Which of the following is the most worthless?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
Yeah, that must be it. It's real hard for us types to engage in critical thinking, you artsy do it on such a regular basis...like in this thread.

PS: lecture notes? That would imply I wasted time going to most philosophy lectures... You skimread the text the night before exams or before you write a paper to get the vocab. down then you just think it through. It's a joke.

What you produced was crap then.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What you produced was crap then.

By definition, seeing as it was a philosophy class...

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Oh yeah. Logic is so ****ing hard. Computer scientists never have to use logic at all.

I wasn't talking about his Logics class... IIRC he had one on Berkeley or something.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What you produced was crap then.

If there's no verifiable objecjective standard to differentiate between what you think is crap and what you think isn't then it's all crap.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I wasn't talking about his Logics class... IIRC he had one on Berkeley or something.

I took Philosophy of Logic I & II, and Problems of Philosophy.

[Fake Boris]

I'd love to see how Asher would fare against a specialist of the philosophy of logics, though.

[Asher]

In "Problems of Philosophy" in the first week of class he tried to get us "excited" about Philosophy by engaging us in a lively debate about the ethics of saving a burning baby -- is it ethical to do so?

My eyes rolled so far back into my head that it gave me a headache..

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If there's no verifiable objecjective standard to differentiate between what you think is crap and what you think isn't then it's all crap.

I'm a fisissist and my discpline is very very objecjective.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I'd love to see how Asher would fare against a specialist of the philosophy of logics, though.

In what way?

After the first course of logic it's all esoteric and useless.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


If there's no verifiable objecjective standard to differentiate between what you think is crap and what you think isn't then it's all crap.

Can you demonstrate the validity of empiricism?

[Eli]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Engineers in general are not particularly smart. Some are, but most are barely above normal intelligence with a better-than-average mathematical sense.

I disagree.

At least in Israel the median high schooler barely manages to get a matriculation certificate.

To get into a university engineering faculty, one has to finish high school with good grades(though not necessarily very good) while taking maths and physics(at least) at an increased level of difficulty, and get an approximately top 10% SAT score. Also, before or during Uni they must reach an appropriate level of English.

Far from being barely above average.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Can you demonstrate the validity of empiricism?

Are you trying to provide another example of the uselessness of philosophers today?

The laws of physics simply exist in today's world, arguing about their validity is a waste of time.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher
In "Problems of Philosophy" in the first week of class he tried to get us "excited" about Philosophy by engaging us in a lively debate about the ethics of saving a burning baby -- is it ethical to do so?

My eyes rolled so far back into my head that it gave me a headache..

Careful, that baby might be teh Hitler.

JM

[KrazyHorse]

Top 10% = barely above average in my book. 1.2 sigma isn't all that impressive.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Can you demonstrate the validity of empiricism?

No, and neither can you.

That's the point.