Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8943 total)
38 online now:
GDR, jar, PaulK, ringo, Theodoric (5 members, 33 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Upcoming Birthdays: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 864,067 Year: 19,103/19,786 Month: 1,523/1,705 Week: 329/446 Day: 68/59 Hour: 0/7

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   On The Philosophy of, well, Philosophy
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1889 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006

Message 301 of 307 (434010)
11-13-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 11:29 PM

Re: the worth of asking
It is only through asking that answers are formed.

Such is the worth of questions.

Here's a toast to those who have the true last word: seekers, everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 11:29 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 11:36 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Inactive Member

Message 302 of 307 (434011)
11-13-2007 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Archer Opteryx
11-13-2007 11:34 PM

Re: the worth of asking
It is only through asking that answers are formed.

It's just so insufferably arrogant. Any child can ask a question.

Answering questions is hard, but that's what advances human knowledge. Questions without answers advance nothing but sophistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-13-2007 11:34 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Silent H
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002

Message 303 of 307 (434027)
11-14-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 9:09 AM

Re: Show me the rigor.
I've defined "philosophy" throughout, so it's pretty disingenuous and disrespectful of you to pretend like the word I haven't. The word has been defined. Everybody knows what we're talking about.

Uhm... I said essentially defined, not trying to rewrite what you literally wrote as a definition. Perhaps I should have worded it better as... "defined as anything else... and these other things don't have rigor"?

I honestly don't see what the problem was with my characterization. You believe those fields I listed have rigor, right? Philosophy, your definition, does not include them and what is part of it is not rigorous, right?

If there is no problem with that the rest of my post flows. If there is a problem, I'd like to know what it was.

I still am left to wonder why philosophy, if its so great, can't be defended honestly.

While I personally agree with and like Archer's post I can grant you smugness issue. I didn't concentrate so much on Jon and Sub's posts (sorry guys) since A and Mod's seem to be taking up prime space. So I can't speak toward them. But I think Mod keeps hitting some strong posts at you that are not in any way disagreeable or dishonest.

As for me, you didn't answer my post because of a mistaken impression of my opening definition. Please give it a second shot if you have the time.

In quick summary: You have a list of fields of study which are rigorous. They happen to be within by definition of philosophy. Hence if you ask for proof of rigor then I'd have to present them. That you do not define philosophy such that they are NOT within it, merely means we are using two different definitions for the same word. Then I gave my reason for using the definition I do, and state I am not sure why to use yours (or believe it is the modern usage).

If your argument is that my definition still falls, despite including the list of fields you agree are rigorous, because of the other fields within it which are not... then I discussed the only three remaining fields I know of. Epistemology is just a logic game played against scenarios (similar to what people do in math and chem all the time when trying to work something out). As long as you find logic rigorous then it is rigorous. Metaphysics is pretty much just an advancement of a theory, which you then apply to an epistemology and check results (to test its validity). Again that's a logic game.

The only problem I see is not rigor, but whether you'd feel testing so many theories or so in depth is worth the time. Some specific E and M combos might result in lack of rigor for that case specifically, internally, but then that's just like ID compared to Science and it does get dismissed by most in the community.

Aesthetics is the closest to something that isn't rigorous, but it's pretty well dead and as you can see by the links doesn't even get classified as as subject anymore.

So where is the lack of rigor? I showed the rigor!!!!

Unless as Mod was asking you want rigor if rigor, by which I take it means the absolute TRUTH, beyond error? No one's handing out that kind of rigor, even science... no, ESPECIALLY not science.

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 9:09 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-14-2007 2:30 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005

Message 304 of 307 (434036)
11-14-2007 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by crashfrog
11-13-2007 6:16 PM

Wow, post is still alive.

Oh, God. Of course, you don't have a single word to say about the deplorable conduct of you and your peers in this thread.

I've not been debating 'my peers'. I've not seen anything deplorable from any of them, nor you. Just whining from you.

But you seem to have completely ignored my point about unicorn science and wizardology. If there's to be no standards at all, why not open the doors to everybody?

I thought you'd be able to translate for yourself. Here goes:

If Unicorn Scientists and Wizardologists are actually good at what they do, then sure. If they can teach the consensus views, if they are fantastic scientists then go right ahead. Or, if someone who has been a scientist for a while wants to talk about the arguments in favour of wizardology - be my guest. Welcome to LeHigh university.

And hey - if people want to pay to study Unicorn Science, I don't see a problem with universities paying professors to teach it...what its worth would be I don't know.

Sure. That's why I keep asking to be shown the rigor - because my mind continues to be open to the possibility that there is rigor in philosophy, despite the fact that philosophy's defenders have been unable to do anything in 300 posts except misrepresent my position, offer disingenuous sophistry, call me names, appropriate the successes of other fields and essentially do everything but answer one very simple question I've been asking since page 4.

People have called you names? First I saw of it. Anyway,

Rigour is an object of study for epistemology. After nearly 300 posts it's astounding that you keep repeating this refrain, along with a post count. You cannot assume your conclusions, thus there cannot be a 'rigour' that 'operates' above epistemology level in some meta-capacity.

It's impossible for me to believe this. How could you not understand my position? It's so simple I can state it in a single sentence - "philosophy has no rigor." Since both "philosophy" and "rigor" are terms that I've defined consistently, is it just that you don't understand words like "has" and "no"? Surely that can't be the case?

I'm not sure why you couldn't deal with where I explained why it doesn't make sense. Nevermind, then.

You're absolutely right. Not a single word you said in that paragraph makes any sense whatsoever.

The subject that defines rigour can't start by assuming what rigour is. If that doesn't make sense to you now, it probably never will.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 11-13-2007 6:16 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1889 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006

Message 305 of 307 (434042)
11-14-2007 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by Silent H
11-14-2007 1:26 AM

Silent H:

Aesthetics is the closest to something that isn't rigorous, but it's pretty well dead and as you can see by the links doesn't even get classified as as subject anymore.

Not dead at all. Human beings continue to design buildings and make art. Every time someone does so the question has to be asked anew: What does good design achieve?

That's an aesthetic question, and thus a philosophical one.

Aesthetics belongs to a new thread, though--if in fact anyone here is seriously interested in it.

In this thread the validity of philosophy itself, in all its forms, has been questioned, and defended. Questions remain worth asking, discussing, exploring, and answering (however provisional those answers may be). To value knowledge is to value inquiry.

Thanks to everyone who participated.


Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by Silent H, posted 11-14-2007 1:26 AM Silent H has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 769 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007

Message 306 of 307 (434053)
11-14-2007 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by Archer Opteryx
11-13-2007 3:13 PM

Re: Taboo or not taboo. That is the question.
Archer (asking Quetzal) writes:

Do you deny that the question 'How do you know?' is worth asking?

It's an interesting question. Any answer would automatically suggest a question like "how do you know you have the correct answer", which, if answered, would lead to another "How do you know" question, and so on and on and on and on....

Please don't ask me how I know that.;)

Does Quetzal actually say that anything should be "taboo"?

If not, do you think that the following question is worth asking?

'Is bringing the word "taboo" into the topic a bit of linguistic sophistry on your part?'

And if you say no, how do you know you're right?

And how do you know you're reading this? You could be dreaming.

And if you think that you know that you're not, how do you know that you know that you think that you know you're not dreaming?

Are such questions worth asking every time you stub your toe on a rock, or is once in a lifetime perhaps sufficient?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Archer Opteryx, posted 11-13-2007 3:13 PM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Inactive Administrator

Message 307 of 307 (434058)
11-14-2007 6:47 AM

End of Thread
300's the limit
Stow the prose,
No more discussion
It's time to close.


See you in another thread. Magic Wand

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019