(April 20, 2013 at 11:39 am)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote: I was expecting an attempt to explain the odd terminology and a fixed four year PhD program. Instead I get an attempt to deflect the discussion away from the issues. That is more than enough to call bullshit on all your claims.
Running with the attempted deflection however I made no such claim. I have noted most everyone here has disagreed with your ideas about philosophy and what philosophy is and is about. You have adamantly stuck to your positions. You have "invoked" an imaginary REAL philosophy student to contradict a post.
Yet the entire foundation of your posts and positions is hobby knowledge which NO ONE has in any form certified is even close to correct. Perhaps you should tell us all upon what basis you have lead yourself to assume your views are correct. Again, full disclosure.
I was not interested in the tech part and the quick response on PET scan indicates the kind of knowledge such tech claims would encompass suggests no reason to question them.
However the primary issue regarding you views of philosophy has been answered. You are on one side against many people who more or less agree with each other that you are wrong about philosophy based upon common knowledge about philosophy that they share. And the answer is you know nothing more about philosophy than your hobby interests have taken you.
This is not an issue of majority rule of course. It is the entire group against a hobbyist of one.
Full time PhDs from are usually three or four years where I live. What "odd terminology are you talking about"? Again, I could not care less whether or not you trust me.
Why don't you just admit that your latest reply is designed to try and discredit me? It is blatantly obvious that this is your real motive. Furthermore, it is rather arrogant of you to speak for all the members, that "EVERYBODY" disagrees with me. Let people speak for themselves.
Philosophy is a subject in which I am very interested, much like I have a keen interest in many fields of science. It is absolutely none of your business to judge whether or not I am qualified to discuss ANY topic (philosophy or otherwise), regardless of whether or not I am academically qualified on the subject. I do not claim to be omniscient in any field; however, I have been interested in this topic for several years, so I have picked up a decent amount of knowledge along the way.
To reiterate, instead of making extremely general sweeping statements and wasting your time endeavouring to discredit me, why not find something you disagree with and we can have a meaningful discussion? To claim that somebody cannot discuss a topic because he or she is not academically qualified on the subject is absolutely preposterous. It's called critical thinking, a practice in which all of us should engage.
