Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Abaddon_ire]

Its a classic and sterteotypye, and it shows how much i was right about his MO.

I pointed this out rather early on when he started posting and got shot down for it. Took a while for others to notice. Some have not yet to this day.

He wont bother to defend his own position, thus he is attacking (what he thinks is) the opponents´position.

Of course. Far easier to reverse the burden of proof. If one makes sufficiently vague claims, those are easy to defend.

Too bad that this position is "science works", so he only has one strawman which is scientism and something that makes everyone laugh him out of the room: "You cant prove science works".

All science is provisional. Science has no "proofs". As a matter of convenience, while I am certain that Bel knows this, it is useful to his argument to claim that "science has not proven X".

Sure, the rest of us say. It never claimed to in the first place.

Trying to shoehorn in "extremely useful" into the conversation. Its his *get out of jail free* card for sticking to science himself while talking it down in the same instance. Intellectual coward, as i said.

Indeed. The claim that science can't prove X is in itself a strawman. Science can't "prove" anything and has never claimed to do so. That is something which only exists in Bel's imagination.

Once again, all science is provisional. All of it. Every last bit. Bel quite obviously cannot grok that.

Real philosophers wouldnt stoop down that low. Real philosopers dont hide behind such cheap defenses. Real philosophers own the philosophy they subscribe to and they admit to the assumprtions, prerequisites and possible flaws of it. Belaqua is only here to stroke his ego, and philosophy is the tool he is using.

Not sure. It is entirely possible that he has merely been enamoured of the philosophers of antiquity such as Aristotle, Plato, Acquinas and so forth. But guess what? Philosophy has moved on from all that, as has science, as have people. Bel is merely stuck in the past. A lot in the past. He is much like an undergrad who discovers Aristotle or Plato for the very first time, yet never moved beyond that point.

Still, all of this is not the point. The original point was Rahns post to which Belaqua replied a few pages ago by basically agreeing with Rahn, but turned the conversation into a pseudo philosophical wankfest.

Case in point. This thread is not Bel's thread, it is someone else's. Nevertheless, the OP is lost amid the intellectual treacle that Bel has seen fit to vomit in this thread.

I am uncertain if it is even possible to drag this back to the topic at hand. Too many insanity peppers to go back now.

Perhaps the OP had a point to make. Who knows? It has now become about Bel spewing his crap and the hell with the OP and whatever they might have said.