RE: What makes people irrational thinkers?
January 4, 2022 at 12:44 pm
(This post was last modified: January 4, 2022 at 2:59 pm by LadyForCamus.)
It’s not “poor reading” to notice that someone made an assertion about the nature of reality and then did not adequately support it.
@Belacqua I’m curious; why do you believe that the question of the necessity or contingency of physical reality is a purely philosophical one that science cannot have anything to say about? Follow-up: If it’s purely a philosophical question, why do you assume it can be solved? Why should Hart or anyone else assume such a thing? You often discourage people from hubris and overconfidence when it comes to philosophical and metaphysical questions, which I think is generally good advice, yet you seem to have an admiration for Hart’s arguments toward an answer to this question, despite the fact that he is so certain his answer is correct that he accuses any and all objections of being misinformed, irrational, and fatally wrong. That seems like the kind of intellectual approach you would consider a mistake. Lastly: If the contingency or necessity of physical reality is a purely philosophical question, only solvable through logic, why would you devalue burden of proof as a necessary tool for getting to the correct answer?
@Belacqua I’m curious; why do you believe that the question of the necessity or contingency of physical reality is a purely philosophical one that science cannot have anything to say about? Follow-up: If it’s purely a philosophical question, why do you assume it can be solved? Why should Hart or anyone else assume such a thing? You often discourage people from hubris and overconfidence when it comes to philosophical and metaphysical questions, which I think is generally good advice, yet you seem to have an admiration for Hart’s arguments toward an answer to this question, despite the fact that he is so certain his answer is correct that he accuses any and all objections of being misinformed, irrational, and fatally wrong. That seems like the kind of intellectual approach you would consider a mistake. Lastly: If the contingency or necessity of physical reality is a purely philosophical question, only solvable through logic, why would you devalue burden of proof as a necessary tool for getting to the correct answer?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
