Mentioning Phil phD's

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Democritus is a bad example of the usefulness of philosophy. You shouldn't insist on it too much.

At least somebody on the other side of the fence realizes this too.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Philosophy is the quintessence of wisdom. Do you have anything against wisdom, Asher? Or perhaps you think it's not useful?

I disagree that philosophy is about wisdom these days.

All of the modern-day philosophers I've met tend to be egotistical idiots who think they're everyone's intellectual superior. See: Agathon...

What has philosophy done for society in the past fifty years?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Philosophers write out hypotheses and then jump for joy, and go home...

No they don't.

The problem with this is you assume no one else can have the same ideas as those philosophers had, and further without them we wouldn't have had the work done by Dalton, etc.

The fact that the theory is called the atomic theory works against your case.

And again, I'm still REALLY confused why you keep citing all these old people. I've said before that ancient philosophers were quite useful, but modern ones are not. To counter this, you cite all kinds of ancient philosophers?

Recognition of profound shifts takes time. It would take too long to completely explain how 20th century philosophy leeches into the cultural environment. Here's one example: Robert Nozick's "Wilt Chamberlain" argument from "Anarchy, State and Utopia" was incredibly influential in the circles of political science. Look it up and you will see why. Nozick thought this up himself - he was a philosopher.

You don't seem to understand the case...

Like hell I don't. You won't wriggle out that way.

Ethics should not be taught in a classroom.

Everyone has their own ethics, don't philsophers understand that?

That is an option that some philosophers consider (it is called individual relativism). But it is debatable and the only people debating it are, surprise, philosophers.

Imagine if medical ethics was conducted along these lines, it would be a disaster. You honestly live in a dream world.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
No they don't.

Oh? What did Plato do to prove his hypotheses, what did Democritus do?

The fact that the theory is called the atomic theory works against your case.

Did Dalton call it this, or was it named that after?

Recognition of profound shifts takes time.

LOL. Nice try...

In other words "Nothing that we can see! But in 1000 years, 1 in 1000 philosophers of today will be proven to be correct about something."

Like hell I don't. You won't wriggle out that way.

If you understood the case, you wouldn't have listed ancient philosophers...

That is an option that some philosophers consider (it is called individual relativism).

See? They take something that's common sense (not everyone has the same code of ethics), slap on some fancy word to it, then...

But it is debatable and the only people debating it are, surprise, philosophers.

...waste everyone's time by debating it, using public funds no less.

Imagine if medical ethics was conducted along these lines, it would be a disaster.

Medical ethics are decided by the owners of the hospitals which employ doctors, how many of those owners are philosophers?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Democritus is a bad example of the usefulness of philosophy. You shouldn't insist on it too much.

It's one of the examples that Asher picked because he knows he can't make much of a case for the rest (in philosopher speak he is violating the principle of charity - the violation of which is a standard response of poor arguers). The killer one IMHO is represented by the quote from Penrose - one of the landmarks in human thought.

Anyway,

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905226.html

Dalton made a unique and worthwhile contribution to atomism. But the idea was not new. You seem to think that everyone thinks about these things and only philosophers write them down - this is a bizarre idea. Democritus had good reasons for his theory - it was revolutionary at the time and like many other ideas took time to take root.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's one of the examples that Asher picked because he knows he can't make much of a case for the rest

Actually I picked it randomly from the list (seriously).

(in philosopher speak he is violating the principle of charity - the violation of which is a standard response of poor arguers).

I can't say I'm blown away by your arguments. Not only have you not convinced me, you've amused me. And you're a PhD student in philosophy, and this is your forte. Hah.

You seem to think that everyone thinks about these things and only philosophers write them down - this is a bizarre idea.

Do they teach you to constantly make strawmen in philosophy? I swear, that's all you do...

Democritus had good reasons for his theory

Like?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Oh? What did Plato do to prove his hypotheses, what did Democritus do?

They argued.

See? They take something that's common sense (not everyone has the same code of ethics), slap on some fancy word to it, then...

It didn't used to be common sense. People used to think that morality was legislated by God. One reason that many people don't believe this anymore is that atheism has taken hold and so has moral nihilism. Who thought up these things and thus who is ultimately responsible for the change? I'll leave you to guess.

Medical ethics are decided by the owners of the hospitals which employ doctors, how many of those owners are philosophers?

This is even more astonishingly ignorant than the rest. Not only do you know nothing about philosophy, or the history of ideas, but you also appear to be completely unaware of the way the medical system works.

In short I think you should immediately enrol in a course on the history of ideas to cure yourself of this terrible malady.

That's enough. You stand exposed as a fool floundering in ideas that you don't understand - this is turning into a neverending series of howlers on your part.

"Did 17th century people learn Classics?". "Hospital ethics are determined by the owners', etc. etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually I picked it randomly from the list (seriously).

I can't say I'm blown away by your arguments. Not only have you not convinced me, you've amused me. And you're a PhD student in philosophy, and this is your forte. Hah.

Do they teach you to constantly make strawmen in philosophy? I swear, that's all you do...

Like?

Whatever. As a non-philosopher said, "you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear".

Where is the straw man here? This seems to be another piece of philosophy speak that you don't understand. A straw man is putting up an illegimately weak form of a person's argument to be demolished and you have put up a few bizarre claims which have been shown to be false. But in this case the argument under discussion is mine, so I fail to see how it applies.

You are just trolling and wasting my time.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
They argued.

Bickering proves something, how?
Maybe in the wonderful, mystical land of philosophy that constitutes as a proof...

It didn't used to be common sense.

I'm not talking about anything eight hundred years ago, I don't care about that.

I'm talking about here, and now...

It is common sense that people have different sets of ethics, and to bother debating about it is a waste of time.

This is even more astonishingly ignorant than the rest. Not only do you know nothing about philosophy, or the history of ideas, but you also appear to be completely unaware of the way the medical system works.

Well, obviously my example took an American slant to it.

Medical ethics aren't ruled by philosophers, regardless of what you're trying (very unsuccessfully) to argue. Sure, philosophers argue about it constantly, but it doesn't do anything... Medical ethics depend on whatever is considered acceptable by the public, not what some philosophers think at the University of Toronto...

"Did 17th century people learn Classics?". "Hospital ethics are determined by the owners', etc. etc.

Do you understand how the US healthcare system works at all?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Where is the straw man here?

Obviously not a master of logic, eh?
It was the passage I quoted, where I responded that (sorry if this is over your head). I'll repeat it again for you:

You seem to think that everyone thinks about these things and only philosophers write them down - this is a bizarre idea.

Now why is this a strawman? Because I've never said anything like that, nor implied it. You pulled it out of your ass (like a true philosopher) and rolled with it.

A straw man is putting up an illegimately weak form of a person's argument to be demolished

Precisely...and look at what you have just done.

Put two and two together...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Asher

Bickering proves something, how?
Maybe in the wonderful, mystical land of philosophy that constitutes as a proof...

I believe he meant that as in "making arguments," i.e., reasoning...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


I believe he meant that as in "making arguments," i.e., reasoning...

Still, in the real world that doesn't cut it. Especially since far more philosophers have no doubt believed that the atomic theory is bull****, and reasoned that as well.

For example, it stands to reason that the atomic theory is bull****, as I cannot see atoms with my eye.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, but plenty of scientists have also believed incorrect theories. What does that prove?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, but plenty of scientists have also believed incorrect theories. What does that prove?

Which scientists have proven the atomic theory to be incorrect?

Scientists tend to believe different things, yes, but that's not what we were talking about. Scientists take a hypothesis and prove or disprove it, Philosophers take a hypothesis and "argue" it rather than prove it.

Of course, in the philosopher's magical world, arguing is a way of proving it...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Bickering proves something, how?
Maybe in the wonderful, mystical land of philosophy that constitutes as a proof...

So arguments don't count as proof. Jesus Christ.

I'm not talking about anything eight hundred years ago, I don't care about that.

I'm talking about here, and now...

It is common sense that people have different sets of ethics, and to bother debating about it is a waste of time.

If you say so. Of course things will never change from now on so common sense must be right.

Well, obviously my example took an American slant to it.

Nice try, but it won't work.

Medical ethics aren't ruled by philosophers, regardless of what you're trying (very unsuccessfully) to argue. Sure, philosophers argue about it constantly, but it doesn't do anything... Medical ethics depend on whatever is considered acceptable by the public, not what some philosophers think at the University of Toronto...

Gee whiz, I'll tell that to the bunch of healthcare professionals I gave a series of lectures to back in New Zealand. And I'll also tell that to the Bioethics institute at U of T which is world renowned. I'll tell that to the healthcare professionals who cared for my Dad during his final illness and who wanted to talk to me because they had been sent on mandatory courses on health ethics run by philosophers and they wanted to discuss the topic. Shall I.

Twit.

Do you understand how the US healthcare system works at all?

In my course I used an American book, which gives precise details of what goes on with readings from philosophers, health professionals, case studies and court decisions. It's called "Bioethics" and it's big and purple. So I'd say I have a pretty good idea and it's clear that you don't.

Anyway, no more from me.