DoubleDutchy

I thought about it. 'Refutal by name calling' was the the only thing that came to my centric bias.

Starboy

DoubleDutch, pointing out that your response is biased toward seeing everything only from the point of view of the mind is not name calling. Making such an accusation is however.

Starboy

Frotiw

Starboy what are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Starboy

Frotiw, good question. Entertainment I guess and a possible mental challenge. I must say that it is very hard to figure out what philosophy is. Its advocates are far from agreement. As far as I can tell philosophy is the study of philosophy.

Starboy

Frotiw

I agree that it is hard to tell what philosophy is and the reason is that the advocates present different concepts of the philosophy. Btw. I don't think this way of explaning philosophy(as a discipline) has been expressed yet: The historical one. It is not to sum up precisly what philosophy is and what it is not it is far to vague. Anyway historically philosophy was the main knowledge. First there was philosophy then from philosophy math was derived, then later on physics and so on. The last branch of "special-science" seperated from philosophy was psychology. This not a very controverisal concept of philosophy but it has little explantory value. There is little doubt that people searching for knowledge hundreds of years ago was known as philosophers(even if we know call them mathematicians, scientists etc.). The question is if the special areas of science was orginally seperated from philosophy then what is the rest. What is left being philosphy. I know faily well spending everyday with philosophy but I trully doubt the mayority of puplic has a somewhat reasonable concept of philosophy. I meet some very vague and distorted concepts of philosophy outside the academic world.

DoubleDutchy

Starboy,

Calling an approach a bias without giving any justification for your judgment is considered to be 'refutal by name calling' according to 'DoubleDutchie's Comprehensive Catalog of Invalid Reasoning Patterns'. Attempts(succesfull or otherwise) to spot invalid reasoning patterns are part of the game of debating. I assure you that I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Starboy

DoubleDutchy, go back and read your post carefully and tell me in all honesty and candor that it is not mind centric.

Starboy

Frotiw

Starboy,

Are you sure your not confusing mind-centric bias with the bias for argumentational rules(as absolutes) If you critisize the stright upholding of argumentational rules by philosophers when I perhaps I understand you a little after all. Yes philosophers usually commit themselves very strong to the validity of argumentational rules.

Starboy

Frotiw, I don't think so. The tip off is the second sentance.

Starboy

DoubleDutchy

Of course it is mind-centric, it maintains that mind is central to reality, as is easliy verified with a baseball-club. I fail to see why this should be a bias rather than an essential clue.