Philosophy Now Forum

Blaggard wrote:...Suffice to say my point still stands, I doubt most philosophers have even met many scientists, let alone are in any position to have an opinion on what scientists are like, I get the same impression about their ideas about how science works, and various other things too, that they have a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of science and scientists, and almost no practical knowledge of actual science or actual scientists ...

I get the same impression about his ideas about how philosophy works, and various other things too, that he has a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of philosophy and philosophers, and almost no practical knowledge of actual philosophy or actual philosophers.

Anyway, skakos; to get back to your thread. I've probably said it on this thread already, but to me, the limits of science are very simple: it's observation and applied maths. Speculating about what might be the case is metaphysics until you have the physics, or at least physical means, to make an observation.
People wail about how science says this or science says that. Actually, that's usually scientists saying it and they are only slightly less prone to fruitloopery than the general population. If science 'says' anything, it is: this is what the world demonstrably does, make of it what you will.

Arising at least I have the integrity to admit it. Hypocrisy, claiming expertise or even some sort of means to criticise where none exists, a field whereby your knowledge is minimal at best, is this really big or clever. Mine is an internet philosophy, ok I have read some books, not many, as no doubt some philosophers have about science, let's leave the point up to you

Double standards passed of with a regularity that is almost like a bus schedule seems to me not to be too philosophical, so let's do some, couldn't hurt as uwot said on topic, perhaps..?

Blaggard wrote:Arising at least I have the integrity to admit it. ...

This

...Suffice to say my point still stands

is admitting it?

Hypocrisy, claiming expertise or even some sort of means to criticise where none exists, a field whereby your knowledge is minimal at best, is this really big or clever. ...

No, so you really should stop doing it.

Mine is an internet philosophy, ok I have read some books, not many, as no doubt some philosophers have about science, let's leave the point up to you

I have no doubt that in your travels upon the weeb you've encounter those who say they've studied philosophy who show an appalling lack of comprehension about science and what scientists do. The only explanation I have(but don't quote me on this) is, at least if they are from the UK, that Philosophy as an honours degree subject has all but been exterminated from higher education and has been enfolded into a mish-mash from English Language Critical Theory, Continental Philosophy and Post-Moderism with the British Analytic tradition being effectively side-lined as it doesn't 'sell'. All I can comment upon is what I read here and here my point was that you were making a statement about philosophers and philosophy based upon exactly the grounds you were critiquing?

Double standards passed of with a regularity that is almost like a bus schedule seems to me not to be too philosophical, so let's do some, couldn't hurt as uwot said on topic, perhaps..?

So stop doing them then.

Oh! And so much for the ignore function.

Arising_uk wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Double standards passed of with a regularity that is almost like a bus schedule seems to me not to be too philosophical, so let's do some, couldn't hurt as uwot said on topic, perhaps..?

So stop doing them then.

Where have I done them, where have I said I have a right to criticise philosophy, ok I will criticise bad logic, when people start waxing lyrical about how a subject is wrong, failing and faling fast or whatever, but isn't that what discussion is about? And in science the resort to authority "fallacy" in this case and most cases is not apt. I have also said already said that criticism was aimed at philosophers who attack science without actually having much knowledge of it, not philosophy in general, or philosophers in general. But then you never read it did you, you still think I am having a go at the proffessionals, no or people in general who do philosophy? Which considering the thread so far is bewildering to say the least.

You do like making the straw men though...

So I ask in all earnest if you want to a) back up what you just said and start making some sense? And b) you stop talking shit. From the UK solely, you have to be having a laugh don't you. The people who sparked the whole comment about how one who knows little about science should criticise science before they have taken the time to learn the subject to some extent, were not English. Still I hope this non sequitur fest is making you feel better, because it's certainly making me chuckle.

Now the point is of course do you agree or disagree that you should be well conversant on a subject before you attempt to point out the flaws in it in general, it is the only argument I made. This seems to be made out to be something it is not in such a manner that after it was pointed out this was not the case, you'd think it was self evident, but apparently not.

I didn't attack Philosophy, or philosophers in general. Can you perhaps actually tackle the argument I made, or are we going to go around in ever decreasing circles, because frankly I have better things to do.

I don't keep people on ignore forever, that's a bit pointless, so sue me. I will however consider not responding to people who seem to be making no sense.

Blaggard wrote:... Where have I done them, where have I said I have a right to criticise philosophy, ok I will criticise bad logic, when people start waxing lyrical about how a subject is wrong, failing and faling fast or whatever, but isn't that what discussion is about? And in science the resort to authority "fallacy" in this case and most cases is not apt. I have also said already said that criticism was aimed at philosophers who attack science without actually having much knowledge of it, not philosophy in general, or philosophers in general. But then you never read it did you, you still think I am having a go at the proffessionals, no or people in general who do philosophy? Which considering the thread so far is bewildering to say the least. ...

My take is that the simplest course for you is to stop calling them philosophers then, as you are confusing matters calling them as such. Maybe weeblosophers?

You do like making the straw men though...

No, I'd like people upon philosophy forums to stop conflating weebles with philosophers.

So I ask in all earnest if you want to a) back up what you just said and start making some sense? And b) you stop talking shit. From the UK solely, you have to be having a laugh don't you. The people who sparked the whole comment about how one who knows little about science should criticise science before they have taken the time to learn the subject to some extent, were not English. Still I hope this non sequitur fest is making you feel better, because it's certainly making me chuckle.

I say the UK solely as that explains those who, from my experience of them, act as you say . What goes on in other countries education I have no idea about.

Now the point is of course do you agree or disagree that you should be well conversant on a subject before you attempt to point out the flaws in it in general, it is the only argument I made. This seems to be made out to be something it is not in such a manner that after it was pointed out this was not the case, you'd think it was self evident, but apparently not.

If you read my reply you'd see that I agreed. All I request from you is to stop using the term philosophers when you mean weebles who chat upon philosophy forums with bugger all knowledge of philosophy.

I didn't attack Philosophy, or philosophers in general. Can you perhaps actually tackle the argument I made, or are we going to go around in ever decreasing circles, because frankly I have better things to do.

Then stop replying and stick to ignoring me.

I don't keep people on ignore forever, that's a bit pointless, so sue me. I will however consider not responding to people who seem to be making no sense.

Now you contradict yourself.

The ignore function is a pointless function in my opinion, just show some will and don't read whatever it is. It's a laughable function when used as a 'threat' of some sort and even more when the user negates their own promise.

Nah I'll just leave the forum so I don't have to put up with wankers like you who misrepresent arguments like they are the next best thing in sliced bread, if it's all the same.

It stops being interesting when all you get is wankers like you who tell you how and what to think without actually reading what you say.

It's all my fault of course, I did explain it a few times, but when it comes down to it it's just too hard to think about another persons argument when you are so far up on your fucking high horse and talking shit that a nuclear missile couldn't dent your idiocy. You are the weebles, yeah it's you, because you don't fucking read peoples arguments, and then you have the nerve to blame them for it like you are fucking Jesus Reeves almighty gliding through the matrix. Well in all honesty I am out. When it starts becoming a wank fest of idiots, and not to mention idiots who claim some sort of authority on philosophy as well. You start to get the impression that the weeblephiloophers like you and your ilk have taken over the asylum and are systematically ruining for anyone else.

Yes you are a cnut well done. Learn to fucking understand what people say, it will serve you so much better than the laughable cuntwittery you have passed off so far.

So long, and thanks for all the fish, as to the people who were interested in discussing a subject without ego stroking and wankery good luck, as to you other weebles, well one day maybe you will grow up, I doubt it though.

Still not ignoring me!!

What a knob you have been.

And the above post just about caps it. Get over yourself, 42 my arse.

Bye now.

Nice come back retard, did you learn that in weeble school. Lol what a massive chip on shoulder egotistical weeblephilosopher you are.

Yeah you go thinking you are a winner, we all know what you really are and that's someone who thinks he is so far above his natural station of moron who can't read arguments, that he no longer needs to and from his imperial palace of valour and jsutice rocalims his magnificence to the plebs like some gliding through life cnut with a chip on his shoulder.

Still not ignoring you who could ignore an ego that large with a mismatched beleif they know anything about philsoophy at all, that can't read simple arguments, and needs to hence patronise and talk down to people because they can't and didn't learn how to comprehend in the first. Who indeed. You cunnt.

Grow the fuck up and stop being such an insufferable ignorant cnut is my advice, will you take it will you fuck your so far up your own ass it would take a miracle to get your head removed from it.

Lol idiots like this is why forums fail. They got so pompous and and over opinionated that they think they fuckinh run the show. Don't look behind the curtain though, all that is there is a cnut.

Still here?

Please don't show the same will-power you showed with the ignore function.

You are such a ****.

Please don't hope that you are ever going to show the same consideration you would expect from other people, because that ian't going to happen, you've spent far too long being a **** for you to ever grow out of it.

So hey next person who comes along you don't like why don't you lie and talk shit at them too, so you can keep Duetschland ver Duetschalnd and auslanders out like the biggoted worthless speck of high and mighty human flotsam you are.

God you're shit at philosophy, how you ever passed an exam in it is beyond belief, presumably the books in the library didn't talk back to you, so you could tell them just how they should think without actually reading what they said.

What a bunch of whining self-pitying hysteria you are.

You confirm once again upon this forum that those who announce the ignore function are exactly those who cannot resist reading about themselves.

Get over yourself.

Blaggard wrote:God you're shit at philosophy,

Frankly, Blaggard, you have written very little that suggests you are qualified to judge. That is nothing to do with any reading you may or may not have done, there is just scant evidence that you have much skill at analysis.
I think the phrase you used with regard to science was put up, or shut up. The same applies to philosophy. Show us what you've got.

My argument numb nut was those who don't know anything or at least every little about science should not criticise science.

God you're as abig a **** as UK. You attacked me for criticising something I never did and your come back is just the same, stop criticising- something you never did or analysing- something you never did.

What a bunch of self serving cnuts you people are.

How about attack the argument not the person, seems that has gone by the way side too, like the daft self righteous pricks you are.

When the fuck did I claim I was good at analytics: please post where I said i am a master at it or even remotely said I was anything like that, I mean fucking honestly where do you pull this shit out from, because your arse must be some cavernous hole that holds all bad arguments in it like Pandoras box, and all that is left at the end of time when they have freed your arse from bad arguments is hope that you make one that relates to someone elses argument at some point. Honestly what is your major malfunction son. What is it about a simple point that you have to make in to one long ad hominem about me, on points I never claimed or remotely said. I mean do you think this is philosophy, or this is indeed analytical? Well do you?

Fuck me you people are just so not what philosophy is about, surely, there can't be philosophy any more if this is the meet and potatoes of a philosopher, a pompous p**** who spouts straw men and ad hominems at someone endlessly like he is explaining something to the proletariate scum. Yoou suck at analytics, you have no place to criticise philosophy, I mean it's just one unending stream of vacuous shit from the mouths of cvacuous arseholes isn't it. Who the hell claimed I said that, where did I say that. Oh no wait I never said that. So you sound like some vascilating turd.

If I am bad at analytics who the fuck on Earth cares, I never said I was good at it I only claimed one point; I am not studying philosophy so I fucking shouldn't be. It's you I would worry about clearly you are also bad at it because you can't even tackle the argument in question without making up new ones no one was even fucking talking about. Honestly are you people really this fucking dumb, do you want to make up new straw man to bang on about. Or could you just read what people said and make do with that, instead of inventing some fantasy endlessly so you have to be right about something to stroke this abject pit of narcissisim and ego that is all it seems your philosophy is about. Is this really all philosophy is now, no wonder it is dying if pricks like you who can't string a cogent argument together without making someone elses up and insulting other people are all there is.

Not in my life time obviously and you wonder why this forum is a tiny backwater wasteland, it's because all that remains presumably is the flotsam and jetsom that got rid of the decent posters in the first place and now just is coasting on it's own self worth like some train of banality.

I doubt it is ever going to become a forum that matters is it, it's all about being ad hominem and non sequitur for you people isn't it, yes I am bad at philosophy, yes I am bad at analytics, what is your excuse for being bad at it if I can ask? Why don't you make up some more shit about people just aimed at the person and not the argument like you have a fucking clue. Stroke that ego some more. Hell I am sure it makes you feel like the big man of I am.

Blaggard wrote:My argument numb nut was those who don't know anything or at least every little about science should not criticise science.

Blaggard, I salute you. Even by your standards this is bollocks. This is what I was referring to:

Blaggard wrote:God you're shit at philosophy,

It was only one post go and makes no mention of science.
Watch how ignore works.