Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

The position wasn't that semantics don't matter, but basing entire arguments upon semantics is a waste of time.

If what someone said was wrong, either their underlying idea is wrong, or how they crafted the statement was wrong- if the latter, the arguement to coorect them could only be all about semantics, and it would certainly be worthwhile, in in fact, is part of what you argue, NO?

It was a theory before it was accepted as fact. It's no longer refered to as the Theory of Gravity, but the Universal Law of Gravitation.

HOw could an "absolute truth" ever need a theory stage? Why wasn't it self evident to all of humanity all of history? After all, people saw it in action daily-why, were people that stupid not to GET IT!? Its gravity after all, an absolute truth!!!

Argh. I wonder why Philosophers always claim Newton was a Philosopher? Newton was a scientist, not a philosopher.

A scientist is a philospher of a kind- we had this debate before. In fact, the whole basis for this arguement of your is, you guessed it, SEMANTICS! Funny that.

I'm not sure why you're trying to use gravity as an example of philosophy being useful. Is it because 10 millenia before Newton did his studies, some fat philosopher pondered "why did things fall?" and somehow gets credit for it all?

You brough up gravity, not me. I was though,a nd you ignore it, making the point that your claim about "useless knowledge" is very relevant to science. After all, why scientist at all? All we need is a bunch of engineers. They will be the ones to actually make things, not the scientist with their heads stuck up in esoteric clouds, no?

This is a worthless argument, and I thought you were part of the last thread where this was dismissed. My argument is based upon current philosophy, which is VERY different from Philosophy 1000 years ago.

Lets lay i down for you- earlier in the thread, Agathon posted something which is seems everyone but you understood- now, lets take you and give you Schopenhaur: would you be able to digest what he said? MOst likely not. You keep arguing that is all philosophers do is refer to past ideas (and how many orignal ideas can there be? interesting philosophical question), they are nothing more thn historians. Where you are false is that you need the training to be able to uinderstand what a philosopher is saying: any moron can get "in 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue...". But give any moron Nietszche for example, and of they go killing the subhumans. Ideas are power, and you need ot know how to handle them and digest them. Even if philosophers in the past 50 years have not added significantly to the body of ideas, they are necessary to train the masses in how to understand what has precedded us, lest these people misnterpret and cause a mess.

[Ben Kenobi]

The wording was exceptionally poor.

Good is not defined. "Aggregation" is a really poor word choice, as well.

You know what they say...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm referring to the existence of gravity, not the cause of.

No one doubts that it exists -- so therefore, is it not correct to say it's existence is absolutely certain?

Gravity is not something that can be observed directly. You can of course observe that what goes up tends to go down, or that bodies tend to attract each other. Gravity is a mecanism that has been formulated by scientists to explain why these things happen.

To answer your question, I would put it this way:

- no one has a good reason to doubt the facts (that what goes up must go down, or that bodies tend to attract each other...)
- no one has a good reason to doubt that gravity exists.

I prefer to remain cautious and not say "hence it certainly exists." History teaches us that each time somebody claimed that this or that was certain, it turned out that they were wrong. Of course, it doesn't necessarily mean that we're wrong on this point. But we could be.

[David Floyd]

Agathon, as I recall, last time we debated something substantial (the "killing one to save 10" and "personal responsibility" debate) I kicked your ass and several others on here who normally don't agree with me said so.

So, right, Asher's just like me. Laugh it up, because either that means he kicked your ass last time, or it means that he didn't, and you don't know what you're talking about.

That said, I agree with you. Philosophy does have value, and many teachers are idiots.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
If what someone said was wrong, either their underlying idea is wrong, or how they crafted the statement was wrong- if the latter, the arguement to coorect them could only be all about semantics, and it would certainly be worthwhile, in in fact, is part of what you argue, NO?

First of all I'd like to say the syntax of this sentence is terrible.
Second of all, semantics are important, again. But I find it amazing just how often Philosophical debates boil down to semantics, which Agathon gorgeously proved here with the Utilitarianism nonsense.

HOw could an "absolute truth" ever need a theory stage? Why wasn't it self evident to all of humanity all of history? After all, people saw it in action daily-why, were people that stupid not to GET IT!? Its gravity after all, an absolute truth!!!

Actually, you're correct -- though I doubt you mean to be. Tell me one person who wouldn't assume gravity would exist if they dropped an Apple.

See? Absolute truth.

A scientist is a philospher of a kind- we had this debate before. In fact, the whole basis for this arguement of your is, you guessed it, SEMANTICS! Funny that.

This is true, it is semantics. But it's a massive semantic difference, in the fault of Philosophers trying to steal credit for a Scientist's work as a credit to Philosophy.

You brough up gravity, not me. I was though,a nd you ignore it, making the point that your claim about "useless knowledge" is very relevant to science. After all, why scientist at all? All we need is a bunch of engineers. They will be the ones to actually make things, not the scientist with their heads stuck up in esoteric clouds, no?

Engineers are scientists, just applied scientists. In order for science to work for society, you need the theory people and the application people.

I see what you're trying to do, but it doesn't fly -- research scientists do are undoubtedly helping for a better society, while there is no evidence for the same of modern philosophers.

Even if philosophers in the past 50 years have not added significantly to the body of ideas, they are necessary to train the masses in how to understand what has precedded us, lest these people misnterpret and cause a mess.

I don't understand why the masses need training in the theory of an "evil genius" controlling our actions. Please explain its use...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming


Your record is kind of broken... you have been trashed EVERY time we have debated... you were the only one that didn't think so... so crap...

IIRC I've only ever seriously argued with you about private golf clubs (what a subject) and I won't yield anything on that despite what anyone says.

IIRC I spent most of the thread trying to explain to you that you can treat the sexes differently without it being wrongfully discriminatory - an elementary logical point which you refused to understand.

In fact, with all due respect, you tend to misuse the word "logical" in a flagrant fashion - accusing people of being illogical when their logic is perfect (they may be making other mistakes, but not logical mistakes).

If you want to start the golf thing again, be my guest. You don't scare me at all - at least as a debater.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

They tend to use overly-complex language, riddled with Philosopher-specific jargon, and then attack people on semantics in a debate rather than the content. Exhibit C: Boris vs. Agathon and Agathon assuming "utilitarian = Utilitarian", and basing an argument on the semantics of how one defines "Utilitarianism".

I have no idea. If you want the OED definition it is either what I said, or a related adjective meaning "useful rather than attractive". To describe doctrines it is only used in my sense - I don't know anyone whose beliefs are that everything is useful and nothing is attractive.

They are not open to the possiblility that perhaps they're out of their league and making an ass out of themsevles. Exhibit D: Agathon's unrelenting denial that Fitts' law is a mathematical law.

Not just me. And I don't think I denied it, I just said it was dubious. And it's you who DanSed on that one sir.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Agathon, as I recall, last time we debated something substantial (the "killing one to save 10" and "personal responsibility" debate) I kicked your ass and several others on here who normally don't agree with me said so.

Well, that makes them extremely stupid. I posted that same argument in another thread recently and someone saved their own copy because they liked it so much.

All you demonstrated in that thread was (a) your own propensity for tirelessly posting long after you have been whupped; and (b) the version of Libertarianism you believe in is a ridiculous waste of time.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

No, because utilitarianism is not Utilitarianism. It's a mistake Agathon made.

The definition of utilitarianism is:

The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.[/q].

And I was wrong how?

I see here an acceptance of consequentialism (the idea that the value of an action lies in its consequences) and an account of the good (utility - usually defined as welfare or preference satisfaction).

They left out the aggregation bit, but it is implicit in what they said (more utility is better).

I believe that's what I said.

[lightblue]

Not keeping in spirit with most of this thread, but I have seen how lecturers (@ Cambridge) grade some papers. My supervisor had a stack of 3rd year medic exams, and was marking them whilst having a barbecue and drinking (slightly too much). It took him about 3 minutes per paper (average length about 7 pages). Just from looking at keywords he went... 2.1, 2.2, 3rd. Crappy layout, writing got deducted a grade level.

Admittedly he hated doing it, but it kind of shocked when i saw it.

They also let us (grad students) mark the practical classes. Trust me when I say that Cambridge students aren't as smart as they make out...

[David Floyd]

All you demonstrated in that thread was (a) your own propensity for tirelessly posting

Which seemed to be necessary because you couldn't get it through your head that it is unreasonable to hold me responsible for the crimes committed by others.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Which seemed to be necessary because you couldn't get it through your head that it is unreasonable to hold me responsible for the crimes committed by others.

The point of the argument was that you are responsible when it comes to choosing the lesser of two evils - even if this choice is forced on you by another. That's called common sense. If the choices of someone else cause you to have to make a decision between ten deaths and one, you are culpable if you don't choose one (not solely culpable, but culpable nonetheless).

Consider a field medic who has the decision of whether to save two lives or one. He is not responsible for shooting any of the three, yet he is clearly delinquent in his duty if he saves only the one. On your view it's OK if he does nothing and all three die - which just shows that Libertarians don't care about human life, because they don't care about minimizing loss of life.

Get that through your head.

[David Floyd]

While I will say that your field medic example is contrived and irrelevant to the main point, I won't jack the thread any more. Start a new one and we'll rehash it, if you want.

[Agathon]

Contrived? That sort of example happens all the time.

Go read the old thread. I'm not wasting another 300 posts in the futile cause of persuading you of the obvious.

[The Mad Viking]

where to start?

Asher, I guess.

There is nothing worse than a scientist who rejects everything that does not fit their definition of science.

No religious fundamentalist was ever more righteous than these "scientists".

I suspect this is because they have a deep need to be able to explain everything with certainty, understand everything without ambiguity. Anything that complicates matters is a threat.

Witness the vitriol- "get a real job" argument. Asher, I would (and have) made the argument that the world would be far better off if we put a moratorium on the development of technology. I have no confidence in technology to solve the today's world's problems. It is at least as likely to create a problem as it is to ameliorate one. Maybe if we could stop being distracted by G4 and G5 processors for a while, we could try understanding what is inside us, and stop blowing each other up.

I really find the "blind faith" of scientists more troubling than that of "religionists". Religionists at least recognize the faith part, and object only to the blind.

In conclusion, philosophy has tremendous value. Many people refuse to try philosophy, because it may upset their world view.