Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
221 online now:
(221 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Murchison Meteor Questions
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1414 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 211 of 216 (423960)
09-24-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Rob
09-24-2007 11:09 PM


Re: The non debate...
Here's the problem with your use of rationalism, which you just can't seem to get.

When you juxtapose it to empiricism, it can only mean the philosophy of Rationalism. Do you see why?

So if you are arguing correctly, this means you'd be arguing that logic and empiricism must be combined--which, as I stated, it has been since the start.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 11:09 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 12:16 AM kuresu has responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 212 of 216 (423967)
09-25-2007 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by kuresu
09-24-2007 11:12 PM


Re: The non debate...
kuresu writes:

Here's the problem with your use of rationalism, which you just can't seem to get.

When you juxtapose it to empiricism, it can only mean the philosophy of Rationalism. Do you see why?

Which is why I keep saying that I should not have used the word 'rationalism' in place of philosophy in general. But in the heat of the moment... when I am being piled on by four or five on one, I tend to lose my grip. I lose confidence. And then mistakes such as the one you are capitalizing on appear...

In the past, I would have completely lost my cool by now and started quoting Bible verses and telling you where to go. And then I would have gotten suspended. It's apattern that is in the process of being broken, and it is liberating!

So now, I intend to calmly examine the situation, and not be cowed by the pressure.

kuresu writes:

So if you are arguing correctly, this means you'd be arguing that logic and empiricism must be combined--which, as I stated, it has been since the start.

Since that was my point all along, this subtopic is a non debate and I am glad to move on...

Thanks for your understanding...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by kuresu, posted 09-24-2007 11:12 PM kuresu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by kuresu, posted 09-25-2007 12:29 AM Rob has responded
 Message 214 by ringo, posted 09-25-2007 1:17 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 1414 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 213 of 216 (423968)
09-25-2007 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
09-25-2007 12:16 AM


Re: The non debate...
Thend do you mind answering one final point?

Javaman claims you are a Rationalist, and clearly defines what a Rationalist is.

In your response, you agree to be a rationalist and that science is (or at least, should be).

Do you see the equivocation and/or the contradiction? Further, do you realize the non-sensical statement that results if we replace the words with what you meant?

Does it become:

I have always invoked rationalism as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a {philosophical} basis.

or:

I have always invoked {philosophy} as tool needed for any objective epistemology. And I assume that includes science for a very good reason. Empericism cannot claim that the emperical world is the only valid basis for knowledge other than on a {philosophical} basis.

If it is the latter, do you see that you never answered Java's claim that you are, indeed, a Rationalist? After all, a Rationalist is just as much a philosopher as an Empiricist is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 12:16 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 10:12 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19080
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 214 of 216 (423977)
09-25-2007 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Rob
09-25-2007 12:16 AM


Re: The non debate...
Rob writes:

when I am being piled on by four or five on one, I tend to lose my grip.

Ignore the bullets whizzing past your ears. If one of them kills you, you'll never know it anyway.

Aim and take your own shot. Don't waste energy on excuses.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Rob, posted 09-25-2007 12:16 AM Rob has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 215 of 216 (424020)
09-25-2007 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Rob
09-24-2007 9:08 PM


Re: The acid test.
I agree with Ringo. You're wasting all your energy on contriving excuses.

Concerning rationality versus Rationalism, your claims that you didn't confuse them indicate very clearly that you're still confusing them, as Kuresu deftly points out.

No one needs to take pot shots at your credibility, you're doing a fine job all by yourself.

The point I've been making all along is that successful arguments make sense and say things that are true about the real world. Your arguments lack these qualities.

Since it's obvious now that you'll not accept any correction, and since you still apparently believe erroneous arguments provide as good support for a position as correct ones, I don't even see the point of resuming discussion of the topic.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Rob, posted 09-24-2007 9:08 PM Rob has not yet responded

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 216 of 216 (424039)
09-25-2007 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by kuresu
09-25-2007 12:29 AM


Re: The non debate...
kuresu:
If it is the latter, do you see that you never answered Java's claim that you are, indeed, a Rationalist? After all, a Rationalist is just as much a philosopher as an Empiricist is.

I see your point, and you are right...

I should have stopped it right, then, and there... by saying that I am not a rationalist. I like to combine disciplines... As I have said before (in other threads), we must combine the rational mind, the existential desires, and the emperical world... into a coherent and composite whole in order to arrive at the truth. Therefore I am not a rationalist. I do however... try to take the best of 'rationalism' (that which it has in common with good logical philosophy in general) and use it properly. So when JavaMan said I use rationalist arguments, he was right. But it was he who called it 'rationalism'. I should have taken the time to calmly stop and think it through right there...

I was also under pressure because of making far too much of the definitions of 'empirical' and 'empiricism' respectively. I was trying to use them to make my case for the effectiveness of 'combined disciplines'. I blew it!

I did not make this clear... so I take responsibility for this mess of sub-topics. But it has nothing to do with defeating the main topic and the question of the the Murchison extractions. I sensed long ago that you guys were attempting to put pressure on and take attention away from the topic by simply discreditting me. I even complained about it. But those not directly engaged in these discusions have a pretty hard time sorting through the mess I imagine. And it doesn't help, when we magnify errors to make it even more so.

I have never claimed that you guys are unqualified to say anything about the Murchison extrations because of your mistakes (remember when you said you didn't think replication was dependant on ATP?) It wasn't that big a deal really. I only thought you seemed a little desperate to again discredit me.

Stop going for the jugular!

If a person wants to take advantage of a mistake, turn up the heat on one (in this case me) who is known to get sloppy under pressure, and win the debate by converting the tendancies of their opponent into a public spectacle, they can certainly do so. It's good theatre and gives much of the mob what it is they came for. It is even personally gratifying...

But doing so has little to do with finding the truth and everything to do with 'winning'! We win the single battle and lose the larger war.

You already understand what I was saying. We covered it earlier. You even defended me against Archer (for which I applaud you): www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=92&m=102#103 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=92&m=102#103">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=92&m=102#103

kuresu writes:

And technically speaking, science is a philosophy. At least, according to several epistomology charts.

I am not going to say another word about this... I want the rest of the thread left open strictly for Murchison. If you want to debate the definition of science and legitimate epistemology then rip me over there.

Please...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by kuresu, posted 09-25-2007 12:29 AM kuresu has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021