Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth

Then it would never be superior to anything since belief is the last resort of the totality of our faculties. Of course, as with science you have nothing useful to offer by way of philosophy, do you? And, by the way, philosophy departments do not reign over science or any other departments of the typcal university. But then you'd have to have attended one to know that.

Another broad cynical claim. And bald. All kinds of truths are available but the ones you are whining about take just a little effort to glean. You actually have to read, study, sove real problems and do hands-on work with the subject matter.

You like to just proclaim things with no basis for saying them. I could just as well say that philosophy is the love of sophistry and it would be equally valid and equally useless.

No, all knowledge we have is acquired by evidence, often gained only through hard work, although as civilization progresses more and more evidence is becoming more and more free for the taking as more and more principals post their hard work for the lazier ones to filch. But that's OK, since the real problem is that so many folks won't even bother to sign up for the free ride, given instead to run roughshod over the workers' finely made tools.

There's nothing you've put over my head. So far all you've done is to blow smoke. How about working a freshman science problem?

to an irrational wilfully ignorant person

speak for yourself

yes, it can tease you with vagueries and styrofoam, ok I see what you mean

in the mind of the irrational and deliberately ignorant

speak for your selves (or to your selves as the case may be)

what? rather than just getting up off that candy ass and working a simple problem to prove atoms exist?
How shocking.

When are you planning to discuss science? Are you sure you weren't meaning to have a thread on (Gawd forbid) poetry? Or how bout "hey everybody gather around and listen to me whine."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just out of curiosity have you ever used or heard of Viper software... anti-plagiarism web crawler? It's a great tool for finding the "copy and paste" flamers

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

reduction "man" reduction... not deduction...
my actual post:

sheesh!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Aqueous Id if you take a look at your university certificate of achievement you will probably notice reference to the Faculty of Philosophy water marked in the background.

I am researching Berkleys departmental structure now...compare it to Oxford and possibly Monash
Science is essentially about searching for the truth which is essentially a philosophical ambition. Epistemological in nature. Why do I have to tell you that philosophy determines the the logic behind equations such as E=mc^2 and a the mathematics that goes into it?

Do you actually have any qualifications? I doubt it

Mathematics itself is a symbolic, codified rendition of philosophy.

With out a good philosophical foundation any and all science is pure scrambled egg.
Such as the current belief in what Energy is ....Any one reading this thread [ and there are many ] can note, that you and your colleagues are deliberately avoiding the issue of.

That Science really has no idea what energy is. [ re: Richard Feynman]
And I might add he wasn't embarrassed by that admission where as you guys are so full of it, you wouldn't begin to grasp how intelligence works so much better when it isn't driven by beliefs but actually drives the beliefs instead.
This is the primary difference between followers and leaders...and so on...

 

Quackery from the Quack.

 

AlexG, you and every one else has to wear the consequences of your deliberate attempts to frustrate truth seeking...

 

@Aqueous Id

no point, as I can't find a good definition of "energy" to found any research or learning upon.

YOU see you talk of atoms as if you know what they are..
what exactly is an atom... any way [ apart from being intzy bitzy tiny little thing with ......thingos flying around it]

The atom of carbon is what exactly? A spherical shaped blob of something..yes? Now that's good science that is.
Oh... we have sub atomic particles... what the hell is a particle? what is it made of? Is it just a ball of plasma or is it pure energy, [what ever that means]

An electron is what? describe it after you define what a particle is made of.
Do all the above using the scientific method...

see...... infinite logical reductionism means you can never fully know what you are talking about and once you think you do, you are stuffed intellectually.

 

From your wiki link: "Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification."

You claim to argue from a philosophical standpoint now and claim its based on epistemology, yet you have not taken the time to address or acknowledge any of it.

 

explain your complaint.
"address or acknowledge any of it"..... what are you referring to with "it"

 

Why should someone defend the truth if the truth is certain and a belief isn’t guaranteed based on said belief?

Mind you, some beliefs can be true and others may not be which is why so many people apply skepticism to beliefs vs. what they may consider to be a truth. But even then, what people may believe to be the truth must be questioned or further studied.

Do you disagree?

 

Have I stated any where in this thread that one should defend the truth? If so provide a quote.


and how does your post address your previous post [ with my response] ?

my response:

now we have this as a consequence:

So please excuse me if I fail to see what you are getting at as your posts are is but well 99 do not follow... ahh maybe you are a net robot!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The illegitimacy of your posts have become quite clear.

As long as you continue to feel that something needs to be defended, nothing will never need to be proven. I rest my point.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

that point is based on an error in your reading and comprehension skills.
go read the OP again and start over....

 

Further explain or elaborate with what you ment by your original post instead of thinking the problem lies with everyone eles's thinking other than your own.

If you had 100 people tell you it doesn't rain cats and dogs would you still deny that it doesn't rain cats and dogs?

Yet, you continue to believe that people would "defend a belief rather than defend the pursuit of truth", yet this is your own belief and an illogical assumption. What do you have to base this on?

 

Do you think I posted this thread because it is about you?
Do you believe we are talking about you exclusively?
I know of hundreds of people including some on this board who choose to defend a belief rather than pursue the truth.
Are you one of them?

 

You can't google?

You talk as if you've never opened a chemistry book.

You mean you don't even own a chemistry book? And you can't Google?

Google it. There's boatloads of information to describe Carbon. You could spend the rest of your life reading it and barely make a dent in the source material.

No, that's your cynical caricature of something you don't understand since you won't bother to learn anything technical. Go read about it and come back and tell us what you found out.

Read. Go find out. Come back with something.

You don't know?

What does 'plasma' mean to you? Why would you even mention plasma at all? You know how to look words up, don't you?

Is there any other kind?

Read what? Some basic material that's way over your head? For what purpose?

I'm not going to spoonfeed you since you choke on the finest pap served up on a silver spoon. It's time for you to cut the cord, stretch those wings, give it a go. Do you have a legitimate excuse for ignoring science (e.g. learning disability) or is this a game? Come tell us what electrons are made of.

Don't patronize me. Especially while drooling. You wouldn't know the scientific method if it hit you over the head with a lab notebook.

In other words, the pacifier just went back in your mouth since you have no desire to grapple with the facts of elementary science even at a child's level, and you aren't going to lift a finger to do any work. . . .Go find something and tell us how it remotely connects with any of your jaded opinions about the world around you.

Are you by any chance on medication? I mean, if you have a legitimate reason for living in the Dark Ages, then I would certainly need to reframe my remarks.

 

They're called diplomas. Nope, no watermarks, no such references to any college or dept. of Philosophy.

Philosophers don't look in their back yards for truth, under rocks and with tools. You sound like you just got here from Mars. Have you by any chance been in a coma recently?

Since you've been harping on the fact that you don't know what energy is, it's rather ironic that you glibly insert a definition of it in the sentence in which you now purport to own the information. This from a kid in a high chair, bawling because no one is listening to his manifesto.

Did you even make it past 5th grade? Was there a calamity of some kind that arrested your development? That would need to be factored in.

How would you know? Can you even add?

All of your presentation is a scrambled mess of meaningless self-aggrandizement with nothing on the plate for the folks starved to hear something interesting. Not even a crumb.

It's what you won't expend, to learn even the most fundamental concepts of, before launching into a crank attack on it. How's that working for you.

In your dreams. With serving trays, bowls of pap, and something to wipe your drool. A veritable plethora of wet nurses to pamper you. An army.

The only issue here is that you can't read, and I'm pressing that button, but nothing is happening.

Until you can explain what Science is, you're not in a position to say what it is not.

What admission? Are you just throwing out your quote-mined oversimpifications as hearsay or are you going to bother to give us a cite?

Meaning you're jealous since you are so empty of it

This from someone who can't even post a general definition of 'energy' or 'electron' or 'atom'.

so much better when driven by the refusal to answer the mail on how knowledge derives from evidence.

Is that what you are - a belief driver.?

And especially small minds that are still gnawing on the teething ring.

 

so uhm ...what else do you want to defend to day? Certainly not the pursuit of truth...

 

Don't be silly Quack. You have no interest in truth, just in your beliefs.

 

is that a belief or a truth Alex?

you know... not what you propose but what you wrote...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

you guys, are fun...you do realize that don't you...

You demonstrate the insidious nature of paranoia so well.
Just reread Aqueous Id's last two posts and wow you got an interesting slant on the psychology of paranoia.

so far:

Rand Wolf
Aqueous ID
Alex G
Username - now that's a hoot

any one else wanna throw their "paranoia of the truth" into the ring?

Any one with half a brain can tell ya that if you can't define energy properly the entire shebang of science's and it's credibility is tenuous...to say the least.
so rant away...as if it will change the truth. As the truth don't go away no matter how hard you try to make it so. which is why it's a truth and not a belief ... "persistence over time eternal"
It is not my truth so don't blame me for your paranoia.