Philosophy Now Forum

v83 wrote: *Cracks knuckles, opens first book*

'Atta boy.

Ferget aboudit.....

v83 wrote: Great advice, much appreciated. *Cracks knuckles, opens first book*

v83, I believe that IC will give you the most sincere advice, others will just try to heap on abuse or LUTZ. What is your passion, that is where you will find the most incentive to do something good. Remember "publish or perish" is bad practice and results in garbage.

Immanuel Can wrote:

v83 wrote: *Cracks knuckles, opens first book*

'Atta boy.

It's "Atta girl" actually! Thanks again

thedoc wrote:

v83 wrote: Great advice, much appreciated. *Cracks knuckles, opens first book*

v83, I believe that IC will give you the most sincere advice, others will just try to heap on abuse or LUTZ. What is your passion, that is where you will find the most incentive to do something good. Remember "publish or perish" is bad practice and resurlts in garbage.

Thanks. And yes Really appreciated IC's help.

v83 wrote:

thedoc wrote:

v83 wrote: Great advice, much appreciated. *Cracks knuckles, opens first book*

v83, I believe that IC will give you the most sincere advice, others will just try to heap on abuse or LUTZ. What is your passion, that is where you will find the most incentive to do something good. Remember "publish or perish" is bad practice and resurlts in garbage.

Thanks. And yes Really appreciated IC's help.

Philosophy is not some happy-clappy congregation that sings the same songs and uncritically accepts the truth of a preacher's fairy-tale. Rule number one of philosophy: everyone else is wrong. Rule number two: so are you. It's how you make progress. As for abuse: Mr Can calls anyone who disagrees with his premises irrational. Those who fail to acquiesce he accuses of lacking goodwill. If you follow his advice and abuse anyone who challenges you, you had better have a watertight case, or you won't make it past the first term.

v83 wrote: It's "Atta girl" actually! Thanks again

My apologies. I suppose "83" must be a particularly female number, so I might have guessed?

Immanuel Can wrote:

v83 wrote: It's "Atta girl" actually! Thanks again

My apologies. I suppose "83" must be a particularly female number, so I might have guessed?

'83 could be a birth year which would make her about 34 years old. And that is reasonable for a PhD candidate.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

v83 wrote: It's "Atta girl" actually! Thanks again

My apologies. I suppose "83" must be a particularly female number, so I might have guessed?

'83 could be a birth year which would make her about 34 years old. And that is reasonable for a PhD candidate.

- An 83 is less likely than a 38 or 34 to ask for advice about topic choice, as limited time reveals the obvious topic needed to state truth, which can also be stated as other topics less relevant to an 83's experience.

On the other hand:

- For an 83 the documented quest of words as truth would be purely intellectual, for mercantilism is no longer a motive.

- 83’s with mental faculties undiminished by the usual suspects are the living culmination of their capacity, thus they are the most prepared to philosophize.

- As a rule, 83’s don’t waste words, so reading the thesis wouldn’t waste time.

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

v83 wrote: It's "Atta girl" actually! Thanks again

My apologies. I suppose "83" must be a particularly female number, so I might have guessed?

'83 could be a birth year which would make her about 34 years old. And that is reasonable for a PhD candidate.

To quote Monty Python, "Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"

Immanuel Can wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: My apologies. I suppose "83" must be a particularly female number, so I might have guessed?

'83 could be a birth year which would make her about 34 years old. And that is reasonable for a PhD candidate.

To quote Monty Python, "Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?"

I have just learned to see what is in front of me which doesn't seem to happen with most people. The one test I give is to ask "What color is a Yield Sign?" I asked that to a group of people about 1980 and they insisted that it was yellow and black, I asked someone again about a week ago and got the same answer. I don't know if the last person was even alive when Yellow and black yield signs were common, she certainly wasn't driving when Penn DOT started replacing them. Unfortunately the 'Obvious' isn't for most people.

thedoc wrote: I have just learned to see what is in front of me which doesn't seem to happen with most people. The one test I give is to ask "What color is a Yield Sign?" I asked that to a group of people about 1980 and they insisted that it was yellow and black, I asked someone again about a week ago and got the same answer. I don't know if the last person was even alive when Yellow and black yield signs were common, she certainly wasn't driving when Penn DOT started replacing them. Unfortunately the 'Obvious' isn't for most people.

Good point.

That reminds me of the old joke. You tell someone, "Say the word, 'silk.'"


Then you ask them very quickly, "What do cows drink?"


They usually don't answer "water."

That's the residual effect of initial impressions. We're all subject to it, unless, as you say, we're paying close attention.

thedoc wrote:I have just learned to see what is in front of me which doesn't seem to happen with most people. The one test I give is to ask "What color is a Yield Sign?" I asked that to a group of people about 1980 and they insisted that it was yellow and black, I asked someone again about a week ago and got the same answer. I don't know if the last person was even alive when Yellow and black yield signs were common, she certainly wasn't driving when Penn DOT started replacing them. Unfortunately the 'Obvious' isn't for most people.

That sounds like one those multi-million dollar, frivolous, tax-funded research projects that keeps the voting block of academia monolithically Democrat.

Don’t need no study to know that people pay more attention to what’s important in their lives, thus memories of the trivial don’t tend to stick in memory.

Save the study and just give me the millions. But finding truth isn’t really the point of moronic government research, is it. The point of the government-funded needless research is to stay in the good graces of the voting block.

Doesn't government fund most of the so-called climate science that gets doctored up all the time?

Walker wrote: That sounds like one those multi-million dollar, frivolous, tax-funded research projects that keeps the voting block of academia monolithically Democrat.

Don’t need no study to know that people pay more attention to what’s important in their lives, thus memories of the trivial don’t tend to stick in memory.

I spend some time driving a car so knowing what a Yield sign looks like is important to me. I don't work for the government and never have, but it sounds like you have a burr up your butt about government research. Perhaps you should research what everyday items that everyone uses, has come out of this frivolous research that the government is wasting money on.

It sounds like you believe that we should stop all research and forget about advancing knowledge and science, just give you some money that you haven't earned so that you can live on easy street.

it's not often that I endorse The Doc. Walker's post with its insane optimism about climate change makes me feel fearful.