1051. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #140632 by MPhil on March 8, 2008 at 5:03 am

---TICKER---TICKER---TICKER---

Google results for "ugsome", one minute ago:

approx. 15.100

1052. Fleabytes

Comment #140335 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:37 am

clodhopper,

nah, I just put on the "Restaurant at the End of the Universe"-Audiobook (and the sequels). I think my dreams will be entirely pleasant :)

1053. Fleabytes

Comment #140330 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:29 am

I was cracking up, unable to breath from all the laughing when I read about the neutrino-propulsion of Jesus' feet.

Indistinguishable from satire.

Never heard of "Star Maker" - interesting that someone would write a book about that.

So, I guess I'm going to start drifting slowly off into sleep right - probably press F5 a couple more times...


Good night all.

1054. Fleabytes

Comment #140324 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:23 am

... I would deal with those entirely unsound arguments... but I'm extremely tired by now. Been awake for 20 hours.
Would someone else do it... you know "the unity that is there is there because it was deliberately written so as to enforce the older writings and 'fulfil' the prophecy'... 'the discrepancies are very profund - such as between the god of the OT and of the NT, or between the baby jesus meek and mild, and the hellfire, brimstone eternal torture jesus...

and of course the ridiculous and frankly insulting points 5 and 6...

1055. Fleabytes

Comment #140318 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:14 am

Is Frank Tipler the one with the "God is the singularity at the end of time" "The Holy Spirit is the singularity at the beginning" and "Jesus walked on water by creating neutrino-emmissions"?

Also, wouldn't it be funny - god running a "trial universe"?

Imagine he reveals himself to the inhabitants:


"What? Eternal salvation? No, you need my son for that!
...
I'm sorry, but I can't do that... you see, this is only a trial universe. Well, goodbye then!"


And for some fun, try to convince theist that we live in God's trial universe.

1056. Fleabytes

Comment #140311 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:04 am

he would have to know all truths about all possible futures as well.

1057. Fleabytes

Comment #140310 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 6:02 am

In response to comment #140296 by Steve:

Then, it seems, the impossibility of deducing the resulting laws, and therefore the subsequent states of the universe would make omniscience at the outset impossible.

1058. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140305 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:55 am

Addendum: The only reason I could even think of for including faithheads in a bioethics commision would be if they truly represented the beliefs and thus wishes of a large proportion of the people. Since their opinion has to count on what should be allowed to be done with or to them - that might be a reason. I'm not sure though. Just a thought.

1059. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140301 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:52 am

a bioethics commission (agreed) and that it should include representatives from faith groups.

1060. Fleabytes

Comment #140300 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:48 am

But if the creator was omniscient, he would know that they arise and exactly what they would effect. So he would know all about the complexity of the universe in any state - and he would have known that from the outset. (of course there's a problem with the theist-asserted free will and its consequences here)

So in order to know all truths about all states of the universe even before creating it - wouldn't he have to be infinitely more complex than the added complexity of all temporal states of the universe?

1061. Fleabytes

Comment #140299 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:45 am

Steve, in continuation of my next to last "The Salamander's Tale"-comment:

Well, with relativity, even the science isn't that bad. Special Relativity is very simple.

1062. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140293 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:36 am

Perhaps it should he "The-Thread-That-Must-Not-Be-Named" ... just kidding. Moving over...

1063. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140290 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:31 am

Mitchell, fair point. Have fun!


Steve,

hmm... I guess you mean grasping the general ideas and tenants, not mastering the science. (which was what I was likening it to.)

And - since I haven't said it as of yet - thank you for instilling further doubt about String Theory, as I said - I love to learn something new, even (and sometimes especially) that certain theories have such and such failings or inadequacies.

1064. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140285 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:25 am

We should be angry at his apparent attempts to spread them to children. We should be angry that so many minds are ruined by such parasitic ideas. We should be angry that so much human potential is wasted.

Some people say "believe what you like, but don't bother me". I don't agree. It seems to me that that view is like ecouraging people to remain ignorant.

1065. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140282 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:17 am

I think we should stop here... seems we're drowning the thread.

1066. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140280 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:16 am

And with a book a week, how could you even grasp the full detail, the richness of the "Critique of Pure Reason" - or evaluate the arguments fully.

It takes most philosophers years to do that, if not decades.

Or take Hume's inquiries... or Wittgenstein's Tractatus.... they are so incredibly dense that I don't see how one can do them justice in about a week.

If I were to imagine doing that, I would probably liken it to trying to do justice to Quantum Mechanics in one week, Relativity in the next and String Theory in another...

Although, you can of course re-read and re-evaluate as go along.

1067. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140277 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:09 am

I don't agree that existence is a predicate. I agree with Kant. So the rest of what you say doesn't follow from my position. It seems you only have a problem because you accept the ontological baggage created by the verb "to be", which doesn't exist in eastern philosophy because they don't have an equivalent verb.

It is a problem created by language, and nothing more.

1068. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140272 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:02 am

Although, come to think of it, I would love to read an instruction manual that reads

"By adjusting the ontology lever on the right side of the hearth, you can comfortably find god while enjoying a nice, crackling fire"

1069. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140270 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 5:00 am

MIND AND HEARTH SHOULD FIND GOD TOGETHER.

Actually I never use my hearth, it's too much of a pain in the ass to clean, and it's not really safe with young kids around.

1070. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140262 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:49 am

Mitchell,

It's not an entire thread - actually for this topic, just that post is important.

But it's more complicated than "Denial of one does not necessitate denial of the other". It's a problem of language that -technically, upon analysis - we don't seem to able to manage denying the existence of something in our normal language, as when we refer to a conept, we aren't denying a thing, but to deny a thing itself, we would have to be able to refer to it, since in normal language, existence is used as predicate. But since it doesn't exist, we cannot refer to it. And that means that existence as a predicate leads either to tautology or to meaninglessness.

That's why existence only works as a quantifier, and the names and definite descriptions have to be made into a verb (Quine's solution) to avoid not being able to deny the existence of anything. The problem doesn't arise when we say "Not-exists: Is.a.winged.horse. X" or "Nothing pegasizes".

With existence as a predicate - we cannot deny the existence of anything, since every statement that denies the existence of something must first manage to refer to it, which it can't since there's nothing to refer to.

But we should continue this per PM if you want to discuss this further.

You have set yourself a mighty huge task. I'm not sure one lifetime is enough for that. I'm not even sure it would be enough for the major figures of 20th century philosophy. But yes, Quine is definitely among them. Hugely influential - considered one of the absolute greats by every philosopher I know.

1071. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140252 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:34 am

I agree.

I was expecting to feel enraged but good because of the adrenaline, the righteous anger..

Now I somehow feel enraged and sad, well - the truth in this case is maddeningly enraging and sad.

1072. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140243 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:22 am

"a big silly"

1073. Fleabytes

Comment #140235 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:15 am

All is well.

1074. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140232 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:10 am

but underneath it all, I mean well.

1075. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140220 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:02 am

So, I guess Phil's rant is going to be really long...

...the tension increases...

1076. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140219 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:02 am

Lorien,

no, that I didn't miss. (as I said, I am thankful for it and accept it gladly)

I just missed the humour :) - But then, I've been awake for the last 18 hours.

1077. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140217 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 4:00 am

Steve,

oh - I considered that it was meant humorous... but I guess I was just too tired to pick it up.

On a side note -
mint sauce with meat is something I never understood.

But then, there is more than one thing about british quisine I don't get... although I like "Salt & Vinegar flavour"

:)


And btw - that simile was brilliantly funny.

1078. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140213 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:56 am

Furthermore - becoming clear about what statements mean, and which actually are meaningful requires debate about semantics.

And we have to find out which statements are meaningful, which have some hidden contradiction and which just don't make sense - even just in order to ask the right questions.

Even just to ask the right questions about nature.

1079. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140209 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:51 am

Steve,

I was just asking why consent would be required for being confronted with Atkin's... or more precisely, what being asked for consent before being confronted with Atkins generally has to do with was you said.

I'm probably just missing something.

Mitchell

It's actually not complicated.

In the sentence "Pegasus does not exist", "does not exist" denies the existence of whatever is referred to by the word "Pegasus".
If "Pegasus" here refers to a concept, if it means "The concept of Pegasus", then "Pegasus does not exist" is equivalent to "The concept of Pegasus does not exist".

But we don't deny the existence of the concept. So in the sentence "Pegasus doesn not exist", "Pegasus" cannot refer to the concept, because the concept is there.


If "Pegasus" is meant to refer to a supposed actual winged horse, it fails to pick out anything - it refers to nothing. Plese, read the comment I linked a few posts above in context to this one.

I also suggest you read the wonderful paper "On what there is" by Willard van Orman Quine.

1080. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140200 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:41 am

No-one should be faced with Atkins without previous consent.

1081. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140197 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:38 am

Mphil, we only have to presuppose that it exists conceptually.

1082. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140192 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:33 am

Oh, sorry - Please, Phil, tear him to metaphorical shreds... I always appreciate a good rant.

How about starting with

"Now, I don't want to get off on a rant here, but

...

...

...

- of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

Man, I used to love Dennis Miller before he became a certifiable nutjob.

1083. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140188 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:31 am

anyway.

*hug*

After reviewing my little rant about philosophy and ethics I realized the importance of (formal)philosophy in the process of inquiry and guarding against ambiguity... anyway.

1084. The Salamander's Tale

Comment #140176 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:18 am

but then you can't 'be' non-existent

1085. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140175 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:15 am

I used to drink a lot of it - but now I only drink the occasional Kilkenny :)

There might be some people who would consider it blasphemous to not drink Bavarian beer (for anyone who can get his hands on it)... but I don't know anyone who would. They must be hiding in small, rural villages that don't get their share of liberalism, technology and globalization :)

1086. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140168 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 3:03 am

MPhil, you live in Bayern adn don't drink beer? How odd!

1087. Fleabytes

Comment #140124 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 1:39 am

Diacanu,

concerning Voltaire & Paine vs Kant... neither Voltaire's thinking nor Paine's thinking are any "closer" to technology, or the invention thereof than Kant's

You even admitted not having looked into it. The difference is that Paine and Voltaire were mostly story tellers with very good minds, while Kant was very technical and immensely complex. In other words - Paine and Voltaire were simplifiers using metaphors (and I admire their work, it's really good)... Kant investigated the issues in detail.


Bonzai,

informal vs formal philosophy. That's our old topic - you don't think such thinking warrants formal investigation. I do, I know (frankly) a lot of it, I do it myself. And Feynman did not only philosophize about things he knew a lot of. He did (sad to say poorly argued) philosophy about the metaphysical criticisms of positivism and relativism. That is not to say that I don't agree - but his arguments were inconclusive precisely because he was doing informal philosophy in a field he hadn't studied (metaphysics).


I am the first to agree that philosophy has to know a lot about what it is actually talking about. But mostly it isn't talking about the object-level empirical science concerns itself with, but about the meta-level... and here it's the empirical scientists who most often make blatantly unwarranted assumptions - or at least poorly justified ones. Seen it done a lot of times.

Prime example - John C. Eccles. Brilliant neurophysiologist, terrible philosopher.
His Catholicism clouded his philosophical thinking, and thereby his meta-level interpretation of his object-level investigations.
Studying philosophy attempts and often succeeds to make the one who studies it much more modest concerning assertions of the kind Eccles made them.

You cannot be a good biologist if you haven't studied and embraced its methods. If you don't you are more likely to get things wrong - and especially: Take to little care in justifying your assertions, making sure your arguments are airtight - you are, thus, naive. The same is true about philosophy. Formal philosophy doesn't always have to be inside a specific system like relativism or positivism - in fact, these are also only theories to explain things. When the arguments are in favor of a better theory - they get marginalized, like Berkley's theory "esse est percipere aut percipii".

Informal, armchair philosophy is just as naive as 'armchair' quantum mechanics - and very often leads to abortions not unlike "What the bleep do we know", which is both armchair quantum mechanics and armchair philosophy.

I think you - like Feynman - make the error of judging the whole of philosophy as a discipline of inquiry that can be studied as worthless because strict positivism and strict relativism are failed.

Again - informal philosophy is naive and mostly (as Feynman demonstrates) doesn't do justice to the discipline. The discipline is about critical thinking - constructing arguments from premises that are either discussed as well or agreed upon in a way that the arguments upon these premises are airtight. It's about investigating to see if there isn't even a tiny hole in them, for that mostly brings down the whole structure. It's thinking about thinking - and that's just a part of it.
Falsification is among its methods- just like in empirical sciences.
And this handling of arguments in such areas is something which armchair philosophers - like Eccles, and even Feynman, as much as I admire his work, tend not to do so well. Their arguments are way below par in contrast to good philosophy.

1088. Fleabytes

Comment #140060 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 12:21 am

I just don't think it is quite the tool for investigating reality (as against ideas) that it is made out to be.

(I have done it again, haven't I?)

1089. Fleabytes

Comment #140056 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 12:17 am

Reality - science - philosophy - religion.

1090. Fleabytes

Comment #140050 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 12:11 am

I'm leaving this discussion alone now - gotta watch the new episode of Lost and have a cocktail (It's nearly bedtime for me). Maybe that will lift my spirits. As I said, it depresses me when people I respect, like and sometimes even admire seem to feel that what I do, what is hugely important to me - has no justification for its existence, might even be something bad.

Talk to you guys later.

Short P.S.: In response to the post directly above - there have been true paradigm shifts resulting in incommensurability in empirical sciences - so that first statement isn't entirely true. The same observable effects are explain by a new theory, but the old isn't necessarily incorporated. Vitalism or phlogiston-theory, anyone. Internal consistency is of tantamount importance in philosophy.

1091. Fleabytes

Comment #140042 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 12:07 am

Feynman - although I greatly admire him - was one of those people who do lots of philosophy without realizing it - and then slander philosophy.

1092. Fleabytes

Comment #140040 by MPhil on March 7, 2008 at 12:05 am

Every observation is theory laden because we automatically, even unconsciously categorize what we observe. And more, for example when we search for Higgs-particles in the LHC, the observations me make by that already depend on all the theory that is behind the LHC and how to interpret the output of the apparatus.

Investigating how and why observation is theory laden, and what this tells us about reality and our comprehension - is also philosophy.

1093. Fleabytes

Comment #140033 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 11:59 pm

Also, for just observing the world by investigating it - Asking ourself questions about nature, not simply accepting a position upfront... it is important that we refine our questions, ask the right ones. Another part of what philosophy does - no matter who does it.

1094. Fleabytes

Comment #140032 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 11:57 pm

Add to that - we all do philosophy of religion on this site. Some more intuitively, some more technically, all from more or less different perspectives.


The point about methodological naturalism and "not worrying about labels" makes me think of one of the most important realizations I've ever had (not that I came up with it, I got confronted with it):

"Every observation is theory-laden"

1095. Fleabytes

Comment #140027 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 11:53 pm

I just hope I don't end up with a person whom I value and respect very much thinking that what I do and chose as a career is useless, worthless production of hot air. That would be really depressing.

This isn't meant as an argument (I have already produced some), merely as an expression of my feelings.

1096. Fleabytes

Comment #140023 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 11:49 pm

Nothing alone does justice to the full strangeness of reality, probably not even all human thinking about it combined.

I also disagree that It is like saying "You can't think that because it contradicts the idea that the world is flat."

We know with maximum possible certainty of anything about the empirical realm that the earth isn't flat. It's more like saying "You have no justification for thinking that because it contradicts the idea that the world is not flat. Unless you can produce evidence that demonstrates that we are justified in thinking that the world is flat, your argument is unsubstantiated."

The -isms and -ists are only meant to simplify discourse for those who use certain well-defined concepts extremely often in discourse.

I fully agree with cartomancer - it's not about the signifiers. But I don't think any of my arguments genuinely give the appearence of that.

When I say "Well, that's dualism" I could as well say "P stricly implies the following statements: Q, R, S and at least for one of them we have no sufficient justification. Therefore by modus tollens we have no sufficient justification for believing P".

If Q, R or S (or a combination) are generally referred to as dualism, using that term makes things easier.


And I agree, I too sometimes push an idea with a lot of effort just so as to see where it leads and how justified it is.

1097. Fleabytes

Comment #139989 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 11:04 pm

But words - or more generally Symbols - are our only way of referring to things. And languages, whether natural or formal - are what we use to formulate, manipulate and communicate ideas.

The laws we assume in empirical sciences are formulated in a language. Every observation is when it becomes data. We evaluate things through it... and we can use it properly or improperly.

None of the philosophers I know investigate reality simply by using words and thinking about it. The data and findings of empirical sciences almost always play a very important role.

Part of philosophy is to investigate the questions we ask - and refine them. Separating the meaningful from the meaningless statement.

We won't get very far without thinking and evaluating our thinking - and that is exactly what philosophy does. The term "labels" is very often used as if putting names on things was a bad idea, and sometimes it is - when it limits our thinking.

But terms, labels, names all fulfil a very important rule... without them much of what we call thinking would be impossible. They are our way of referring to things. And they don't need to limit our thinking. Philosophy is always also about clarifying our thinking.

As I said before on this thread - every time you move to the meta-level of any science or investigation, what you're doing is philosophy. Philosophy was the mother of all modern sciences - and not for no reason at all.

When you talk about science vs pseudoscience, about mind-brain relations, about what numbers are, about what properties are and what nature is, about why theism is untenable - what you do is philosophy. All of science can be included in its arguments. It can attempts to unify thinking.

So, no. I am not infuriated. I am saddened and disappointed that you are beginning to dismiss something because you think certain labels and terms are useless. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You don't need to use labels, they just make communication more effective. Instead of asking "Are you really the one whose DNA structure contained in a sperm cell recombined with that of another member of our species of the opposite sex, in an ovary, whereupon..." You ask "Are you really my father?"
Not to mention that even the first, long, statement contains a huge number of labels.

Could it be (and this is not an accusation but a genuine question) that you are beginning to dislike philosophy because it requires that fuzzy, intuitive ideas be put into arguments with a logical structure and well-defined terms - and you can find none that do justice to your intuitions?

Well, this is only a problem if you think intuition is somehow more valuable than real arguments and critical thinking.

Whenever we evaluate ideas - criticize or praise, we are doing not only what philosophy does, but also what philosophy studies. And it can be studied with all the level of clarity and exactness that can be achieved anywhere. Of course many don't do so - just as many people make bogus "science".

Interestingly, what you're doing in that post is also philosophy - metaphilosophy to be exact. And I fear that not thinking critically about how precise or fuzzy we use our language won't do much good.

Languages, whether formal or natural - are our way of formulating, modifying and expressing ideas. They are meant reflect what's out there. In them we construct arguments, which can be valid or not and sound or not. Investigating this will - I think - always be required.

But I hope that in the end you won't throw out the baby with the bathwater, I hope you will find that critical thinking about ideas is valuable, which is what philosophy is at its core.

1098. Fleabytes

Comment #139983 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 10:15 pm

I wouldn't even have gotten as far as playing LARPGs if what you described hadn't had an immense appeal for me :)

1099. Fleabytes

Comment #139973 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Had a glimpse into Cthulu once - wasn't my thing back then, neither was Warhammer. Don't know "Five Rings"... but Masquerade - that was my kind of thing (as I used to be - and for this I am ashamed - a big "Interview with a Vampire" fan).

Aah, the memories...

1100. Fleabytes

Comment #139968 by MPhil on March 6, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Oh, I forgot: On the English-speaking market, "The Dark Eye" is also known as "Realms of Arkania".