NobleSavage

Hi there Starboy,

I'm not so sure about philosophy. Ther's some good stuff in there, least that small subset of philosophy called logic. Not to mention, I kind of like some of them philosophers: Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Locke, Voltaire, Diderot, Thomas Paine, Darwin, Keynes, "Why I'm not a Christian" Bertrand Russel, Chomsky, Einstein, Kurt Godel, Alan Turing, and even Dawkins himself. Now if we could only erase those scholastics...

I'll trade you philosophy for postmodernism? Would postmodernism be a subset of philosophy or literature? Or perhaps just literature PhD's trying to show off by climbing up their own collective asshole.

NS

NobleSavage

abe smith

"Theology" is a science the subject of which is a NON-EST.aka "nothing".

Starboy

I guess it all depends on what you call philosophy. It is such a slippery word. Are you taking about professional philosophers? Also philosophy doesn't mean now what it meant in the time of Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton and so on. The vast majority of philosophers today pick over the philosophy of the past. Philosophy papers are just long diatribes on how some previous philosopher got it wrong. I guess when it comes down to it there hasn't been anything new in philosophy for over two thousand years. They just keep recycling the same'ol, same'ol, over and over. In in doing so they recycle the same old blatant presumptions such as Ocham's razor and pawn them off as being somehow open minded and logically rigorous.

Starboy

nermal

Edited to remove ranting.

You mentioned one following logic in the post I responded to. I therefore concluded we were discussing logical concepts, not casual, conversational definitions.

From Here

We get this:

True premises do not guarantee validity...
A true conclusion does not guarantee validity...
True premises and a true conclusion together do not guarantee validity....
Valid reasoning does not guarantee a true conclusion...
False premises do not guarantee invalidity...
A false conclusion does not guarantee invalidity...
False premises and a false conclusion together do not guarantee invalidity...
Invalid reasoning does not guarantee a false conclusion...


Edited to remove hyperbole.

Ed

Edited to add:
I see you used the word "value" in there. Shit. That changes everything, doesn't it?
er...um...I'll leave the above for informational purposes only.

Hugo Holbling

As you well know, you have multiple formal debate challenges awaiting you to back up this kind of empty rhetoric. Are you inclined to back up your bluster, or do you still prefer to hide here?

Tyler Durden

A degree in theology is not a degree in make believe, because it requires far more intellectual skill than the simple psychological act of believing in some cultural construct. In fact, my friend who got his bachelor's in aerospace engineering told me that his master's in theology was a hundred times more difficult than the BS.

Ridiculing the theologians is far easier than tackling them head-on, i'll warrant.


By the way, Starboy, I see your evasive tactics are still in full effect. Or will you ever pick up that ball you dropped some months ago?

NobleSavage

Difficulty of a subject matter has nothing to do with the academic validity or merit of said subject. Any program, from astrology to voodoo, may require any number of difficult obstacles to overcome and hoops to jump through. However, that does not validate the subject matter.

abe smith

Well put, N Savage. And besides Thos Aquinas is very lucidly written; but that his PREMISES are nonsensical.... A wonderful middle-of-the-night soaking-in-the-hot-tub book....

Starboy

I like that. Very nice. Perhaps it should be required reading for all philosophers so that they can understand the fundamental differences betwen science and philosophy, reality and truth.

Starboy