Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:13pm PT
|
Sycorax, easy enough... what's the English definition and use of meta- prefix (either in everyday vernacular or in technical use)? Come on, impress me, Teacher, with an valid and accurate answer.
Just google Merriam Webster Online and see. Easy enough, eh?
The rest of his post is just as sloppy and inaccurate.
Just as expected....
crickets
...
For the record...
re: "metaphysics"
"You'll have to explain that one to me. The "meta" in "metaphysics" means "before" or "logically prior to" or "underlying"..." -MB1
Claim: In today's contemporary academic philosophy there is a concise use of language.
Response: Uhmmm, apparently not. :(
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:22pm PT
|
Fruity
agreed
the self righteousness,condescending and insulting nature of Mad's writing is annoying and usually based on fallacies
He has posted many WOTs on Hillary's e-mail server, all based on the concept that it was a National Security Risk, but none of her e-mails were classified, so hence his million word rants were all in vain!!
and having him post that all his detractors are insulting him is the height of hypocrisy
You saw how he treated Bob after his non-insulting response
Kind of like Werner and Sully, every post is directed as a insult to someone
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:33pm PT
|
I could care less about Werner or Madbolter, two peas in a pod.
Madbolter latest rant was hilarious and based on his own overwhelming emotions...funny stuff, especially his rant on the founding fathers.
I wonder what native Americans, blacks/slaves and women felt about those "inalienable rights."
Didn't Werner get the the boot a few weeks back?
Paul wrote: The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
You are talking about Madbolter??
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:49pm PT
|
And, as always, "nothing more to see here."
The view from most here is: Anybody not being hard-core materialist-empiricists is STUPID. So, end of story. Either buy the scientific paradigm in-toto, or you're STUPID.
Anybody attempting to even float the notion, "Hey, I don't agree, and I'm not STUPID, and I'm actually wider and more systematically read on these subjects than most here," has THAT then cast as "self-righteously STUPID."
So, really, there's no arguing with such people. You're "wrong" before you ever open your mouth, and the most systematic post is STUPID.
This waste of time is why I quit posting on the Religion and Science thread, and it's why I'll quit posting here.
It's like the politard threads: The consensus is that ALL disagreement means that the "opponent" is STUPID. No other alternative.
That's a toxic environment, and I have better things to do with my time.
So, you scientists can count this up as a "win," since you "win" by definition. (Of course, still no answer to my question about what evidence in principle could indicate the existence of a creator God. That one has implications they would prefer to not tangle with.)
I'm outty. Have fun, folks.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:56pm PT
|
The only person calling anyone stupid is Werner but then again you have a way of projecting your negative ways on to others who don't agree with you. I don't see you, Paul, MikeL to name a few calling him out on his insults and name calling to others.
In fact I wish I had a dime for every time Werner has called someone Stoopid (sic) or a name.
Goodbye.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 04:39pm PT
|
Another stoopid post by boob who has his very own way of projecting his very own negative and insulting ways on to others who don't agree with him .....
Goodbye
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:35pm PT
|
MB-I'm actually wider and more systematically read on these subjects than most here
WTF does that have to do with contemplating the spark of life?
Was there an eyewitness account I missed somewhere?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:51pm PT
|
This is the age of Trump. Am I stoopid, or do I just have blood coming out of my wherever? And then globally apply whatever you think of me to everyone with my perspective. Sure, we geniuses have it all figured out.
I expect that when push comes to shove most of us are not as stoopid as our stoopid rhetoric suggests we are.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:54pm PT
|
I would like to ask Mad about his concept on major evolution...
he has said minor evolution may take place, but hasn't explained further if major evolution has taken place after being questioned
and for your information, none of us said you were stupid
we just disagree with some of your opinions
is that so hard to comprehend???????????????/
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:10pm PT
|
HFCS:
This quote you have attributed to me are words I neither wrote nor would have said. Shame, shame—sloppy reading or inadequate comprehension of what you read. What is going on with you? Are you ill?
The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
No, I did not write nor say that and doubt that I've ever called anyone a simpleton dufus—simply not my sort of language. Are you all right? Or was that just snark for the sake of snark? I might impugn your misquote and your inadequate intelligence as demonstrated by your error, but I would not do so with those words. Amusing.
ff
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:14pm PT
|
"The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
feralfae"
Werner's work, not feralfae.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:18pm PT
|
Thank you Bob, ah, that makes sense, in an interesting sort of way.
:)
ff
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:19pm PT
|
I think what you guys don't realize is that when Werner calls you stupid, its probably for your own good!
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:34pm PT
|
Werner once was smart...Then he became an American citizen...Then he became stooopid...
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:07pm PT
|
You'll have to explain that one to me. The "meta" in "metaphysics" means "before" or "logically prior to" or "underlying" or "overarching" or those sorts of meanings (depending on context). Aristotle, for his part, meant that "metaphysics" was more "encompassing" than the physics. So, I don't see how you get "after" from "metaphysics."
I found this in the Good Book (i.e. Merriam Webster):
Definition of meta-
1
a : occurring later than or in succession to : after metestrus
b : situated behind or beyond metencephalon metacarpus
c : later or more highly organized or specialized form of metaxylem
There are other definitions but not of them include "before" or any synonym of before.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:20pm PT
|
..Then he became an American citizen...Then he became stooopid...
ROFLMO ..... so true
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:28pm PT
|
What I've noticed on this thread and others like it on ST is that science/ tech. people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong." The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
Nah, there's plenty of that weak attitude on this thread from the believers too. If we all didn't think we're right, why would we be debating. "Science/tech people"? No need to label people and put 'em in a group. Not all believers are the same, not all scientists are the same. So drop those arguments, they're meaningless.
I do not claim to be highly educated in philosophy. But I have given pointed, concise, logical comments that went unanswered. So your characterization of "science/tech. people" is very weak, grasping at straws it seems, rather than reason.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:43pm PT
|
madbolter1's wall of text always appears daunting
Regardless of your dismissiveness, the fact remains that science does not and CANnot "confirm" anything.
I think that practicing scientists would disagree with you, and Popper, though the philosophical position that hypotheses are "falsified" is an ideal, as per the example I gave. If you asked the majority of particle physicists, they would say that the discovery of the Higgs is a confirmation of the electro-weak unification. They may be in philosophical error, they aren't in error on the physics. And what's more, they won't be shamed by violating something that Popper wrote.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meta-
- meta-
1. a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, with the meanings “after,” “along with,” “beyond,” “among,” “behind,” and productive in English on the Greek model:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics
Definition of metaphysics
1
a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience
that must exclude "physical cosmology," or does it?
So what of ontology, cosmology, epistemology has been decided by the philosophers? You can thank the physicists for making progress on cosmology, you're on your own with the others.
Didn't Hume kill metaphysics?
There would seem to be good discussion to be had regarding metaphysics, a few thousand year history of good discussions.
What do philosophers produce?
I think that almost none of your examples are meaningful. I have a Ph.D., and M.Phil. and M.Sci. I have those master's degrees because Columbia U. got a bounty for every advanced degree it produced from NYState. One of my fellow graduate student tried to argue with the Graduate School and was told to "go away."
The history of the US University "system" is interesting and is certainly modeled after various European and continental higher education institutions. I would have preferred my degree be a Sc.D. but such a thing doesn't exist, largely because of tradition.
As for the theory of mind, we can see just how much progress philosophy has made: none. And not only that, it inhibits progress by insisting on principals that may be irrelevant to a final physical theory.
Please explain to me what science has contributed to the question of right and wrong.
If medical science is indeed a science, then we know that people who have various illnesses may act in ways that we could consider "right" or "wrong" but have no awareness themselves of the act. For instance, the consideration of mental illness at trial. The diagnosis of such illness is physical, not philosophical, and the consequence behavior determined by the illness are treated very differently.
We have exceptions of the conventional meaning of "right and wrong."
As for the history of the United States, you might consider what the founding fathers knew of science at the time. You make an assertion, but you don't have any fact to back it up. Maybe you should read more widely.
you can do the Google search yourself:
http://www.google.com/#q=scientific+ideas+in+the+declaration+of+independence
and wade through the 14 million responses.
The rest of your discussion regarding the the founding of the nation are equally naive assertions with no backup. But I know you aren't a historian, you're a philosopher.
As for the hydrogen bomb, very good predictions were made based on what was known, and those predictions were wrong. The predictions were then used to find out why the physical system behaved differently, as determined by the measurements, than the prediction.
That's how science gets done.
Are you saying that scientists can never make incorrect predictions? that in so doing, they invalidate science? If that is the extent of what philosophy could do for science then there is even more reason to ignore it.
Those parts of philosophy that have been taken over by science have made rapid progress after the appropriation. Aristotle's cosmology is irrelevant after 2000 years, it seems to have been replaced by physical cosmology, starting with the beginning of science.
When I asked "what did Hume know?" it was a serious question. If you could explain what distinguishes the writings of an ambitious 23 year old from anyone else's thoughts it would, I think, be an interesting discussion. I'm not saying what he wrote wasn't significant, the interesting question is where does the authority come from, writing clear prose? Science at least teaches us that good ideas aren't always right, that seems very different in philosophy.
Given the scientific method, what in principle could be adequate evidence for the existence of a creative God?
that would depend, of course, on what you mean by God. If it is a subjective experience, e.g. a "personal God", science would likely have something to say about behaviors that give rise to the experience. The validity of experience is traditionally not questioned, but certainly drug induced hallucinations result in experiences that the individual believes is real. Similarly, various diseases like schizophrenia can lead the individual to accept that subjective state as "real."
I thought John Forbes Nash's reply to the obvious question regarding his schizophrenia, "how could you have not known the difference between your mathematical thoughts and the schizophrenic thoughts?"
"Those thoughts come from the same place."
So certainly this leaves plenty of room for a subjective experience of God, and as far as I know you could have all the "evidence" you need based on that subjective experience.
If you are asking about evidence for a physical God, not supernatural, then you have a lot of explaining to do. But let's say that God exists beyond the Planck scale. We cannot rule it out, and it is likely the physics of those scales is not yet known.
The invocation of a supernatural God runs into the difficulty of explaining how the natural and the supernatural interact... as far as I know there is no construction that keeps them separate, at least in terms of measurement.
I am committed to seeking a natural explanation for the universe. Nothing that I know prevents such an explanation from existing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:24pm PT
|
The number one mystical in science is mathematics because no one knows what mathematics is.
But, .... without mathematics modern science can not even exist ......
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:45pm PT
|
I haven't checked this thread until now and as I expected it's sunk to name calling and gross mischaracterization of the "other side".
As I see it these types of "discussions" usually come down to the people who mainly see the world through reason, and those who see the world through faith. Of course there's a lot of belief inherent to both ways of thinking. But fundamentally they will never change the other person's mind.
The reason based people demand a logic based argument or experiment that can demonstrate what they think is wrong. And the faith based people demand absolute proof what they think is wrong. Neither side can provide what the other side demands, so we go round and round.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!