The Philosophy Discussion Forum

...let's tackle her actual thesis. The closest you get to doing so is to dismiss her argument: ??? That's the point, Will. I don't agree with her. It's called "refutation." Well no, disagreeing with someone is called disagreeing with someone. That is easy to do; refutation takes a bit mor...

...let's tackle her actual thesis. The closest you get to doing so is to dismiss her argument: Ah yes...the old "it's systemic" crapola. Her argument, in part, is quite literally that the American school system was based on a Prussian model designed to create an efficient workforce, and t...

Thus, she selects facts she thinks support her thesis, that Americans are "so bloody stupid," That is not her thesis: "This video is not arguing that Americans are stupid. 335 million people have the same range of intelligence as any other population on Earth. The same distribution o...

SpheresOfBalance wrote: ↑Tue Jun 02, 2026 7:07 pm It's a BLOODY STUPID question, Will Bouwman!

First she starts out stating her opinions, not the facts. Hint... It's actually best to start with the facts.

Is it a fact that it's a bloody stupid question, or your opinion?

I agree with you that the title is bigoted and unhelpful. That's because its "analysis" is also quite superficial, and generally incorrect. The thing with analysis is that, if it is not contradicted by at least one fact, it is a potentially correct analysis. Well, her 'analysis' has been ...

I agree with you that the title is bigoted and unhelpful. That's because its "analysis" is also quite superficial, and generally incorrect. The thing with analysis is that, if it is not contradicted by at least one fact, it is a potentially correct analysis. It is for instance, a demonstr...

A much more nuanced and informative video than the title suggests. A pity, since it is bound to alienate precisely the people who most need to watch. But then, as the video explains, through no fault of their own, they are unlikely to listen anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9MubNsh3rs

Which of Belinda's claims are you affirming? I remember Ted Honderich describing time as the dimension of change, which has stayed with me. I think the idea of time without change is incoherent. As for space and time, I would suggest that "time" means "interval." ("Interval...

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 3:40 pmIn entanglement, two particles can be separated by light-years,...

What is there light years of, between entangled particles?

There is no "smallest number," therefore there is also no infinite regress of causes. So there is an infinite regress of numbers, therefore there is no infinite regress of causes. Numbers are placeholders for causal events, in this case. That's the "logical connection" you're lo...

Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Nov 26, 2025 1:39 pmEmpirically, entanglement demonstrates that space does not exist except as a convenient measure of quantity.

Really? How does it do that?

...the study of philosophy, with all its contributions to knowledge, has not been able to solve the most fundamental problems of humanity. Does this then indicate a fatal flaw in the study of philosophy? Well, as I tell anyone who will listen, philosophy is basically story telling. It's about putti...

...time only exists when there are at least two particles of matter, plus a space between them that can become time. This interstice can be a physical one or a chronological one, but if there's no such interval, then neither can we speak of their being such a things as "time," I would sug...

For you now say it has nothing to do with the infinite regress hypothesis. And I agree. Well, if you accept it's an hypothesis, we do agree. Right. Wrong word. Let's just call it what it is: "the infinite regress of causes impossibility mathematics." Labourious, but much more correct. Ha....

I know why you didn't answer. You don't know. I think this must have slipped your mind: Prior to Galileo... No, I remember that. I also remember answering it. No doubt with the clarity with which I remember answering your answer. There is no point you trying to argue that underdetermination is not ...