Logic of statistical chance

[HexHammer]

Every now and then, or should I say too often I meet cozy chatters swearing by Kant and other weirdos that only pour out prolific brain diariah.

They usually accuse me of being ignorant of all the highly relevant things Kant said, which I find strange, any reasonable intelligent person would know Kant isn't in any way relevant unlike Pythagoras, Newton and other highly regarded historical figures that is even older than him, newer people are Einstein and Freud just to mention a few.

So ask youself this simple question: Why isn't Kant refeerd to by science?

The answer is obvious: Because everything he said is outdated and replaced by better knowledge!

Get over Kant, he only delude naïve people with beautiful rethorics.

[Ginkgo]

Every now and then, or should I say too often I meet cozy chatters swearing by Kant and other weirdos that only pour out prolific brain diariah.

They usually accuse me of being ignorant of all the highly relevant things Kant said, which I find strange, any reasonable intelligent person would know Kant isn't in any way relevant unlike Pythagoras, Newton and other highly regarded historical figures that is even older than him, newer people are Einstein and Freud just to mention a few.

So ask youself this simple question: Why isn't Kant refeerd to by science?

The answer is obvious: Because everything he said is outdated and replaced by better knowledge!

Get over Kant, he only delude naïve people with beautiful rethorics.

Kant is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of all his response to Hume. His trancendental idealism is important in terms showing the weakness of traditional metaphysics. It is probably only of historical interest, but one can also see some a connection with modern quantum theory.

[Arising_uk]

...
They usually accuse me of being ignorant of all the highly relevant things Kant said, which I find strange, any reasonable intelligent person would know Kant isn't in any way relevant unlike Pythagoras, Newton and other highly regarded historical figures that is even older than him, newer people are Einstein and Freud just to mention a few.

Have you read or studied any of them? I doubt it.

So ask youself this simple question: Why isn't Kant refeerd to by science?

For the same reason Freud isn't I'd guess.

The answer is obvious: Because everything he said is outdated and replaced by better knowledge!

Explain how.

Also explain how Newton does not fall under this rubric.

Get over Kant, he only delude naïve people with beautiful rethorics.

How would you know? Given you haven't read anything by him.

The irony is that you are exactly a 'cozy chatter' upon this subject as your knowledge of what Kant said is up there with your knowledge of what Marx said, i.e. non-existent and just based upon interweeb conversations with other cozy chatting weebles, hence you talk nonsense and babble.

[Wyman]

The fact that you call his writing 'beautiful rhetoric' shows you haven't read him. He's as dry as an old dead leaf.

[HexHammer]

Kant is interesting for a number of reasons, not least of all his response to Hume. His trancendental idealism is important in terms showing the weakness of traditional metaphysics. It is probably only of historical interest, but one can also see some a connection with modern quantum theory.

Excatly what relevance has that in today's modern society and science?

[HexHammer]

The fact that you call his writing 'beautiful rhetoric' shows you haven't read him. He's as dry as an old dead leaf.

I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term "beautiful rethorics". Many are seduced by complex wording which is in itself beautiful rethorics, but doesn't nessesarily convey any relevant information.

[Arising_uk]

I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term "beautiful rethorics". Many are seduced by complex wording which is in itself beautiful rethorics, but doesn't nessesarily convey any relevant information.

Which books of Kant's have you read?

[HexHammer]

I'm not sure we have the same understanding of the term "beautiful rethorics". Many are seduced by complex wording which is in itself beautiful rethorics, but doesn't nessesarily convey any relevant information.

Which books of Kant's have you read?

Put it this way, either present something useful from Kan't or just let it go, playing your silly games is irrelevant.

[HexHammer]

Yearh, people will insist that "Kan't" has relevance, and that they will do till the end of time, but they can never ..EVER!!! ..present something useful from him, that's truly tragic!!

[Arising_uk]

Put it this way, either present something useful from Kan't or just let it go, playing your silly games is irrelevant.

I'll take that as 'No, I haven't read anything by Kant', despite some waffle from you about having read him when you where young. If you did then the reason why you had no idea what he was talking about at the time was because you'd not read Philosophy in any serious manner and you were reading him out of context, so I'm not surprised you had no idea what he was talking about or what issues he was trying to address at the time. Your problem is you spend to much time chatting nonsense with the other interweebles on the weeb and all of you have little idea of the subject you talk about. Is Kant relevant today? No idea! What do you mean by 'relevant'? That a technology can be built upon his thoughts a la Physics, Chemistry and now Biology? If so then I guess the answer would be no but who can tell, as what happens if we need a framework for moral machines? Then I think he may reappear in a strange guise, just like Merleau-Ponty popped-up unexpectedly in my computational MSc. You have a very limited idea of ideas and how they work in the history of thought and that includes the scientists, some of whom, contrary to your opinion, do read widely for recreation and interact with other disciplines and get their ideas from all over the place. Although I fully admit that many philosophers do themselves no favours with scientists, mainly the post-modernists and de-constructuralists, et al, is my thought.

[HexHammer]

Put it this way, either present something useful from Kan't or just let it go, playing your silly games is irrelevant.

I'll take that as 'No, I haven't read anything by Kant', despite some waffle from you about having read him when you where young. If you did then the reason why you had no idea what he was talking about at the time was because you'd not read Philosophy in any serious manner and you were reading him out of context, so I'm not surprised you had no idea what he was talking about or what issues he was trying to address at the time. Your problem is you spend to much time chatting nonsense with the other interweebles on the weeb and all of you have little idea of the subject you talk about. Is Kant relevant today? No idea! What do you mean by 'relevant'? That a technology can be built upon his thoughts a la Physics, Chemistry and now Biology? If so then I guess the answer would be no but who can tell, as what happens if we need a framework for moral machines? Then I think he may reappear in a strange guise, just like Merleau-Ponty popped-up unexpectedly in my computational MSc. You have a very limited idea of ideas and how they work in the history of thought and that includes the scientists, some of whom, contrary to your opinion, do read widely for recreation and interact with other disciplines and get their ideas from all over the place. Although I fully admit that many philosophers do themselves no favours with scientists, mainly the post-modernists and de-constructuralists, et al, is my thought.

That's pure nonsense and jumping to silly conclusons, spare me, back on ignore with you.

[Arising_uk]

That's pure nonsense and jumping to silly conclusons, spare me,...

I saw lots of question marks there, going to answer them?

Not nonsense or silly conclusions at all as a quick goggle shows you all over the philosophy weeb and my opinion about how philosophers can appear unexpectedly relevant in science subjects is based upon actually studying a science and finding this the case.

back on ignore with you.

LMAO! Why do such as you insist upon saying this? One, I give a fuck, two, I didn't know or care I was and three, what the fuck are you doing replying to me if I was on ignore!! You show, like all trolls, a complete lack of willpower and an overwhelming and undeserved overinflated opinion of yourself.

[uwot]

So ask youself this simple question: Why isn't Kant refeerd to by science?

Because he wasn't a scientist. He made some observations that are still held to be true; for instance he was the first person that I know of to argue that nebulae are galaxies beyond the Milky Way. His main contribution was the distinction between phenomena and noumena, we see things happen and we construct mental images of the things they happen in, time and space, for example. Ernst Mach was inspired by this to argue that the thing that matters to science is the phenomena, a position known as positivism, this in turn was the method adopted by Niels Bohr and others who accepted the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Known to some as 'shut up and calculate' it is the opinion that the 'thing in itself' is irrelevant to science. WanderingHands was bleating about the particle theory, no serious scientist has been a corpuscularian for a hundred years. In 1920 Einstein said:
"according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field,"
That basic principle is still held, but rather than the electromagnetic field, scientists today talk about a quantum field. This is how David Deutsch describes it:
“The vacuum, which we perceive as empty at everyday scales and even at atomic scales, is not really emptiness, but a richly structured entity known as a ‘quantum field’. Elementary particles are higher-energy configurations of this entity: ‘excitations of the vacuum’.”
The quantum field is noumenal, we cannot see it directly; it is the excitations that, the 'particles' that are phenomenal, we can see and measure them. Any judgements we make about the quantum field are therefore synthetic a priori. (Apologies to purists, I use the term casually, because I am entirely confident that Mr Hammer has no idea what I am talking about anyway.)

Incidentally, Mr Hammer, it is ironic that you should cite Freud as an example of better ideas; he is perhaps the most famous example of someone who "only delude naïve people with beautiful rethorics."

[HexHammer]

Incidentally, Mr Hammer, it is ironic that you should cite Freud as an example of better ideas; he is perhaps the most famous example of someone who "only delude naïve people with beautiful rethorics."

Thanks for once contributing with very valuable insights.

But you are wrong, I don't like Freud, I think he is mostly wrong and what he has made was only a mere Stepping stone for modern shrinking.

But think about it, science still uses the term "Milky Way" by Greek philosophers who wasn't scientists.

[jackles]

freud in my opinion was absolutly correct in the fundermentles of phycology.the details where an irelevents