JS Mill, free speech, and creationism/global warming

[KrazyHorse]

I believe there's a difference between taking part is a filosofy discussion and taking part in a physics discussion. Namely that the important statements in physics can be objectively verified.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I believe there's a difference between taking part is a filosofy discussion and taking part in a physics discussion. Namely that the important statements in physics can be objectively verified.

maybe so, but the limits of most non-physicists in physics discussions is not so much their non-awareness of particular experimental results, but their ignorance of the theory, math, logic, and terms of physics.

Similarly, if you dont know the theory, logic, and terms of philosophy, you will appear foolish in a phil discussion, even if theres no experimental result that can be asserted against you.

[KrazyHorse]

Similarly, if you dont know the theory, logic, and terms of philosophy, you will appear foolish in a phil discussion, even if theres no experimental result that can be asserted against you.

a) I'm better at pure logic than any philosopher here. I guarantee you that.

b) I'm not interested in taking part in a discussion constrained by the framework of modern filosofy. I'm interested in demonstrating how ridiculous the erection of such a framework is.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and if anybody feels that they can explain the wealth of experimental results from physics within the context of another framework then they'll have my full attention.

Good luck with that.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
[q]
b) I'm not interested in taking part in a discussion constrained by the framework of modern filosofy. I'm interested in demonstrating how ridiculous the erection of such a framework is.

As ive tried to explain to you, the question of how much of a framework you can erect with philosophy IS one of the key questions of modern philosophy(some would say the ONLY question), and the fact that you seem to think youre inventing the wheel by asserting things that philosophers said about philosophy over 80 years ago DOES make you look foolish, Im sorry to say. And the more you say it, while refusing to READ the 80 year old book that was so important in addressing these issues, the more foolish you look.

[KrazyHorse]

and the fact that you seem to think youre inventing the wheel by asserting things that philosophers said about philosophy over 80 years ago DOES make you look foolish, Im sorry to say

I don't think I'm inventing the wheel, son.

I'd like you to please find a quote which would indicate I thought I was...

[Last Conformist]

Philosophy has Aggie on its side, therefore it loses.

[KrazyHorse]

the question of how much of a framework you can erect with philosophy

This question makes no sense. I can invent a framework of arbitrary complexity, as long as I'm allowed to continue creating terms.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Philosophy has Aggie on its side, therefore it loses.

He's not the only example. Simply the most extreme.

[KrazyHorse]

If what I'm saying was first said 80 years ago, then this is a simple demonstration of how dumb filosofy is, given that I've never read anything about it.



80 years ago we had GR and primitive quantum theory. And I don't think I'm smart enough to have invented either of those.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Similarly, if you dont know the theory, logic, and terms of philosophy, you will appear foolish in a phil discussion, even if theres no experimental result that can be asserted against you.

a) I'm better at pure logic than any philosopher here. I guarantee you that.

I minored in Phil. with a concentration in Logic, so I'd have to disagree

[KrazyHorse]

I've studied analysis, algebra, set theory, category theory, topology and geometry at an advanced undergraduate/low graduate level.

I win.

[LordShiva]

Nuh-uh, without any knowledge of what I'd studied, it would be illogical to guarantee anything

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

the question of how much of a framework you can erect with philosophy

This question makes no sense. I can invent a framework of arbitrary complexity, as long as I'm allowed to continue creating terms.

let me rephrase, i shouldnt have followed your wording.

The question of whether there are any questions other than empirical ones (in the broadest sense - IE scientific ones) that are not tautologies. IE whether all the traditional subject matter of philosophy is in fact "pseudoproblems", problems that disappear as problems when the terms are understood rightly.


If there ARE such problems, than it would seem the task of philosophy to find the best framework for solving them, and to solve them. If there are not, as Witt argued in the TLP, then the sole job of philosophy is to show that what appear to be meaningful discussion of such "problems" whether by "philosophers", religionists, scientists, or others, are in fact meaningless pseudoproblems.

Now if the former is the case, than your insistence on using only your own frameworks, and your refusal to use those of others because they are labeled "philosophers" and their work "philosophy" rather than simply "thought" would seem to be pigheaded. If the latter is the case, then engaging those questions with ANY framework, whether developed by philosophers or by yourself is a pointless exercise (and not just in a practical sense - there is no knowledge to be gained, since the problems are pseudoproblems)

[Kuciwalker]

The question of whether there are any questions other than empirical ones (in the broadest sense - IE scientific ones) that are not tautologies.

There definately are, but they're undecidable