(June 25, 2009 at 3:11 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Science still is a philosophy (indeed, in terms of actually seeking knowledge, the only philosophy that has been shown to work) ... I suppose math is too in that sense although it is more abstract.

Kyu

Indeed. It's like saying the hand and the body are the same thing because the hand is found on the body. It's simply not true. Just because there are connections between the hand and the body, it doesn't make it the same thing. So when you're talking about one you can't try to come to the same conclusions by talking about the other.

The simple fact is the idea that "You can't prove a negative" in this case refers to logical philosophy, arguments and truth statements. Not math.

Quote:The real phrase should be "you can't prove universal negatives" or "absolute negatives.

Ah,THAT makes sense and is also my position,I think. I usually say things like "science doesn't work in absolutes" and "metaphysical positions are unfalsifiable"

I discount BOTH of the following statements:

"I KNOW there IS a god!" and " I KNOW there's NO god!" as being different sides of the same coin,equally ignorant and closed minded.


------------------------000000000000000000000000---------------------------------


Tangent trivia


I guess most people here have heard of Bishop Usher (1581-1656) or at least of his great contribution to human knowledge. His was the towering intellect who proved the earth is 6000 years old,by using the Bible. Bishop Usher was of course Irish,and really just taking the piss out of the dopey English..

Perhaps less well know is another genius,an American who declared "everything which can be invented has been invented". (Charles H Duell,Commissioner,US patent Office 1899).

The funny thing is that it was a joke and Eilon took it seriously. Just dangling the line. Didn't need a very big piece of bait though. But in essence what she writes isn't true. It is word play alone.

Quote:The simple fact is the idea that "You can't prove a negative" in this case refers to logical philosophy, arguments and truth statements. Not math.

You will find that maths explains much in the universe using mathematical terms. Take physics for example, it isn't only numbers. The equations paint a picture in the mind, explain and deduct fundamental phenemenon. Known and unknown. Mathematics is a language. Your ignorance on this subject is outstanding.

Tell Einstein mathematics isn't philosophy. You have no idea.

(June 26, 2009 at 7:54 am)g-mark Wrote: The funny thing is that it was a joke and Eilon took it seriously. Just dangling the line. Didn't need a very big piece of bait though. But in essence what she writes isn't true. It is word play alone.

Quote:The simple fact is the idea that "You can't prove a negative" in this case refers to logical philosophy, arguments and truth statements. Not math.

You will find that maths explains much in the universe using mathematical terms. Take physics for example, it isn't only numbers. The equations paint a picture in the mind, explain and duduct fundamental phenemenon. Known and unknow. Mathematics is a language. Your ignorance on this subject is outstanding.

Tell Einstein mathematics isn't philosophy. You have no idea.

Can you actually have a debate with someone without calling them ignorant? I never claim to know everything, but it seems you feel that anyone who doesn't agree with you or questions what you say that they are ignorant. That's not how to win an argument. Joke or not, it was a statement not relevant to the discussion at hand. I never said math was not a philosophy, all I ever said was math and philosophy are not the same thing. Thats. It. If you can't understand the difference from those statements, that's not my problem.

Anyway, this topic has been derailed enough. Please keep on topic.

And the mighty Eilonnwy restores the peace. I'll never get used to seeing your name in green btw

As for the topic at hand, I think it was in a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher where they were talking about Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka fighting and killing and whatnot. As was said in the discussion, most westerners would think of those religions as relatively harmless- their people are associated with such things as yoga classes. But at the end of the day, no matter how harmful or harmless the religion, believers will continue to do terrible things if it is in their best interest (or not).

So to answer the question: yes, I do believe that something like the crusades would have happened regardless of religion.

(June 26, 2009 at 9:01 am)LukeMC Wrote: And the mighty Eilonnwy restores the peace. I'll never get used to seeing your name in green btw

Same here. I keep accidentally clicking the edit button when I want to reply. >.>

Quote:As for the topic at hand, I think it was in a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher where they were talking about Hindus and Buddhists in Sri Lanka fighting and killing and whatnot. As was said in the discussion, most westerners would think of those religions as relatively harmless- their people are associated with such things as yoga classes. But at the end of the day, no matter how harmful or harmless the religion, believers will continue to do terrible things if it is in their best interest (or not).

So to answer the question: yes, I do believe that something like the crusades would have happened regardless of religion.

That's an interesting point. I think us westerners have a "romantic" view of what Buddhism is. That it's all about spirit and "chi" and tranquility, but these religions can and are just as destructive and just as harmful.

Quote:Can you actually have a debate with someone without calling them ignorant?

Can't you debate someone without calling them stupid?

I never did. I said a statement was stupid, not you. There is a difference.

No there isn't. I wrote the fucking statement. Me, here on my computer, or was that god.

(June 29, 2009 at 7:49 am)g-mark Wrote: No there isn't. I wrote the fucking statement. Me, here on my computer, or was that god.

John has blue hair.
I tell John his hair is blue.
There is no difference between labelling something of his doing and labelling his entirety.
Therefore, I said John is blue overall.

Oh foul logic, how I praise thee.