jamest suspended from ratskep for 6 months

[hackenslash]

Why didn't you just keep your mouth shut about your hosiery outing? I have to put up with Undercover Elephant screaming hysterically at me, declaring that he's got a good degree in philosophy from a top UK university, all the while making less sense than you typically do!

You don't think of the rest of us when you have these bright ideas, do you?

[jamest]

Why didn't you just keep your mouth shut about your hosiery outing?

That was a stupid mistake. I forgot to log in as jamest prior to posting as jamest whilst logged in as madnomad. I put that down to brain rot or fate.

I have to put up with Undercover Elephant screaming hysterically at me, declaring that he's got a good degree in philosophy from a top UK university, all the while making less sense than you typically do!

Everyone makes less sense than I typically do.

I've been reading the debate over there. He justifiably made you look like a cunt when you said [something like] "All knowledge is determined by empirical data" (I can't be arsed to check the exact words). You're also playing with fire regards the FUA [again] and might soon end up in suspension limbo, with me. I wouldn't want to see that happen. But I do agree that his essential position is untenable. Keep plugging away.

[JimC]

Why didn't you just keep your mouth shut about your hosiery outing? I have to put up with Undercover Elephant screaming hysterically at me, declaring that he's got a good degree in philosophy from a top UK university, all the while making less sense than you typically do!

You don't think of the rest of us when you have these bright ideas, do you?

Undercover Elephant!

Now that's a blast from the past. Seriously deluded doesn't begin to describe that individual...

[hackenslash]

He justifiably made you look like a cunt when you said [something like] "All knowledge is determined by empirical data"

I never said anything remotely like that. What I actually said is that the limitations of science are the limitations of knowledge, which is true.

I know why you think it isn't, of course, because you think philosophy is for drawing conclusions. You're still doing it wrong.

[jamest]

He justifiably made you look like a cunt when you said [something like] "All knowledge is determined by empirical data"

I never said anything remotely like that. What I actually said is that the limitations of science are the limitations of knowledge, which is true.

I know why you think it isn't, of course, because you think philosophy is for drawing conclusions. You're still doing it wrong.

I said it because (in agreement with UE) what you said is a claim made via reason (a philosophical claim). So you're essentially shooting yourself in the head by saying what you said. You're contradicting yourself - he is right about that, if nothing else.

[jamest]

Why didn't you just keep your mouth shut about your hosiery outing? I have to put up with Undercover Elephant screaming hysterically at me, declaring that he's got a good degree in philosophy from a top UK university, all the while making less sense than you typically do!

You don't think of the rest of us when you have these bright ideas, do you?

Undercover Elephant!

Now that's a blast from the past. Seriously deluded doesn't begin to describe that individual...

He's normal now. He's writing a book about mushrooms.

[hackenslash]

I said it because (in agreement with UE) what you said is a claim made via reason (a philosophical claim). So you're essentially shooting yourself in the head by saying what you said. You're contradicting yourself - he is right about that, if nothing else.

Where's the contradiction?

See, he said that because, being a complete fuckwit on scale we have difficulty measuring, he was under the impression that I was saying that philosophy is useless. You know better than that, so you're talking about something else, so where's the contradiction?

[jamest]

What I actually said is that the limitations of science are the limitations of knowledge, which is true.

If the limitations of knowledge are dictated by the limitations of science, then it follows that we cannot know anything which has not been verified via the empirical/scientific method.

... Since your claim that "the limitations of science are the limitations of knowledge" is a PHILOSOPHICAL claim and transcends that which can be verified via observation, then you've just stood in dog poo. A really big smelly lump of it, to be frank. And since I don't like to be called Frank, you know how much this pains me to tell you this.

The bottom-line is that what you said to UE, in this particular instance, was deserving of a few lashes. I'll spare you your head though. I'm not that fucking nasty.

[hackenslash]

If the limitations of knowledge are dictated by the limitations of science,

Dictated by? Is that what I said? I don't think so.

If you're going to insist that I'm wrong, Jimmy, at least be clear what it is that I'm wrong about. You get yourself in all sorts of hot water that way.

[jamest]

If the limitations of knowledge are dictated by the limitations of science,

Dictated by? Is that what I said? I don't think so.

That's what you implied. How can you deny that without undermining what you said?

If you're going to insist that I'm wrong, Jimmy, at least be clear what it is that I'm wrong about. You get yourself in all sorts of hot water that way.

I walk on hot water.

[hackenslash]

That's what you implied.

No I didn't. I was very precise.

How can you deny that without undermining what you said?

In what way does that undermine what I said? I said the limitations of science ARE the limitations of knowledge. Specifically, there are no limitations that apply to science that don't apply to philosophy as a whole. Those limitations that religious apologists like to bang about that apply to science apply to all of philosophy. They are the very limitations of epistemology.

[jamest]

That's what you implied.

No I didn't. I was very precise.

How can you deny that without undermining what you said?

In what way does that undermine what I said? I said the limitations of science ARE the limitations of knowledge. Specifically, there are no limitations that apply to science that don't apply to philosophy as a whole.

Fuck me, please don't be so obtuse. If what you've said here (least of all, earlier) does not imply that ALL knowledge is limited to scientific methodology (empirical facts), then I'm an atheist.

What I like about you, foremost, is that you're honest. But if you're still being honest here, then this means that you're stupid. I didn't have you down as stupid. So please stop behaving as if you are. For the sake of your own credibility.

Those limitations that religious apologists like to bang about that apply to science apply to all of philosophy. They are the very limitations of epistemology.

That comment is devoid of value, since I have no idea what to make of it.

[JimC]

hackenslash wrote:

Specifically, there are no limitations that apply to science that don't apply to philosophy as a whole.

I think that goes a little too far. I suspect that you are really saying that there is no way for a philosophical system to come to a valid conclusion about the nature of the universe that bypasses a limitation inherent to the scientific method. In other words, pure thought alone cannot shine a light upon the validity or otherwise of, for example, a given variant of string theory, even if current science cannot judge it either.

But making conclusions about the nature of the universe isn't the only possible activity of philosophy, even if it is the sort of activity that we both find of interest. Philosophy can usefully probe the logical structures of knowledge and analytical thought, for example, without having to acknowledge the limitations that may necessarily accrue on probing the nature of physical reality.

[Hermit]

Stop this at once, fellers. If you must continue, take this unrationalia-like talk to the thread specifically provided for the purpose.

[pErvinalia]

Shit's gettin serious now.