"Book burning"

[Kuciwalker]

I knew the math pwns philosophy argument would attract Ramo and KH

[Odin]

Burning books:

Educating people not to beleive nonsense in some books:

Philosphers exaggerating thier importance:

[Brent]

What if someone has their own personal writings burnt when they die for privacy reasons? Is that wrong?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Nope. Property rights and the observence of last will and testament requests.

[Nostromo]

Math pwns philosophy in terms of logical rigor.

I don't think that's a problem with philosophy per se, but with the limitations of natural languages like english or french. When you think and when you have to prove your point in a natural language, the result will obviously be less rigorous. That's why mathematics and highly mathematized sciences like physics are extremely rigorous, much more so than most of philosophy.

But given the limitations of natural languages, I think that we philosophers are, if we're doing our job properly, more rigorous than most people.

Btw, your assuming philosophers never use mathematics or formal logic. You should read philosophers like Carnap. He's quite rigorous...

[Japher]

maybe philosophy should be replaced by interpretive dance then.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its only rigorous if you stretch properly first. Otherwise you dog the whole dance routine.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Now philosophers being replaced by rigorous acting porn stars erm... interpretative dancers is a different matter.

[Japher]

using the universal language?

they'd have no excuses then.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Whenever anyone suggests book burning (which isn't censorship per se, or at least can only be seen as the extremest form of censorship) then I think of Heine and his prophetic remarks:

‘Where they have burned books, they will end up burning human beings.’ ' Almansor ' .

Yah, but he also said

"Since the Exodus, freedom has always spoken with a Hebrew accent."


Obviously just another Likudnik baby killer

[Agathon]

Btw, your assuming philosophers never use mathematics or formal logic. You should read philosophers like Carnap. He's quite rigorous...

I wouldn't bother if I were you. They have no idea what they are talking about anyway.

[Nostromo]

I wouldn't bother if I were you.

The relation between the natural sciences, on the one hand, and the social sciences and the humanities, on the other, is at an all time low. I'm sick and tired of it. Instead of childlishly dissing each other, we could learn from one another. When I teach philosophy of science, one of my goal is to fight the clichés about science. In part because of those clichés, a lot of students become hostile to science, and hence don't acquire a scientific culture. A student of mine told me point blank that he doesn't attend class because he hates science and philosophy of science...

They have no idea what they are talking about anyway.

I don't know, Ramo is quite open and articulate. Others are either trolling or, like Kuci, they're seeking the approval of the other scientists on 'poly: he's saying what he thinks they want to hear.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
Burning books:

Educating people not to beleive nonsense in some books:

Philosphers exaggerating thier importance:

Fighting wrong ideas with arguments rather than violence

Odin

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by nostromo
I don't think that's a problem with philosophy per se, but with the limitations of natural languages like english or french.

There's no difference, ultimately. If philosophy were rigorous it could create its own symbolic logic.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't know, Ramo is quite open and articulate. Others are either trolling or, like Kuci, they're seeking the approval of the other scientists on 'poly: he's saying what he thinks they want to hear.

Where'd you get that? I'm trolling AND I'm saying what I think is true AND I'm enlisting the support of others to own Aggie.