tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5038558656534598674..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Nagel on PlantingaVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56018886717728800632015-02-05T15:26:31.984-07:002015-02-05T15:26:31.984-07:00"Damn! passed over, again!"
We have no ..."<i>Damn! passed over, again!</i>"<br /><br />We have no idea just how "big" you are, Ilion.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34111890576214822162015-02-05T12:14:18.936-07:002015-02-05T12:14:18.936-07:00@im-skeptical:
"You're talking about thi...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"You're talking about things at the edges of the philosophy of mathematics (and I don't pretend to know much about those issues), not the fundamental axioms that ARE universally accepted, you pompous jackass."<br /><br />"things at the edges of the philosophy of mathematics"? Giggle. Yeah, whatever.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79213788652273180412015-02-05T11:59:16.983-07:002015-02-05T11:59:16.983-07:00"But if that is the claim, then it is vacuous..."But if that is the claim, then it is vacuous because we can likewise find a pared down core on which all, or virtually all, philosophers agree, as is evidenced by the fact that they strenuously *argue with each other*."<br /><br />You're talking about things at the edges of the philosophy of mathematics (and I don't pretend to know much about those issues), not the fundamental axioms that ARE universally accepted, you pompous jackass. As for non-mathematical philosophy, please tell me how a Thomist breaks his assumptions down to axioms that are universally accepted. The fact is it can't be done, because Thomists make fundamental assumptions that are not universally (or even widely) accepted. <br /><br /><br /><br />"Damn! passed over, again!"<br /><br />Not worthy of mention.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Anyone can see the stinging redness of Skep's butthurt, but I wonder why he keeps lining up for yet another spanking."<br /><br />And the peanut gallery comes out of the woodwork again, with nothing to offer, as usual.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6570461160609092962015-02-05T10:49:51.957-07:002015-02-05T10:49:51.957-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Do you agree, or do you reje...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Do you agree, or do you reject the standard axioms of mathematics? Perhaps you go by your own rules of logic?"<br /><br />What is the possible relevance of what I agree or disagree with for your claim? Which was, and I quote, "Mathematics is different from philosophy in a very important way: its axioms are universally accepted", which is false because there are clear counter-examples, not "at least mostly right". And responding that "Universally accepted by anyone who works within that logical framework. OK?" is exactly equivalent to what I said it was: ""Universally" agreed by those and only those that agree." which is right-down moronic as a response. But this is typical with Captain Dumbass: when shown that he contradicts himself, he changes the subject and makes the issue *about* his opponent.<br /><br />"You know perfectly well that only idiots reject the axioms om mathematics."<br /><br />I do? Well, I am not sure what exactly you mean by "the axioms om [sic.] mathematics" so I do not know exactly how to evaluate your claim. At any rate, and given your original claim, Edward Nelson that believes that first order PA is inconsistent (and inclusively has claimed he had a proof of such, but then retracted when being shown wrong by Terry Tao) must be an idiot. Voevodsky (not exactly a nobody -- won the Fields medal for his work on the homotopy theory of schemes and cracking the Milnor conjecture) aired the same idea and even toyed with it; I do not know how *seriously* he took it though, as he went on in a different direction and is currently working in the program of univalent foundations. A distinct foundational scheme? Yup, more disagreements. Which leads to the the whole school of constructivists, from the intuitionist Brower to a constructivist like Bishop, that deny several distinct things (from the law of excluded middle to choice axioms, to even how we should interpret the basic logical vocabulary) are also idiots. Or extreme ultra-finitists like Esenin-Volpin are idiots. Or what to make of all the extensive work in set theory beyond ZFC (say, large cardinal axioms)? A notoriously vexing matter, not just deciding whether the axioms are true, but how exactly we should go about for deciding such, or even whether such a question is the right question to ask, or even whether any of it really matters. And as it should be no surprise, there are disagreements on all the answers to all these questions.<br /><br />But maybe you will insist and double down, and say that, well ok, maybe there are *some* disagreements on foundational matters, and mathematicians may disagree on this or that principle, on this or that axiom, and the disagreements may or may not have importance (hint: they do, even considered exclusively from the mathematical PoV), but surely there is a *core* on which everyone agrees, otherwise how could they even communicate with one another? But if that is the claim, then it is vacuous because we can likewise find a pared down core on which all, or virtually all, philosophers agree, as is evidenced by the fact that they strenuously *argue with each other*.<br /><br />"If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you might bring yourself to admit that what I said is at least mostly right."<br /><br />"at least mostly right"? Giggle. Well, I do know "perfectly well" that *you* are an idiot who does not have a freaking clue of what he is talking about.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19737393221735276442015-02-05T10:24:59.087-07:002015-02-05T10:24:59.087-07:00Anyone can see the stinging redness of Skep's ...Anyone can see the stinging redness of Skep's butthurt, but I wonder why he keeps lining up for yet another spanking. Is there a psychologist in the house, or someone qualified to psychoanalyze our subject?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4795414179459385002015-02-05T10:02:43.385-07:002015-02-05T10:02:43.385-07:00"So which is it?"
Whichever he needs it..."<i>So which is it?</i>"<br /><br />Whichever he needs it to be, of course. What's the point of choosing to be intellectually dishonest if you don't, at least from time to time, assert both 'A' and 'not-A' simultaneously?<br /><br />"<i>And you still are the biggest, most pompous jackass I know.</i>"<br /><br />Damn! passed over, again!Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36895554050233143472015-02-05T09:20:33.471-07:002015-02-05T09:20:33.471-07:00"Giggle. "Universally" agreed by th..."Giggle. "Universally" agreed by those and only those that agree."<br /><br />Do you agree, or do you reject the standard axioms of mathematics? Perhaps you go by your own rules of logic?<br /><br />"or it may be the case that you do not know many people"<br /><br />Believe me, I know lots of PhDs. And a few of them are rather pompous, but none as pompous as you, not to mention intellectually dishonest.<br /><br />Take, for example, the current issue. You know perfectly well that only idiots reject the axioms om mathematics. Even mathematicians who postulate an alternate set of axioms don't reject the standard ones for standard mathematics. If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you might bring yourself to admit that what I said is at least mostly right.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80595429864593352002015-02-05T08:58:07.858-07:002015-02-05T08:58:07.858-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Universally accepted by anyo...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Universally accepted by anyone who works within that logical framework. OK?"<br /><br />Giggle. "Universally" agreed by those and only those that agree.<br /><br />"And you still are the biggest, most pompous jackass I know."<br /><br />Well, maybe your characterization is true or it may be the case that you do not know many people, or maybe you are just grabbing the first excuse you can think of so nobody pays attention to your stupidity, ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. Because, let's face it, whatever else one might say, "pompous jackass" it still much better than being an intellectually dishonest, clueless idiot.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29533373102251907402015-02-05T08:47:09.364-07:002015-02-05T08:47:09.364-07:00"So which is it?"
Universally accepted ..."So which is it?"<br /><br />Universally accepted by anyone who works within that logical framework. OK?<br /><br />And you still are the biggest, most pompous jackass I know. Why don't you now defend Bob's stance on Rayleigh scattering, since I don't know anything about science, either?<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33967219712791260682015-02-05T08:36:22.273-07:002015-02-05T08:36:22.273-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Of course, it is possible to...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Of course, it is possible to establish an alternative logical framework, and if you want to work within that framework, you need to accept its axioms."<br /><br />From February 03, 2015 2:25 PM:<br /><br />"Mathematics is different from philosophy in a very important way: its axioms are universally accepted,"<br /><br />So which is it?<br /><br />"On the other hand, you can just be a pompous jackass and declare that I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything about mathematics as practiced by the vast majority of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians."<br /><br />But you are a clueless idiot who does not know anything about mathematics, quite independently of whether I am a "pompous jackass" as well or not.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34265863285089495062015-02-05T08:28:46.031-07:002015-02-05T08:28:46.031-07:00"I was not thinking of the idiot crank likes ..."I was not thinking of the idiot crank likes of im-skeptical, but about serious mathematicians with serious and genuine disagreements, about foundational and axiomatic matters."<br /><br />Of course, it is possible to establish an alternative logical framework, and if you want to work within that framework, you need to accept its axioms. On the other hand, you can just be a pompous jackass and declare that I'm an idiot who doesn't know anything about mathematics as practiced by the vast majority of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-92174752134331601842015-02-05T08:17:53.201-07:002015-02-05T08:17:53.201-07:00"How about doing your own thinking, Skep? May..."How about doing your own thinking, Skep? Maybe even show some "skepticism"? Is that too much to ask?"<br /><br />How about reading the article, Bob. And while you're at it, I gave you some more on my own <a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-awesome-sight-red-sunset-i-was-in.html" rel="nofollow">blog</a>.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43787447170692124852015-02-05T07:37:29.874-07:002015-02-05T07:37:29.874-07:00"but I was not thinking of the idiot crank li..."<i>but I was not thinking of the idiot crank likes of im-skeptical, but about serious mathematicians with serious and genuine disagreements, about foundational and axiomatic matters.</i>"<br /><br />I picked up on that. That's why I included his claim.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37026008685592578322015-02-05T07:26:54.264-07:002015-02-05T07:26:54.264-07:00@Íllion:
"I've even had (rabid) material...@Íllion:<br /><br />"I've even had (rabid) materialists/atheists "argue" that the axioms of arithmetic (and, of course, higher math) are just conventions that one adopts for the sake of performing arithmetic operations within the formalized system we call 'arithmetic'."<br /><br />That is a good point, but I was not thinking of the idiot crank likes of im-skeptical, but about serious mathematicians with serious and genuine disagreements, about foundational and axiomatic matters.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39310810277048069092015-02-05T07:15:53.571-07:002015-02-05T07:15:53.571-07:00Ill-parrot-anything-so-long-as-it-denies-God "...<b>Ill-parrot-anything-so-long-as-it-denies-God</b> "Mathematics is different from philosophy in a very important way: its axioms are universally accepted,"<br /><br /><b>grodrigues:</b> Wrong.<br /><br />I've even had (rabid) materialists/atheists "argue" that the axioms of arithmetic (and, of course, higher math) are just <i>conventions</i> that one adopts for the sake of performing arithmetic operations within the formalized system we call 'arithmetic'. Which is to say, they were claiming that it not *really* the case that 1+1=2, but rather that statement is just something we all pretend is true for the sake of being able to say that 2+1=3. <br /><br />And that denial is really just another way of denying the logical Law of Identity (which happens to be a denial that is very popular amongst the God-haters). Come to think of it, the denial above may well be a denial of <a href="https://school.carm.org/amember/files/demo3/2_logic/3logic.htm" rel="nofollow"><i>all three</i> of the fundamental laws of logic</a>Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64154134469272038342015-02-05T06:48:39.361-07:002015-02-05T06:48:39.361-07:00Man up and admit it Bob. You've been caught w...Man up and admit it Bob. You've been caught with your pants down and Skep has given you a 'wedgie'.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-33231309001209164902015-02-05T06:24:33.410-07:002015-02-05T06:24:33.410-07:00@im-skeptical:
"Mathematics is different fro...@im-skeptical:<br /><br />"Mathematics is different from philosophy in a very important way: its axioms are universally accepted,"<br /><br />Wrong.<br /><br />"and its statements can be broken down to those axioms."<br /><br />You do not know what you are talking about.<br /><br />"Thus, a mathematical hypothesis can be proven or falsified unequivocally by following strict logical rules."<br /><br />This is in the not even wrong category.<br /><br />"Philosophical arguments generally cannot be broken down in this manner. That's precisely why there is so much disagreement among philosophers."<br /><br />The first sentence is not correct, it is in fact very easy to regiment a formal language and formalize in it, mathematics-style, a philosophical position. No one does it (or practically no one), because it is a rigorously futile exercise.<br /><br />The second sentence is wrong.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31078316287936097752015-02-05T05:28:07.020-07:002015-02-05T05:28:07.020-07:00Oh, my. What are we supposed to do with someone wh...Oh, my. What are we supposed to do with someone who without the least embarrassment, indeed without any shame at all, links to wikipedia articles, apparently confusing them with "evidence"? <br /><br />How about doing your own thinking, Skep? Maybe even show some "skepticism"? Is that too much to ask?B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55323038676961612072015-02-04T22:20:54.220-07:002015-02-04T22:20:54.220-07:00"No, I wasn't. I was correct then, I rema..."No, I wasn't. I was correct then, I remain correct today, and you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about."<br /><br /><a href="http://theskepticzone.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-awesome-sight-red-sunset-i-was-in.html" rel="nofollow">This one's for you, Bob.</a>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65623597742212940162015-02-04T19:18:24.485-07:002015-02-04T19:18:24.485-07:00Here we go again.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset" rel="nofollow">Here we go again.</a><br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20750304530810418752015-02-04T19:09:29.108-07:002015-02-04T19:09:29.108-07:00"But he was wrong"
No, I wasn't. I ..."<i>But he was wrong</i>"<br /><br />No, I wasn't. I was correct then, I remain correct today, and you don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-44148694293951731142015-02-04T16:06:57.433-07:002015-02-04T16:06:57.433-07:00"Again, reading *about* evidence, is **not** ..."Again, reading *about* evidence, is **not** evidence."<br /><br />Tell that to every Christian in the world who believes he has evidence to believe the stories about Jesus.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67690538780500166602015-02-04T15:54:47.587-07:002015-02-04T15:54:47.587-07:00im-skeptical,
"In your first comment in this...im-skeptical,<br /><br />"In your first comment in this thread, you made the astonishing claim that I need to personally observe the raw evidence in order to believe something"<br /><br />-I see now you're finally starting to truly attend to my posts, although you still have it all wrong. I did *not* claim that you need to personally see the raw evidence yourself in order to have warranted beliefs. It is you, not I, (in this thread and many others) who paint the picture that beliefs which are informed by anything other than "evidence" are beliefs held without warrant. <br /><br />Yet when asked to provide the evidence for your own beliefs you come up empty. Therefore, by your *own* standards, your beliefs are held without warrant. <br /><br />Thus far, you have shown *only* that your beliefs are informed by appeals to authority and nothing else.<br /><br />Again, reading *about* evidence, is **not** evidence.<br /><br />Personally, I would say you probably *do* hold some beliefs with good justification and warrant, <i>but that <i>evidence</i> has nothing whatsoever to do with your warrant.</i> Like the theists you disparage, in the end, you hold beliefs based on the authority of trusted sources. You're no different than those whom you admonish, "my friend". The only difference I can see from your posts is that you trust different sources.<br /><br />In short, the hypocrisy and "hot air" you accuse others of are really just your projecting onto others your own failings.Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03729019284713840826noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89231576535835704852015-02-04T15:37:01.776-07:002015-02-04T15:37:01.776-07:00"Why all the fuss? Honestly, it's just ma..."Why all the fuss? Honestly, it's just making you look like a fraud."<br /><br />Why all the fuss indeed? This discussion wasn't about me at all, until a few folks like you started to come up empty on the issues I raised. Then you decided the best way to "win" was to try to turn the tables on me. Did they teach you that debating tactic in Philosophy 101? Does <i>tu quoque</i> make you the winner?<br /><br />I once told Bob that Rayleigh scattering is what makes the sun red and he denied it. His justification was that he uses a telescope (so he must know all about this stuff), and he hangs around with PhDs. I showed him articles that explain the phenomenon, and he has never admitted that he was wrong. But he was wrong, and my own scientific credentials have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's a fact.<br /><br />In your first comment in this thread, you made the astonishing claim that I need to personally observe the raw evidence in order to believe something. If I'm not a "Scientist"(TM), then I am not qualified to talk about evidence at all. That's utterly ridiculous. It those things were true, then you (as well as most of us) would have no right to believe much of anything, much less argue against me based on what you don't know about me. No my friend, it's you who looks like a fraud.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10927686725892942962015-02-04T15:27:20.032-07:002015-02-04T15:27:20.032-07:00Another aspect of the whole mindset of "you&#...Another aspect of the whole mindset of "you're not an expert of X, so you have no right to an opinion about X contrary to mine" is that the person expressing that mindset is generally also not an expert in X ... and therefore has no right to any opinion about it.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.com