complicate things in debates. They do serve a purpose, they don't deserve to be abused like philosophers do all the time. It's like a safety blanket for them.

as a contibution (which is then conpounded by your political biases) makes attempting to answer your question a fools errand.

I don't count that as a contribution for simple reasons. It's not necessary.

People can still debate morals, people can still debate religion, and people can still play with semantics to try to win arguments with or without philosophy. That's the crux of your argument, plain and simple.

So Asher, have you stopped beating your boyfriend? Yes/no?

WTF?

Somehow I think if I asked you if you stopped beating your wife, I'd get a kick swift in the ass to Mingapulco.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
Moral and religious debates?
Morals are one of the dumbest things one could argue about...
People who switch religions on the basis of debate are obviously not truly religious, as religion requires faith.

Oh boy..... no, this speaks for itself.

semantics exist as a way to complicate things in debates. They do serve a purpose, they don't deserve to be abused like philosophers do all the time. It's like a safety blanket for them.

No, semantics exist as a way of making the arguement exact, in so far as it can be sued to reach agreed upon definitions for terms and such, which are vital to intelliegent debate. now, if you don;t care for inteliegent debate....

I don't count that as a contribution for simple reasons. It's not necessary.

Computer science most certainly is not necessary..heck, science is not necessary at all either (craft yes, science no) and the history of man more than amply shows the truth of this...wait, unless you are using some weird, unexplained personal definition of what "necessary" means, which of course would make continued debate impossible.

People can still debate morals, people can still debate religion, and people can still play with semantics to try to win arguments with or without philosophy. That's the crux of your argument, plain and simple.

NO, the crux is that in doing so, they imporve their ability to understand, and thus become better scientists and more productive members of society.

WTF?

Somehow I think if I asked you if you stopped beating your wife, I'd get a kick swift in the ass to Mingapulco.

can't handle a prime example of a biased question? More aggregious than your's certainly, but sharing some characteristics.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh boy..... no, this speaks for itself.

Don't like my philosophy, boy?
It's simple: everyone has their own morals, there is no baseline and no right or wrong. Thus, arguing about morals is as futile is arguing about why philosophy is useless with people who desperately try to find ways to make it sound useful.

No, semantics exist as a way of making the arguement exact, in so far as it can be sued to reach agreed upon definitions for terms and such, which are vital to intelliegent debate. now, if you don;t care for inteliegent debate....

They may exist for that, but this is not a formal debate, and it never was. VERY frequently philosophers abuse semantics, as you did here, to squirm your way into an assumption based on one out of about a hundred (SEMANTIC ALERT: REAL COUNT WAS NOT 100!!! ) questions was assuming there were no benefits, as none were provided.

Computer science most certainly is not necessary

It is for what you're doing right now.
I could do without someone studying philosophy in university in the past, oh, 100 years to do what I'm doing right now. But if nobody studied computer science in the past 100 years, you'd be doing something a helluva lot different than talking to me online right now.

..heck, science is not necessary at all either (craft yes, science no) and the history of man more than amply shows the truth of this...wait, unless you are using some weird, unexplained personal definition of what "necessary" means, which of course would make continued debate impossible.

Necessary as in, needed for what we have. Studying philosophy in university hasn't changed anything for what I have right now, so it is thus unnecessary.

NO, the crux is that in doing so, they imporve their ability to understand, and thus become better scientists and more productive members of society.

Scientists use the scientific method, where is the room to argue with hard evidence and results?

Philosophy is used more in the social sciencey areas, but a simple argument & debate class would accomplish the same thing.

can't handle a prime example of a biased question? More aggregious than your's certainly, but sharing some characteristics.

So asking where the benefits are to philosophy is akin to asking someone if they stopped beating their boyfriend...?

That's one of the most lame things you've said thus far in the debate. The question wasn't biased, the question was simple. What's biased is I know very well there probably isn't an answer, because philosophy is intangible and is simply a formalized way of thinking.

It's stupid to waste public money on. Philosophy of Logic especially, that is totally useless and purely academic. Which is okay but Agathon, he enjoys spending money on useless things admittedly, but I'd prefer more medicinal research for my tax dollars, thanks.

Philosophy is simply an obsolete department. The only useful functions of it (to some people, I suppose) could easily be moved into the faculties they directly affect. Like the Philosophy of Film class should be a Film class, not Philosophy. The Philosophy of Logic classes should be eliminated in their entirity, completedly useless, convoluted crap that exists for purely academic reasons.

[MrFun]

What round is this, between Asher and GePap?

And whoever the victor is, who does that person contend on the next level of the bracket?

[Asher]

Agathon got KOed a while ago when he tried using the meaning of university as the reason philosophy is necessary. One of the weakest arguments I've heard from him in a while, and easily knocked down.

GePap is doing much better, he's almost making it sound useful. Unfortunately, he's succumbing to the vast, unprovable generalizations that people have made before in that "philosophy improves lives!".

I've seen no theorys from philosophers recently that have been useful, nor any ideas or concepts coming from them.

I see them all the time on TV telling me what is and isn't ethical, like they're some supergod capable of judging what is or isn't...I see them in the classroom arguing about Plato and Socratese, and I see the philosophy students smoking a bong in the washroom and barely passing and understanding the Philosophy of Logic courses we were in. For the compsci students it was a joke, but the philosophy kids (only a few of them)...man, the dumbest questions. Grr!

I'm still unconvinced the world would be worse off if we elminated the philosophy department and used the money to boost medical research funding.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Agathon
Man they teach you guys some **** philosophy at Calgary.

I wonder what kind of courses they teach at Calgary. Look at those 4xx CS courses, they would be 2xx courses at my alma mater.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I wonder what kind of courses they teach at Calgary. Look at those 4xx CS courses, they would be 2xx courses at my alma mater.

4xx = third year.
And what is your alma mater, UR?

I don't think you know enough about them. The I/O, for example, is the third assembly course I'll take, but it doesn't say that on there. The Software Engineering one is also not the first I've taken, most of these are second or third level of those courses, not the first like you seem to assume.

(though I'd doubt you'd reply to this at all, because if you gave me the name of your alma mater and I compared the courses to their third year courses, I can guarantee you they'd be similar..you probably know that too, hence why you'll now ignore this thread )

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This discussion explains a great deal about Asher. No understanding of philosophy = no basis for ethics = I Microsoft!

[Elok]

Originally posted by MrFun
What round is this, between Asher and GePap?
And whoever the victor is, who does that person contend on the next level of the bracket?

Ironically, Asher is winning mainly by use of philosophy; by careful thinking, he has determined that the "floor" is whatever direction the soles of his feet are facing, and therefore has come to the conclusion that Agathon and GePap are TKOs, as are the side of the ring and most of the audience...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not to be quarrelsome, but I think that Asher's views are more the result of his psychology than his philosophy.