A new way to think.

[Mokele]

Zeno was a moron.

 

It's not about "conforming to our reality", it's about empirical testing. We do an experiment, and let reality tell us. If it gives us the same message enough times in enough circumstances, it's pretty damn near impossible to ignore or dismiss.

[Dr.]

empericism is itself a philosophy, hahaha.

 

Humble yourself, for just as Zeno, Socrates, etc. you know nothing, we all know nothing.

 

And I'm sure Zeno would quite easily out-wit you my friend.

[Mokele]

Want to dispute empiricism? Jump off a building. Let's see who's right - my prediction based on evidence, or whatever philosophical gibberish passes for thought these days.

[Phi for All]

interesting, so, something that does not conform to your independent view of reality is labeled as untruth?

This is the Strawman fallacy, and I won a $5 bet that you would use it next. No disrespect intended, but you're just not thorough enough at this. Read back a few posts and you'll find that it's mostly your definitions, fallacious logic and generalizations we're having trouble with, not so much your "truths".

 

And science isn't really an "independent view of reality", that's what makes it more reliable. Science has skeptics galore waiting to disprove any hypothesis or standing theory out there. It can be argued that Einstein is just as famous for disproving Newton's laws of motion as he is for his other theories, and Newton's work had stood for centuries. Nothing is sacred in science; skeptical scrutiny keeps it that way.

[Dr.]

If I jump off a building I'll never land, because I'l have to go halfway first.

[Phi for All]

If I jump off a building I'll never land, because I'l have to go halfway first.

You are going to make me rich, doc.

[Dr.]

Then I will have done my good deed for the day my friend. haha

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

as to your references of my fallacious thoughts and logic, I suppose you believe yourself to know more than Zeno and Plato, since I have essentially just quoted them... interesting.

[insane_alien]

things have advanced since plato and zeno. and it is fallacious to think that everything they ever said is completely true.

 

this would be a fallacy called arguement from authority.

 

just because A said B does not mean B is true.

[Dr.]

Zeno and Socrates have never been proven incorrect because they cannot be, any attempt to say otherwise would be a contradiction. Their theories are just as applicable now as they were in their time.

[insane_alien]

zenos paradox is an example of where he proved himself wrong.

 

and how would it be a contradiction for them to be wrong?

[Dr.]

Zeno's main idea was that "It is", even if you say it isn't, you've already contradicted yourself, because you've admitted that "It does not exist" but simply not existing is itself an existence.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm just curoius, what are your thoughts on evolution?

 

 

does evolution extend to the point of being fat louts who eat McDonald's cheeseburgers while talking on their blue-tooth headsets driving down the road downloading illegal MP3'a to their Iphones and smiling their pharmaceutically induced smiles from all the Prozac they took before they went to work?

[Phi for All]

so to explain, scientific theory is no more valid than biblical theory, it just has a mathematical nature about it and seems (to the limit of our senses and apparent understanding) to conform to patterns and be re-produced.

 

Zeno and Socrates have never been proven incorrect because they cannot be, any attempt to say otherwise would be a contradiction.

This is also why religion and science are different in their "theories". Science won't accept a theory that can't be proven incorrect; falsifiability is a cornerstone of the scientific method. Religion relies on the sacred ideas that can't, by their very nature, be either proved or disproved.

 

Their theories are just as applicable now as they were in their time.

Well, you're on a science forum here, so you'll have to use the science definition of "theory", which would never include the concepts you've mentioned.

[Dr.]

I was using the general definition of the word theory, since we have already established that you all do not understand the idea of reasonable doubt.

 

You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

[Phi for All]

I'm just curoius, what are your thoughts on evolution?

 

 

does evolution extend to the point of being fat louts who eat McDonald's cheeseburgers while talking on their blue-tooth headsets driving down the road downloading illegal MP3'a to their Iphones and smiling their pharmaceutically induced smiles from all the Prozac they took before they went to work?

Evolution isn't concerned with individuals; evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.

[cameron marical]

Humble yourself, for just as Zeno, Socrates, etc. you know nothing, we all know nothing.

 

And I'm sure Zeno would quite easily out-wit you my friend.

 

If we all know nothing, then how could Zeno out wit anyone?

 

Thats why I am not a fan of philosophy, many philosophers give off the impression that their so deep and wise, but really what they do is just nit pick out possible solutions to problems or blandly state warped "facts" that they thought up while not doing any tests or experiments to try and prove them, so people just go off what they say because over all they dont truly understand what the philosopher says {because it doesnt make sense} and trust that they are just smarter so they go off his/hers crap.

 

You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

 

Our scientific theories are our facts, and we subject them to experiments, equations, peer review, facts, in order to establish them. Your fighting a childish battle, and taking shots that are not even relavent to what we are talking about. Come on, man.

 

does evolution extend to the point of being fat louts who eat McDonald's cheeseburgers while talking on their blue-tooth headsets driving down the road downloading illegal MP3'a to their Iphones and smiling their pharmaceutically induced smiles from all the Prozac they took before they went to work?

 

Hey Rush Limbaugh, cute little rant, but it is irrelavent and random to what we are talking about.

 

Also, yes. Evolution does extend to that point, it extends to however long biologicall life will be present.

 

Say that, what your "fat lout" does, is also what the majority of a population does, then the theory of natural selection would come into play by allowing the people who dont have quick metabolisms or genes that promote better fitness than the average person or other health risk promoting genes to be elliminated by deaths caused of diabetes, heart failure, and other obese, bad nutrition promoting diets and habits.

 

The people who do not have many health problems that are genetically inherited, would be a little better on the runway and last a bit longer, and after a quite a while {if the majority is still having these bad habits[unlikely, but]} evolution would have made the population more prone to be able to digest foods with high fat and calorie amounts, with less negative effects on the body. Though, having those habits are not good for anyone and will harm anyone regardless of genes, Some more than others.

Edited June 24, 2009 by cameron marical

[mooeypoo]

I was using the general definition of the word theory, since we have already established that you all do not understand the idea of reasonable doubt.

This isn't a courtroom, it's science forum. We don't go by charismatic twisty logic, we go by evidence and math. You are more than welcome to present some that would hold true to reality.

 

Only after the evidence and math hold true to reality can we check if these go against any existing theories.

 

Instead of whining what you think we are or are not, I recommend you present your evidence forward so we can turn this into a scientific debate rather than a "what are logical fallacies" inspection.

 

~moo

[swansont]

You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

 

I don't think I've ever claimed to be an intellectual.

[Sayonara]

I was using the general definition of the word theory, since we have already established that you all do not understand the idea of reasonable doubt.

 

You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

 

When we need to get a theory indicted we will give you a call.

[Phi for All]

You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

Interesting, so, something that does not conform to your independent view of reality is labeled as pathetic, boring and unintelligent?

[GutZ]

I don't think I've ever claimed to be an intellectual.

 

Don't be so modest!

 

You haven't but you could. Be proud of your intelligence, just don't let it blind you from the truth.

 

A man who tries his best to see truth and tries to get his/her mind in the best possible condition I would say that person is an intellectual.

 

It gets bad name because some people want to make at if it makes them a better person than someone else. We don't condemn athletes for being in amazing shape, nor do we condemn them or call them elitist. It's those who like dr. here thinks that intelligence is about being better than someone. Usually those people have issue, and aren't always what they project themselves as.

 

Then there are people who are elitist's and they deserve the title lol. They are just pricks.

 

From Dr.'s responses...I doubt he is the latter.

[cameron marical]

I agree. Intelligence, as much as it may be genetically inherited, I consider it more of a choice.

[D H]

I was using the general definition of the word theory, since we have already established that you all do not understand the idea of reasonable doubt.

Your definition of theory:

 

 

 

You all claim to be intellectuals, but you know nothing other than your science theories, you do not even have any facts. Haha pathetic little men, keep your computers and your science, I'm leaving now, you're very boring, and unintelligent. Good day (barely) gentlemen.

In short, you came here to troll and call people names. Pathetic.

[OliviaMcQ]

I think I would call this a failed trolling attempt.

 

He does bring up some interesting trains of thought though- the connections between philosophy and science, the differences of subjective interpretation when presented with objective evidence, etc.

 

All tasty brain food! *NOM*