Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[bellenuit]

Talking Neanderthals challenge the origins of speech

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm

 

[cynic]

The heliocentric theory is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.

I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.

In the interim, if anyone is interested that is, I'd be happy to debunk certain popular misconceptions regarding Einstein's theory of relativity.

 

[spooly74]

I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.

In the interim, if anyone is interested that is, I'd be happy to debunk certain popular misconceptions regarding Einstein's theory of relativity.

I see Science and Philosophy as siblings, with one peeking over the others shoulder now and again.

Logic is sound tool once the premise is correct.

All elephants are pink
Nelly is an elephant
Nelly is pink

Talking Neanderthals challenge the origins of speech

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140302185241.htm

Interesting.
I read an article recently that there now seems to be some data to suggest crows have developed language.
Parallel evolution?

 

[Value Collector]

I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.

I'll be waiting, Be sure not to commit any logical fallacies or false premises. As spooly pointed out it is easy to confuse people with phony logic based on false premises.

I would especially like you to avoid your favourite logical fallacy of ambiguity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

ambiguity

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

 

[cynic]

I'll be waiting, Be sure not to commit any logical fallacies or false premises. As spooly pointed out it is easy to confuse people with phony logic based on false premises.

I would especially like you to avoid your favourite logical fallacy of ambiguity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

ambiguity

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

Yesterday I received an appeal to overlook a certain matter to which I'd taken offense. Out of respect to the appellant I chose to recognise that the discussion had indeed descended into a pointless cycle of accusation and counter accusation and decided to allow the matter to slide. I even chose to respond civilly to two subsequent questions from the offending party, despite my deep personal reservations regarding said party's intentions.

A further accusation has now been made in relation to the integrity of my postings. Clearly my efforts to engage in productive and meaningful discourse have been wasted.

P.S. For those genuinely interested, some reading materials may be found online. If any of you believe you can find fault in the logic and premises used throughout the Platonic/Socratic dialogues, I'd be happy to engage in meaningful discussion.

 

[cynic]

I see Science and Philosophy as siblings, with one peeking over the others shoulder now and again.

Logic is sound tool once the premise is correct.

All elephants are pink
Nelly is an elephant
Nelly is pink

I prefer to view the philosophy/science relationship in a slightly more ancestral context, i.e. both the parent and child are living today and the child bears some resemblance to the parent. Having sufficiently matured, the child is now able to engage in meaningful exchanges with the parent.

I think you know me well enough by now to know that I am no stranger to the application of logic!

If there was a logical flaw present throughout the sequence of that philosophical dialogue, neither I nor those present were able to spot it!

 

[Value Collector]

Now that we know our contemporary science is logically flawed, should it also be excluded from the education curriculum?!

Or perhaps science may only be allowable if taught in a mythical context?!

Makes a bold claim

How so?

Care to explain how the heliocentric theory is logically flawed?

Gets asked, to justify the claim

I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one. Just over a decade ago I was at a seminar where such philosophy was used to debunk our entire concept of reality! The heliocentric theory you've described certainly wouldn't have survived the rigorous application of logic that I and the hundreds of others in attendance witnessed.

Stalls

If any of you believe you can find fault in the logic and premises used throughout the Platonic/Socratic dialogues, I'd be happy to engage in meaningful discussion.

Then moonwalks out of the conversation, shifting the burden of proof onto others to disprove the claim, which he still hasn't provided justification for.

This is another logical fallacy, "the burden of proof"

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=816747

 

[cynic]

P.S. For those genuinely interested, some reading materials may be found online. If any of you believe you can find fault in the logic and premises used throughout the Platonic/Socratic dialogues, I'd be happy to engage in meaningful discussion.

For those previously unaware, the burden of proof argument happens to be double edged - it cuts both ways!
Those willing to show the proof are likely to come unstuck as many proofs are contingent on factual assumptions or contingent on other proofs that themselves are contingent on factual assumptions etc.

Like so many other things in life, the philosophical dialogue can be seen to entail the sincere and earnest participation of both parties to the dialogue.

 

[cynic]

How so?

Care to explain how the heliocentric theory is logically flawed?

Describe the heliocentric theory to me and I'll give it a shot.

Alternatively you may wish to take the time to examine the Platonic and Socratic dialogues and find out for yourself!

The heliocentric theory is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around a relatively stationary Sun at the center of the Solar System.

I believe many would agree, that there was a discernibly hostile tone present in responses (subsequent to the above quotes) that could be interpreted as malicious intent.

No matter.

I offered to "give it a shot" and I stand by my offer.

Please note that since I've been hastily rushed into this ahead of my research into the Platonic dialogues, I'll engage this to the extent of my current abilities and defer demonstration of the awesome power of Platonic philosophy for a later date.

I note that your description of heliocentric theory appears to be a nearly verbatim quote from wikipedia. (If I'd wanted wiki's take on this I'd have looked it up myself!)

In relation to heliocentric theory, would you like to give me your understanding, perceptions/opinions and reasoning?

 

[Value Collector]

I note that your description of heliocentric theory appears to be a nearly verbatim quote from wikipedia. (If I'd wanted wiki's take on this I'd have looked it up myself!)

In relation to heliocentric theory, would you like to give me your understanding, perceptions/opinions and reasoning?

You didn't say you could prove a layman's understanding of a scientific theory could be shown to be illogical.

You said this.

Now that we know our contemporary science is logically flawed, should it also be excluded from the education curriculum?!

So you were making a bold statement that contemporary science is logically flawed.

So I asked to show how this is the case by asking you to show the logical flaws in one of the most basic theories in science. So because you are claiming the very nature of science in general is flawed, I don't see how addressing my personal perceptions or opinions will prove your point.

You need to address the heliocentric theory as it is understood by the scientific consensus.

I know you are a fan of committing logical fallacies.

But by addressing my understanding of the scientific theory rather than the actual theory you are in danger of committing "The fallacy, fallacy"

eg -Fallacy fallacy is where, You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.

It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.

Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

I believe many would agree, that there was a discernibly hostile tone present in responses (subsequent to the above quotes) that could be interpreted as malicious intent.

No matter.

Thought I would respond to this...

Erm no - I do not agree that there is a discernibly hostile tone, nor do I interpret a request for justification as malicious intent. I don't get a "hostile" tone from from VC I get a mildly exasperated tone and a sense of eyeball rolling...

But that might be because the tone I get from Cynic is kinda like this...

link


Cheers

Sir O

 

[burglar]

... from VC I get a mildly exasperated tone and a sense of eyeball rolling ...

From your link:
I get that you are like the referee ... trying to make things right!
But I don't get who cynic is, ... or who, for that matter, VC is!?

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

From your link:
I get that you are like the referee ... trying to make things right!
But I don't get who cynic is, ... or who, for that matter, VC is!?

Did you read the words that went with the video?

One player "walks" into another one and then moments later all 6'2" of him folds like a wet noodle in an obvious attempt to appeal to the referee. The player who got walked into got red carded and sent off.

I'm not the ref...I'm harder to fool.

 

[cynic]

You didn't say you could prove a layman's understanding of a scientific theory could be shown to be illogical.

You said this.



So you were making a bold statement that contemporary science is logically flawed.

So I asked to show how this is the case by asking you to show the logical flaws in one of the most basic theories in science. So because you are claiming the very nature of science in general is flawed, I don't see how addressing my personal perceptions or opinions will prove your point.

If I were to address any perception other than your own how will you recognise my answer to your question?

You need to address the heliocentric theory as it is understood by the scientific consensus.

As previously stated, you'll need to give me your understanding of what that is!

I know you are a fan of committing logical fallacies.

Yet more accusations!
I recommend that one endeavours to know one's own mind before presuming to know the minds of others!

 

[Ves]

As previously stated, you'll need to give me your understanding of what that is!

Those who don't want answers shouldn't ask questions.

 

[cynic]

Those who don't want answers shouldn't ask questions.

+1

I couldn't have expressed it better myself!

 

[cynic]

I'll be waiting, Be sure not to commit any logical fallacies or false premises. As spooly pointed out it is easy to confuse people with phony logic based on false premises.

I would especially like you to avoid your favourite logical fallacy of ambiguity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity

ambiguity

You used a double meaning or ambiguity of language to mislead or misrepresent the truth.

Politicians are often guilty of using ambiguity to mislead and will later point to how they were technically not outright lying if they come under scrutiny. The reason that it qualifies as a fallacy is that it is intrinsically misleading.

Example: When the judge asked the defendant why he hadn't paid his parking fines, he said that he shouldn't have to pay them because the sign said 'Fine for parking here' and so he naturally presumed that it would be fine to park there.

Makes a bold claim



Gets asked, to justify the claim



Stalls



Then moonwalks out of the conversation, shifting the burden of proof onto others to disprove the claim, which he still hasn't provided justification for.

This is another logical fallacy, "the burden of proof"

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=816747

I believe many would agree, that there was a discernibly hostile tone present in responses (subsequent to the above quotes) that could be interpreted as malicious intent.

No matter.

I offered to "give it a shot" and I stand by my offer.

Please note that since I've been hastily rushed into this ahead of my research into the Platonic dialogues, I'll engage this to the extent of my current abilities and defer demonstration of the awesome power of Platonic philosophy for a later date.

I note that your description of heliocentric theory appears to be a nearly verbatim quote from wikipedia. (If I'd wanted wiki's take on this I'd have looked it up myself!)

In relation to heliocentric theory, would you like to give me your understanding, perceptions/opinions and reasoning?

Thought I would respond to this...

Erm no - I do not agree that there is a discernibly hostile tone, nor do I interpret a request for justification as malicious intent. I don't get a "hostile" tone from from VC I get a mildly exasperated tone and a sense of eyeball rolling...

But that might be because the tone I get from Cynic is kinda like this...

link


Cheers

Sir O

Thanks for your feedback Sir O.

Whilst I will not claim to impartiality, I believe that my comments were fair.

Did you read the words that went with the video?

One player "walks" into another one and then moments later all 6'2" of him folds like a wet noodle in an obvious attempt to appeal to the referee. The player who got walked into got red carded and sent off.

I'm not the ref...I'm harder to fool.

That's good to know!

Amongst all the fascinating human capacities, there is the capacity for self-delusion.

Whilst again remembering that I do not claim to impartiality, I believe that self-delusion, like so many other concepts, is akin to a double edged blade (i.e. it cuts both ways).

Edit:
As previously stated:

No matter.

 

[Ves]

I'll need to take a little time to reacquaint myself with Platonic and Socratic philosophy before addressing this one.

Can I also make another recommendation? Read at least some Aristotle too, especially his replies to Plato's ideas. Actually start with Aristotle, some academics would agree that some of his criticisms of Plato's theory of forms and others would give you further insight into the dialogues and the various concepts and issues within.

Philosophy isn't a single static argument that is solidified in any one text or philospher. There is no one claim on truth or logical reasoning (just like science can help us determine what is fact or fiction, but cannot claim ultimate finality). It is a moving dialogue that, only considering the Western world (and willfully ignoring many other great thinkers!) has developed, progressed (sometimes gone backwards) over many, many centuries. Subjective beings (humans) cannot claim to see the full range of objective possibilities. However, true wisdom is proper knowledge of the probabilties and using systems of knowledge to ensure that the scales balance in our favour (sometimes very closely).

At any one point in time in science and philosophy we are the seeing the best working models that we have until that point in time, sometimes there are two models working in apparent opposities, maybe one will get wiped out, maybe they will both meet at some unknown realisation in the future. They're both constantly faced with the need to use presuppositions, but there is no other way of overcoming that hurdle that we currently know. One brick at a time, we build our wall of knowledge, without much real insight into our true destination.

Despite constant abuse of its writings, philosophy is much better at assisting you at becoming adept at critical thinking than it is at making you a bearer of the absolute truth that is in reality unobtainable.

 

[cynic]

Can I also make another recommendation? Read at least some Aristotle too, especially his replies to Plato's ideas. Actually start with Aristotle, some academics would agree that some of his criticisms of Plato's theory of forms and others would give you further insight into the dialogues and the various concepts and issues within.

Philosophy isn't a single static argument that is solidified in any one text or philospher. There is no one claim on truth or logical reasoning (just like science can help us determine what is fact or fiction, but cannot claim ultimate finality). It is a moving dialogue that, only considering the Western world (and willfully ignoring many other great thinkers!) has developed, progressed (sometimes gone backwards) over many, many centuries. Subjective beings (humans) cannot claim to see the full range of objective possibilities. However, true wisdom is proper knowledge of the probabilties and using systems of knowledge to ensure that the scales balance in our favour (sometimes very closely).

At any one point in time in science and philosophy we are the seeing the best working models that we have until that point in time, sometimes there are two models working in apparent opposities, maybe one will get wiped out, maybe they will both meet at some unknown realisation in the future. They're both constantly faced with the need to use presuppositions, but there is no other way of overcoming that hurdle that we currently know. One brick at a time, we build our wall of knowledge, without much real insight into our true destination.

Despite constant abuse of its writings, philosophy is much better at assisting you at becoming adept at critical thinking than it is at making you a bearer of the absolute truth that is in reality unobtainable.

Thanks for your recommendations Ves.

From your observations (e.g. the challenges confronting human efforts at knowing the truth) I believe our perspectives are largely compatible.

Edit: Out of curiosity,(bearing in mind I haven't actually studied Aristotle's responses), do you believe that Aristotle's perspective to be immune to the dissections pursuant to Plato's theory of forms?

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Thanks for your feedback Sir O.

Whilst I will not claim to impartiality, I believe that my comments were fair.

Beliefs are hard to change...I prefer ideas and thoughts...and I also think actions speak louder than words.

I do not agree with your statement above. I think your actions accusing VC of malicious intent, is about as honest as the soccer player feigning injury for sympathy. Of course I could be wrong and you genuinely think that there is a vendetta of some kind against your viewpoint. Perhaps you even construe my words instead of polite disagreement as being "malicious" in some way, even though that is not my intent.

That's good to know!
Edit:
As previously stated:

So I thought I would share something cynic...since you shared your experience of being harangued for expressing a theist viewpoint at a party.

Several years ago I'm travelling on a train, engrossed in a book when someone broke my concentration with the words "You should be ashamed of yourself." I looked around and said "Who, me?" Which was apparently all the engagement required for the mid thirties woman to claim that my choice in T-shirts was highly offensive, blathered on about how I needed to take Jesus into my life and stop hating the world and blah blah blah. (honestly I switched off after the first minute or so and just nodded and said ahuh a lot. The conversation continued till I stood up and turned around and showed the tour dates and locations for the band "Bad Religion" and told herit was the name of a band.

What's the point of my little story above? How about I ask some rhetorical questions...
Is it true? Was it even me in the story? How could I possibly validate my personal experience in a way that would meaningful impact in this discussion? How can anyone look at the above story and not think "It's a biased account."?

Cheers

Sir O