Mentioning Phil phD's

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Your d1ck fits into a pencil sharpener? Excuse me, but this problem has more to do with medicine than with philosophy.

I was roleplaying as a philosopher...
Notice the "I am a great philosopher..." part at the beginning.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tuberski

BUT, does atomic theory have anything to do with philosophy?

Did this guy have another vocation?

ACK!

They're talking about a guy who, thousands of years ago, postulated that everything was made out of atoms. Of course, thousands of people said the exact opposite, also philosophers. He just thought of an idea, published it, and now he's somehow great.

That's not useful.

Dalton is the one who made atomic theory a reality, and he didn't know anything about Democritus stupid little theory thousands of years before him.

So many philosophers write so much bull**** that eventually one of them turns out to be right. That doesn't say anything about philosophy being useful...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

No kidding.


You've yet to actually illustrate philosophy being useful. You've listed off a bunch of bull**** that equate to either observations of society or ridiculous things like "multiculturalism" as the product of society.

You know what, if that's the best you can do I can't be bothered wasting my time. Sure, universal education is a useless idea, so is the notion of a rational non-religious explanation of phenomena. If you don't think these things have proved useful, then I don't know what planet you are from. Unless you can provide compelling reasons to show that any of my claims are false, you are just talking out your ass, which seems to be your preferred mode of communication.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You know what, if that's the best you can do I can't be bothered wasting my time.

You've yet to prove philosophy to be useful. Then you keep saying I'm not supporting my argument.

Then I ask you for a fourth time to tell me why it's useful.

Then you respond with the above.

Maybe this technique works with your philosopher colleagues, but not with me baby.

For the record, it doesn't suffice to list simple observations/theories that philosophers have pulled out of their ass thousands of years ago that turned out to be right (by scientists, no doubt).

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

They're talking about a guy who, thousands of years ago, postulated that everything was made out of atoms. Of course, thousands of people said the exact opposite, also philosophers. He just thought of an idea, published it, and now he's somehow great.

That's not useful.

Dalton is the one who made atomic theory a reality, and he didn't know anything about Democritus stupid little theory thousands of years before him.

So many philosophers write so much bull**** that eventually one of them turns out to be right. That doesn't say anything about philosophy being useful...

Rubbish. Every educated person knows about Democritus. Of course there were disagreements, the means of resolving them didn't exist yet.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Rubbish. Every educated person knows about Democritus.

Was Democritus standard educational material back in the 1700s? If so, prove it...

Again, just because some philosopher may have pulled something out of his ass that happened to be right doesn't make the field useful.

By this logic, psychics are extremely useful...

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by Asher
I was roleplaying as a philosopher...
Notice the "I am a great philosopher..." part at the beginning.

LOL, sorry, I cited your quote out of context

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Asher
So many philosophers write so much bull**** that eventually one of them turns out to be right. That doesn't say anything about philosophy being useful...

Kind of like the theory that if you had a million monkeys on typewriters, typing non-stop, eventually you would have the complete works of Shakespeare?

ACK!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

You've yet to prove philosophy to be useful. Then you keep saying I'm not supporting my argument.

Then I ask you for a fourth time to tell me why it's useful.

Then you respond with the above.

Maybe this technique works with your philosopher colleagues, but not with me baby.

For the record, it doesn't suffice to list simple observations/theories that philosophers have pulled out of their ass thousands of years ago that turned out to be right (by scientists, no doubt).

Are you telling me that science doesn't proceed by suppostions and hypotheses just like Democritus' hypothesis? (which he didn't pull our of his ass - he had reasons for it)

And where did this glorious scientific method originate from - the rationalist explanations of phenomena pioneered by the presocratic philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Sure, they were wrong about a lot of things but the core of their thinking is sound. Here's Roger Penrose (whom you should know)

"By some miraculous insight Plato seems to have foreseen, on the basis of what must have been very sparse evidence at that time, that: on the one hand, mathematics must be studied for its own sake, and one must not demand complete applicability to the objects of physical experience; on the other hand, the workings of the actual external world can ultimately be understood only in terms of precise mathematics.."

"The Emperor's New Mind" p. 205.

This alone makes a mockery of your entire case, since this is precisely the fundamental claim of his philosophy.

As for the rest I suggest that psychiatric treatment might work with you. I suppose none of the things I listed count as useful to you, again I ask, what planet are you living on?

To use a contemporary example: is medical ethics useful? Yes. Well where do ethicists come from? Answer: they are trained in philosophy.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Was Democritus standard educational material back in the 1700s? If so, prove it...

Again, just because some philosopher may have pulled something out of his ass that happened to be right doesn't make the field useful.

By this logic, psychics are extremely useful...

Were the classics standard educational tools in the 1700s? Did educated people of that era read Latin and Greek far better than the best scholars do now (due to being trained from an early age)? Is "atom" really an english version of the Greek "atomos" lit. "uncuttable" a term used by Democritus to describe his fundamental particles?

The answer is unequivocally "YES". YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES!

I can't believe you said that.

You're a fool, boy.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Are you telling me that science doesn't proceed by suppostions and hypotheses just like Democritus' hypothesis? (which he didn't pull our of his ass - he had reasons for it)

Science involves hypotheses, but then they go and try to prove them right or wrong.

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

And where did this glorious scientific method originate from - the rationalist explanations of phenomena pioneered by the presocratic philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. Sure, they were wrong about a lot of things but the core of their thinking is sound. Here's Roger Penrose (whom you should know)

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.

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?

This alone makes a mockery of your entire case.

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

To use a contemporary example: is medical ethics useful? Yes. Well where do ethicists come from? Answer: they are trained in philosophy.

Ethics should not be taught in a classroom.

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

[Shi Huangdi]

I submit the following as evidence of how philosophy courses are still needed:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78327

Clearly Sava is an example of someone who needs training in how to construct an argument.

[The Vagabond]

Democritus is a bad example of the usefulness of philosophy. You shouldn't insist on it too much.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Were the classics standard educational tools in the 1700s? Did educated people of that era read Latin and Greek far better than the best scholars do now (due to being trained from an early age)? Is "atom" really an english version of the Greek "atomos" lit. "uncuttable" a term used by Democritus to describe his fundamental particles?

Question: Did Dalton call the atoms the atoms, or did people call it that later?

[The Vagabond]

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