231–240 of 242 posts
>Usually, the prose is infused with arcane terminology and learned jargon, creating an aura of scholarly profundity. We can call this phenomenon obscurantist pseudophilosophy. Is this a joke? I honestly can't tell if it's a joke. This whole article might be.
As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…
> All I can say is that there are disciplines and sub-disciplines/fields of study in the humanities that bear all the hallmarks of pseudo-science: extremely small communities, lots of jargon, few journals controlled by everyone in the communities, bouncing articles back and forth between those journals, constantly mixing empirical theses with some philosophical claims ("ideal models"), and so on. Aren't all of these…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All I can say is that there are disciplines and sub-disciplines/fields of study in the humanities that bear all the hallmarks of pseudo-science: extremely small communities, lots of jargon, few journals controlled by everyone in the communities, bouncing articles back and forth between those journals, constantly mixing empirical theses with some philosophical claims ("ideal models"), and so on. Aren't all of these…
The difference is, that there's very advanced mathematics behind string theory and at leas that part can be checked/verified by independent researchers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are tight logical proofs. No, there aren't. > Note I point out the ontological argument is now validated by computer. While an invalid argument is useless, a valid one can still be no good. Here is a logically valid argument: Major Premise. all who post claims of proofs of God’s existence on HN should be killed. Minor Premise. yters posted a claim of proof of God’s existence on HN Conclusion. Therefore, yters…
Well that's the problem with all proofs. If the premises are false the proof is not sound. That doesn't preclude the proof being tight, i.e. as in well reasoned and logically argued. Outside of mathematics you will be hard pressed to find a proof where someone doesn't disagree with a premise or two. And even within math we have intuitionists and constructivists claiming things like proof by negation is invalid. So if…
No, its the problem with pure logical proofs, which is why for statements about reality rather than abstract relations of concepts, empirical proofs (despite being less absolute) are generally preferred.
> the ontological argument
Since you have merely waved at and sketched the argument, let me do the same it's demolition: existence is not a predicate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Theism is bullshit, as much as people reading cards, voodoo or the horoscopes.
The problem with Atheism is no one will agree on the basic ground rules for a conversation. For example if I say I'm not an Atheist because I don't care to subscribe to a specific definition of god upon which to focus my lack of belief, I get accused of propping up a Straw Man. It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. But the minute you try to put the discussion on a mor…
If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything. The same with religion.
>It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it.
So what. A lot of tribes had chamans too, and no magic did work, ever. Look up for "cargo cult" in order how religions works, that's the biggest slap to arrogant American Christian ever, because it works like a huge reality mirror, kinda like: hey, look at that bullshit these Australians are believeing, think for a while on your own bullshit from the Stone Age, because these people with no knowledge of the world (no one in China have heard of Jesus until very recent times (relatively) in the late Middle Ages, so maybe it's religion and god wasn't as Universal as they tought).
The same with Native Americans, no matter North of South. No one have heard of crazy world-wide floods, or whatever.
Also, Bible's great flood was a rehash from the Mesopotapian tales, whose legend maybe date back to the end of the Ice Age.
Ditto with Roman/Greek Gods: if you believe in Zeus/Iupiter, most people will tell you to head an asylum, yet the Judeo-Christian God looks "right". It's just hypocrisy. And fear.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Atheism is no one will agree on the basic ground rules for a conversation. For example if I say I'm not an Atheist because I don't care to subscribe to a specific definition of god upon which to focus my lack of belief, I get accused of propping up a Straw Man. It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. But the minute you try to put the discussion on a mor…
There is no dillema. Probe it, or GFTO. It works with anything: science, self-called "engineers" applying for a job, trials in order to be guilty or not... easy. If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything . The same with religion. >It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it.…
1) If some religions are false, then all religions are false
2) Pacific-tribe cargo cults and ancient Greek mythology are clearly false, plus there are some stories in the Bible that are hard to swallow
3) Therefore God doesn't exist
Is that right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't read the linked article yet, but to me, Foucault really is one of the most interesting intellectuals of the 20th century (or longer) - if only because of how differently people perceive him. There's that old debate between him and Chomsky, and it's incredible how different people will score that debate. Some see obscurantist posturing versus Chomsky's towering, rigourous intellect, where others see Chomsky o…
One of my favorite takes on this debate, from a software developer: http://byfat.xxx/chomsky (SFW even though it's on an .xxx domain) (It is "this debate" in a broader sense, not this specific debate, which I also happen to love. I both agree with you that it is amazing how everyone sees what they want to see in that debate, and also am in the "lol Chomsky got owned so hard he didn't even know what was going on" camp…
If true, this is even worse than simply being obscure, wrong, muddle-headed, nonsensical, or whatever. By default my assumption when encountering stuff I don't understand is that there's something meaningful and useful being attempted to be communicated, and if I just work harder I may be able to get something of value out of it. But if the claim here is true (would most postmodernists agree, BTW? have they said something to that effect?)—namely that, let alone failing to be clear, they're not even trying (worse, actively trying not to be clear to everyone)—then I can just ignore them completely, as they're not even operating in good faith. Being wrong is just an intellectual failure that can happen to all of us; being intentionally unclear is almost a moral failure. (Or at least, it's diametrically opposed to my values, and while I can recognize the possibility of other systems of values, I have no wish to engage with a community rejecting this value.)
(BTW, the link in that 2012 post to Chomsky's post is broken, but it's saved here: https://web.archive.org/web/20120711000559/http://cscs.umich... — it's not quite that, as the post claims, Chomsky threw out everything "on the basis of dialect alone", but what he asks in that post is for examples of all that "theory" throwing up some practical conclusion that wasn't already well-known. He also points out that in say, physics or mathematics, where too he may not understand everything, "I can ask friends who work in these areas to explain it to me at a level that I can understand, and they can do so, without particular difficulty" — but this is not true of (what is/was called) "[critical] theory".)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with Atheism is no one will agree on the basic ground rules for a conversation. For example if I say I'm not an Atheist because I don't care to subscribe to a specific definition of god upon which to focus my lack of belief, I get accused of propping up a Straw Man. It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it. But the minute you try to put the discussion on a mor…
There is no dillema. Probe it, or GFTO. It works with anything: science, self-called "engineers" applying for a job, trials in order to be guilty or not... easy. If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything . The same with religion. >It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it.…
As soon as someone claims that a thing "exists" in a way that can't be demonstrated, I can choose to be polite but ignore the claim. That's trivial.
What's more complicated is the entire idea of substance dualism, and how human consciousness can apprehend an idea that has nothing tangible to back it up.
These questions matter, and are worth unpacking, regardless of how you happen to feel about religion.
Does that make sense?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no dillema. Probe it, or GFTO. It works with anything: science, self-called "engineers" applying for a job, trials in order to be guilty or not... easy. If someone says "gold cures cancer", everyone and his mom would think he is a nut, unless that's true there's no proof that gold cures anything . The same with religion. >It's clear that religion exists, it's impossible to find a human culture that lacks it.…
It seems like this is your argument: 1) If some religions are false, then all religions are false 2) Pacific-tribe cargo cults and ancient Greek mythology are clearly false, plus there are some stories in the Bible that are hard to swallow 3) Therefore God doesn't exist Is that right?
As somebody who makes a living "as a philosopher" in areas that overlap with CS, decision making, logic, AI and appear to be more scientific in nature, I may find this article emotionally somewhat appealing but still don't think it's a useful view about philosophy. The first and foremost thing about philosophy laymen should realize is that the vast majority of philosophers do not consider philosophy a science. They a…