Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:28 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Pathway Machine
#21
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 18, 2008 at 6:07 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Acceptance of evidence as valid material in debate presupposes reason. When the debater rejects any evidence, he rejects reason. To have a debater openly reject reason is the ultimate you can ask for in debate. So what's your problem.
My problem??? My problem??? What, pray tell, is the point of continuing a debate in which the opponent has surrendered all reason and simply attempts to repeat his original points again and again without concern for the counter points that have already been levied at them? There is no point to having a debate with someone who doesn't debate by any known standards, and this website is primarily for discussion and debates. Theists are welcome to debate our points, but things just get tiresome when you have to repeat points again and again (this is why most people simply gave up with Daystar, and I resorted to one sentence responses).
Reply
#22
RE: The Pathway Machine
If Daystar didn't want to debate about things he should have really admitted that it was just a "faith issue" with him.
And then we could have changed the subject. Talked in off topic and about religion and God without him constantly claiming it exists (if he could possibly do that) I guess.
Basically he can't just preach crap and not expect to be questioned!
Reply
#23
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(December 18, 2008 at 6:07 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Acceptance of evidence as valid material in debate presupposes reason. When the debater rejects any evidence, he rejects reason. To have a debater openly reject reason is the ultimate you can ask for in debate. So what's your problem.
My problem??? My problem??? What, pray tell, is the point of continuing a debate in which the opponent has surrendered all reason and simply attempts to repeat his original points again and again without concern for the counter points that have already been levied at them? There is no point to having a debate with someone who doesn't debate by any known standards, and this website is primarily for discussion and debates. Theists are welcome to debate our points, but things just get tiresome when you have to repeat points again and again (this is why most people simply gave up with Daystar, and I resorted to one sentence responses).
I get somewhat tired of having to repeat this again myself. You can stop debating him at any time. You can put him on your ignore list (what else is it for?). So again what's your problem?
(December 18, 2008 at 6:50 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If Daystar didn't want to debate about things he should have really admitted that it was just a "faith issue" with him.
And then we could have changed the subject. Talked in off topic and about religion and God without him constantly claiming it exists (if he could possibly do that) I guess.
Basically he can't just preach crap and not expect to be questioned!
If you go about telling everybody what they can or can't say you are steady on your way to censoring. Imho a forum of freethinkers shouldn't censor the content on the forum at all when no real personal damage is at stake. In the etiquette rules for this forum it is not written that posters should accept presented material as evidence, that they have to comply to it, what is correct thinking, what is crap and what is not and that they can't repeat arguments (which anyhow is what most do here all the time). He who preaches crap can at all times expect to be questioned for his motives and in fact this is what happened. Shutting out with a ban is clearly beyond questioning, it is ending communication.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#24
RE: The Pathway Machine
In my honest opinion we are giving this ban way more discussion than the whole thing is worth. He screwed the pooch on the sockpuppetry. Done deal.

Whether or not the first ban was justified is debatable, but in my opinion he was acting more and more like a troll, but I didn't see enough cause to ban him. A cool-off period for a week would have been more appropriate ihmo. But I am not going to debate this, it's over and done with.
Best regards,
Leo van Miert
Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall --Torque is how far you take the wall with you
Pastafarian
Reply
#25
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 19, 2008 at 12:21 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: He who preaches crap can at all times expect to be questioned for his motives and in fact this is what happened. Shutting out with a ban is clearly beyond questioning, it is ending communication.
He who preaches crap was and is questioned. But when he who preaches crap doesn't like to be questioned so simply chooses to ignore all the questions, constantly do digressions, deliberately annoy people and flame at people. That's different. Of course if he actually responded to the questions he didn't like - at least every now and then! - that would be fine. The point was he wanted to preach crap WITHOUT being questioned. Its not good to have crap all over the forums and when its questioned have it ignored and avoided by the person preaching it and be flamed at by him.
And if we allow one Daystar type, we'd have to allow all the other Daystars or it wouldn't be fair would it? If you're talking about free speech.
And would it really be a good idea to allow a load of Daystar types preaching crap and ignoring and avoiding the questions directed to the crap they preached? And flaming at people when they felt like it?
I don't think so.
I mean, do you think otherwise? I think people who constantly behave like that all the time need to be banned. Otherwise we'd have to have lots of people who behave like that all over the forums when the forums get bigger. I don't think that would be good!
And besides, you can also tell something about his character when he did what he did after he was banned for a month! It was totally sick. Yes he was banned before that - but I've given my reasons for that! If you find it frustrating having to repeat yourself to Adrian...what about at least me (I can't speak for Adrian) having to repeat the same thing to you? Although...I'm not frustrated actually. I was with Daystar though. Because I had to repeat myself over and over and over again with him. And the difference was - it seemed he was deliberately digressing. Red herrings. Seems to be perhaps a misunderstanding with you....OR you're not digressing by accident either, you understand everything I say but just totally disagree with me.
But seriously? If you allow one Daystar type you have to allow them all. Talking about behavior. Talking about free speech. Do think its really a good idea to have all the trouble makers like Daystar over the forums? When the forums get bigger that would perhaps be way too many troublemakers IMO at least!!
Evf
Reply
#26
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 19, 2008 at 12:49 pm)leo-rcc Wrote: In my honest opinion we are giving this ban way more discussion than the whole thing is worth. He screwed the pooch on the sockpuppetry. Done deal.

Whether or not the first ban was justified is debatable, but in my opinion he was acting more and more like a troll, but I didn't see enough cause to ban him. A cool-off period for a week would have been more appropriate ihmo. But I am not going to debate this, it's over and done with.
Leo, I agree that all that is relevant has been said. Let everyone draw their own conclusions. From my pen nothing more on this incident.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#27
RE: The Pathway Machine
Yeah...I guess if this is not going to go anywhere then we should just agree to disagree.
I agree, we should agree to agree to disagree. LolSmile
Evf
Reply
#28
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 18, 2008 at 5:12 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Philosophy is not a part of science; Philosophy is to logic what science is to nature. Yes, you can use Philosophy within science (to answer questions about ethics, existence, etc) but it is wrong to say that philosophy is a part of science. There are many philosophies that have nothing to do with science. Whilst science relies on experiments and observations, philosophy relies on rational arguments and reasoning. Science might contribute a few things to philosophical thinking (such as equality of the sexes being a part of ethics), but that doesn't make them the same.
Separating philosophy and science doesn't make much sense. Historically speaking science is an offspring from philosophy. For a long time science was part of philosophy. Later the term natural philosophy was used and later still experimental philosophy was adopted . The use of experiment as a guidance to gain knowledge of the world sets science apart from philosophy. But still science has to begin with a question, an idea to assess. Philosophy aims to clarify questions about existence. Questions that in science aren't yet well thought out. It thereby uses a number of tools, logic being its foremost one. This is exactly what happens in the first phase of empirical investigation. An idea is followed through in a purely rational exercise. The next step is the formulation of empirically falsifiable statements.

String theory is a clear example of philosophical investigation forerunning experimental evaluation. String theory so far has no falsifiable formulation. Vast numbers of theoretical scientists are involved though. But according to Popper's demarcation rules string theory on this ground cannot be called science. So what is it? Sheer speculation, an intellectual excercise with no bearings in the real world? Or is it philosophy excercising a brilliant idea with mathematical tools and logic. I say it is philosophy feeding to science. Philosophy and science are in symbiosis. Science feeds philosophical investigation and vice versa.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply
#29
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 20, 2008 at 4:01 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: String theory so far has no falsifiable formulation. Vast numbers of theoretical scientists are involved though. But according to Popper's demarcation rules string theory on this ground cannot be called science. So what is it? Sheer speculation, an intellectual excercise with no bearings in the real world? Or is it philosophy excercising a brilliant idea with mathematical tools and logic. I say it is philosophy feeding to science. Philosophy and science are in symbiosis. Science feeds philosophical investigation and vice versa.
I'd say String theory is primarily a philosophical question, but that doesn't prohibit it from being researched by science, especially if it affects science in such a big way. I never stated that science and philosophy should be separate, but that they are not the same thing. Philosophy isn't a part of science, and science isn't a part of philosophy. Philosophy tries to answer questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the scientific method; things like the matter of ethics. Science cannot tell us whether we should have abortions, because there is no scientific way of determining what constitutes a "human life" because there are different ideas of what we should call "human". There are many different opinions about it, and it is a question of philosophy to answer. Likewise, philosophy has nothing to say on electric cars, because science can answer all the questions about electric cars.

So you can think of science and philosophy as separate entities that work together well in some situations. They are both aspects of human endeavour, but are not part of each other. One relies primarily on human reason alone, and the other relies primarily on human research.
Reply
#30
RE: The Pathway Machine
(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote:
(December 20, 2008 at 4:01 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: String theory so far has no falsifiable formulation. Vast numbers of theoretical scientists are involved though. But according to Popper's demarcation rules string theory on this ground cannot be called science. So what is it? Sheer speculation, an intellectual excercise with no bearings in the real world? Or is it philosophy excercising a brilliant idea with mathematical tools and logic. I say it is philosophy feeding to science. Philosophy and science are in symbiosis. Science feeds philosophical investigation and vice versa.
I'd say String theory is primarily a philosophical question, but that doesn't prohibit it from being researched by science, especially if it affects science in such a big way.
I didn't say that it cannot become science, but technically it only becomes science whem it can be formulated falsifiable. So in essence you acknowledge this in your reply. You acknowledge that philosophy and science are intertwined. Philosophy feeds science and science feeds philosophy. Another example is how cognitive philosophy and cognitive science are related. Daniel Dennett is an excellent example of a person using philosophical investigation to dig deeper into the mind body problem an thereby triggering scientific research.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I never stated that science and philosophy should be separate, but that they are not the same thing.
Well, I haven't withspoken that did I?

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Philosophy isn't a part of science, and science isn't a part of philosophy.
That's true only in the sense that philosophy does not encompass the whole of science and vice versa. You acknowledged in the above that parts of philosophy are in an intermediate domain where philosophy feeds science and vice versa. And that is all I asserted.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Philosophy tries to answer questions that cannot be reasonably answered by the scientific method;
You are wrong there. Philosophy cannot and has not conclusively answered any existential question. Name one example where philosophy has conclusively answered existential problems like free will, mind body problem, the existence of god.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: things like the matter of ethics.
That really is the worst example you could give. Philosophy does not conclusively answer any ethical issue. Furthermore it clearly needs science as input, for instance biological knowledge to assess the impact of abortion on the foetus.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Science cannot tell us whether we should have abortions, because there is no scientific way of determining what constitutes a "human life" because there are different ideas of what we should call "human".
Well it does not follow from the shortcomings of science that philosophy can answer these questions. A clear non sequitur. Ethics at best is about applying reason to normative thinking. Still it is normative. Answers depend on the intentions of the beholder of presented 'problems'.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: There are many different opinions about it, and it is a question of philosophy to answer.
Much of philosophy, especially ethics is educated opinion. There are no conclusive answers in philosophy alone, there is only careful dissecting of questions with reason as a tool.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Likewise, philosophy has nothing to say on electric cars, because science can answer all the questions about electric cars.
Wrong again. There is an ethical side to electric cars that philosophy can ponder.

(December 20, 2008 at 4:24 pm)Tiberius Wrote: So you can think of science and philosophy as separate entities that work together well in some situations. They are both aspects of human endeavour, but are not part of each other. One relies primarily on human reason alone, and the other relies primarily on human research.
Your use of the word 'primarily' shows my point which is that science and philosophy overlap one another.
"I'm like a rabbit suddenly trapped, in the blinding headlights of vacuous crap" - Tim Minchin in "Storm"
Christianity is perfect bullshit, christians are not - Purple Rabbit, honouring CS Lewis
Faith is illogical - fr0d0
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  School Answering Machine A Theist 6 2461 March 4, 2013 at 10:44 am
Last Post: frankiej
  Cut up machine Rhizomorph13 8 2405 June 6, 2011 at 3:55 pm
Last Post: Rev. Rye



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)