What makes people irrational thinkers?

[Deesse23]

So is this a troll, dishonesty or something else?

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

[Goosebump]

So is this a troll, dishonesty or something else?

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

So one vote for incompetence. You genuinely think Belacqua was just so unable to understand his own position and the text being discussed that he spontaneously called out Polymath for being dishonest? Yet the irony in this statement is dripping all over him.

"Anyway, I doubt your sincerity. I think you knew exactly what you were going to conclude before you picked up the book, and this (you think) gives you license to ignore what Hart actually said. At least that's the impression you give. 

I'm not going to twist your arm any more to try to make you do a competent analysis. You should have gotten these textual analytic skills as an undergrad."

So he's not doing it on purpose? He's just incompetent in what? Thought entirely?

[Deesse23]

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence

So one vote for incompetence. You genuinely think Belacqua was just so unable to understand his own position and the text being discussed that he spontaneously called out Polymath for being dishonest? Yet the irony in this statement is dripping all over him.

Afaik he is s self-taught "philosopher", or lets say "fan of philosophy", but as in so many cases, a lack of professional education led to exactly what people usually connect with highly trained professionals: Hybris

I think first of all he has a very high opinion of himself, thinly veiled by a cloak of (fake) humility. This is why you see this condescension so often with him. Is he doing this on purpose or isnt he aware of how thin and transparent this "shell" of his is? Idk, you have to ask him.

Imo this is also the reason why he pulled shit like asking Poly to read Harts book in detail and supporting every of his (poly) responses with proper quotes from it, and then, after Poly does exactly that, Bel refuses to return the courtesy* (at least thats my understanding of what happened in the according back and forth). To me this is profoundly unfair and disrespectful.

Secondly, i think there is quite a bit of cowardice involved. The culmination (imho) was reached recently when he openly (as if that was even necessary, his actual position was clear to anyone else anyway) admitted to thinking that (paraphrasing) "evidence is overrated". Only someone suffering from hybris combined with unwillingness to "walk the walk" would hide behind such a statement, although we are often talking about topics outside of the realm of the hard sciences, yet just as often those hard sciences are more than tangentially touched too. You will also see him trying to shift the burden of proof on people.
I can not take someone (too) serious who seems to think facts of reality can be determined by logic/thinking/arguments only. It reeks of a certain lazyness to me.
The whole "metaphysics" shtick is only his very personal attempt to evade the burden of proof every time he is making claims about reality. Even worse, i even have seen him distance himself from the very same ideas he posted days before, by claiming its not his ideas/philosophy but someone elses´ (Aquinas, etc.). In politics something called "plausible deniability" comes to (my) mind.

Incompetence:
Well, i am not saying he knows nothing at all, but (maybe due to being self taught) he certainly seems to suffer from Dunning-Kruger. I am by far not the smartest person in the room/forum, particularly not regarding Philosophy, Kosmology or (evolutionary) Biology (i am rather self taught in those as well), and even i could spot the glaring holes in Harts arguments. Bel seemingly didnt. What else but dishonesty or ignorance is one to assume?

As somebody working in the field of science i have no problem, at all with "non-scientists", people who are fascinated with philosophy (i myself am interested in my free time in everything else but my profession). What i do have a issue with is (much like in my scientific environment) is people who think they are the smartest person in the room and who have no problem with letting everyone know, all.the.time., and on top of that pretending to be somehow humble still.
In the conversations ensuing about various philosophical topics i could tell you half a dozen posters who are apparently better informed, about the ideas they support and the counter arguments as well, have a more profound understanding, but no need to "let you know" all the time. I prefer any post of any of them to anything Bel has to say.

There is probably more to say, but this as much time i am willing to spend on this here and now.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

*saying

I'm also working on other things, so explicating the whole book isn't possible for me right now.

right after he asked Poly to do exactly this, while he is "working on other things".

[Goosebump]

So one vote for incompetence. You genuinely think Belacqua was just so unable to understand his own position and the text being discussed that he spontaneously called out Polymath for being dishonest? Yet the irony in this statement is dripping all over him.

Afaik he is s self-taught "philosopher", or lets say "fan of philosophy", but as in so many cases, a lack of professional education led to exactly what people usually connect with highly trained professionals: Hybris

I think first of all he has a very high opinion of himself, thinly veiled by a cloak of (fake) humility. This is why you see this condescension so often with him. Is he doing this on purpose or isnt he aware of how thin and transparent this "shell" of his is? Idk, you have to ask him.

Imo this is also the reason why he pulled shit like asking Poly to read Harts book in detail and supporting every of his (poly) responses with proper quotes from it, and then, after Poly does exactly that, Bel refuses to return the courtesy* (at least thats my understanding of what happened in the according back and forth). To me this is profoundly unfair and disrespectful.

Secondly, i think there is quite a bit of cowardice involved. The culmination (imho) was reached recently when he openly (as if that was even necessary, his actual position was clear to anyone else anyway) admitted to thinking that (paraphrasing) "evidence is overrated". Only someone suffering from hybris combined with unwillingness to "walk the walk" would hide behind such a statement, although we are often talking about topics outside of the realm of the hard sciences, yet just as often those hard sciences are more than tangentially touched too. You will also see him trying to shift the burden of proof on people.
I can not take someone (too) serious who seems to think facts of reality can be determined by logic/thinking/arguments only. It reeks of a certain lazyness to me.
The whole "metaphysics" shtick is only his very personal attempt to evade the burden of proof every time he is making claims about reality. Even worse, i even have seen him distance himself from the very same ideas he posted days before, by claiming its not his ideas/philosophy but someone elses´ (Aquinas, etc.). In politics something called "plausible deniability" comes to (my) mind.

Incompetence:
Well, i am not saying he knows nothing at all, but (maybe due to being self taught) he certainly seems to suffer from Dunning-Kruger. I am by far not the smartest person in the room/forum, particularly not regarding Philosophy, Kosmology or (evolutionary) Biology (i am rather self taught in those as well), and even i could spot the glaring holes in Harts arguments. Bel seemingly didnt. What else but dishonesty or ignorance is one to assume?

As somebody working in the field of science i have no problem, at all with "non-scientists", people who are fascinated with philosophy (i myself am interested in my free time in everything else but my profession). What i do have a issue with is (much like in my scientific environment) is people who think they are the smartest person in the room and who have no problem with letting everyone know, all.the.time., and on top of that pretending to be somehow humble still.
In the conversations ensuing about various philosophical topics i could tell you half a dozen posters who are apparently better informed, about the ideas they support and the counter arguments as well, have a more profound understanding, but no need to "let you know" all the time. I prefer any post of any of them to anything Bel has to say.

There is probably more to say, but this as much time i am willing to spend on this here and now.

Your mileage may vary, of course.

*saying

I'm also working on other things, so explicating the whole book isn't possible for me right now.

right after he asked Poly to do exactly this, while he is "working on other things".

I think we all know this:

The whole "metaphysics" shtick is only his very personal attempt to evade the burden of proof every time he is making claims about reality.

I'm not asking about a play by play of his BS, I read it. All of it. Every single post. I think I mentioned that somewhere. Why does everybody insist on posting what happened?

I think this is worth examination:

Well, i am not saying he knows nothing at all, but (maybe due to being self taught) he certainly seems to suffer from Dunning-Kruger. I am by far not the smartest person in the room/forum, particularly not regarding Philosophy, Kosmology or (evolutionary) Biology (i am rather self taught in those as well), and even i could spot the glaring holes in Harts arguments. Bel seemingly didnt. What else but dishonesty or ignorance is one to assume?

So Dishonesty!

Then I saw this and wondered...

As somebody working in the field of science i have no problem, at all with "non-scientists", people who are fascinated with philosophy (i myself am interested in my free time in everything else but my profession).

My question is... Do you game and if so would you like to do so with me?

[Belacqua]

high brow trolling

Thank you for suggesting that the trolling is "high brow."

On this thread we were discussing whether the world is necessary or contingent. This is a question people have been discussing for millennia, in any area with a tradition of philosophy -- India, Mesopotamia, Europe, China... It has been addressed by people of many religions and by atheists. Modern philosophers who devote much of their careers to this sort of question continue to disagree on the answer. A person with little or no training in philosophy who thinks he can solve the issue with a brief post on this forum is a prime candidate for a Dunning-Kruger diagnosis. 

Any obvious answer to the problem has likely been anticipated and replied to by Liebniz, Schelling, Heidegger, etc. To think that one has answered the question before checking their arguments would be premature.

I do not know the answer to whether the world is necessary or contingent.

As for poor readings of Hart's book:

Twice, very clearly, in prominent places, Hart says what he will do in the book and what he WON'T do. To respond to the book as if it's trying to do what he clearly says he won't do indicates careless reading. 

I have talked before with "polymath," so I know how confident he is in his beliefs. It's not a good use of one's time to continue, once he has announced his conclusions.

[brewer]

^^^Nice dodge.

[polymath257]

high brow trolling

Thank you for suggesting that the trolling is "high brow."

On this thread we were discussing whether the world is necessary or contingent. This is a question people have been discussing for millennia, in any area with a tradition of philosophy -- India, Mesopotamia, Europe, China... It has been addressed by people of many religions and by atheists. Modern philosophers who devote much of their careers to this sort of question continue to disagree on the answer. A person with little or no training in philosophy who thinks he can solve the issue with a brief post on this forum is a prime candidate for a Dunning-Kruger diagnosis. 

Any obvious answer to the problem has likely been anticipated and replied to by Liebniz, Schelling, Heidegger, etc. To think that one has answered the question before checking their arguments would be premature.

I do not know the answer to whether the world is necessary or contingent.

As for poor readings of Hart's book:

Twice, very clearly, in prominent places, Hart says what he will do in the book and what he WON'T do. To respond to the book as if it's trying to do what he clearly says he won't do indicates careless reading. 

I have talked before with "polymath," so I know how confident he is in his beliefs. It's not a good use of one's time to continue, once he has announced his conclusions.

I've always thought the debate with someone of strong beliefs is the best way to educate myself (and others) about the real issues.

To debate someone who doesn't actually believe their position is not very helpful.

Yes, Hart clearly states that he just wants to educate others about his position. But he does so through bad logic, through ridicule of those who disagree, and through making baseless claims.

Which, I guess, is a good description of his position.

[Simon Moon]

He owns the burden of proof.

"Burden of proof" is way overrated.

Sorry, but that is laughable.

We need a starting point to even begin to find out the truth. If the burden of proof is not used, what else should be that starting point?

I guess if one does not care if their beliefs are true, or possibly true, then sure, shirking their burden of proof is a perfectly good method to become a credulous fool.

It's not writ in stone. It's often used as a way to avoid defending one's own position. If the goal is to "win" something in a debate club, it may be useful. If we're trying to work out the truth, as best we can, it's an interruption.

It is one of the most basic foundations for valid and sound logic, and the basis of the scientific method.

I'm sure one would be laughed out of any college level philosophy department, or science department, with that position. Unless one could come up with another method that demonstrated it is as consistently reliable for separating fact from fiction. Got one?

No, the goal with requiring a burden of proof, is to separate fact from fiction. The fact that it can be used successfully in a debate, only goes to demonstrate its efficacy.

If he has reasons for his position, he should give them. If we have reasons why we find his position unpersuasive, we should give them. Meanwhile if we find better alternative explanations they may be useful.

So, without using the burden of proof, how are we able to logically find someone's position unpersuasive? What is a more reliable metric?

Without using the burden of proof, how do we go about determining if any of these alleged alternative explanations are actually rational?

How do we go about even determining if they are candidate explanations?

[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?

[arewethereyet]

high brow trolling

Thank you for suggesting that the trolling is "high brow."

On this thread we were discussing whether the world is necessary or contingent. This is a question people have been discussing for millennia, in any area with a tradition of philosophy -- India, Mesopotamia, Europe, China... It has been addressed by people of many religions and by atheists. Modern philosophers who devote much of their careers to this sort of question continue to disagree on the answer. A person with little or no training in philosophy who thinks he can solve the issue with a brief post on this forum is a prime candidate for a Dunning-Kruger diagnosis. 

Any obvious answer to the problem has likely been anticipated and replied to by Liebniz, Schelling, Heidegger, etc. To think that one has answered the question before checking their arguments would be premature.

I do not know the answer to whether the world is necessary or contingent.

As for poor readings of Hart's book:

Twice, very clearly, in prominent places, Hart says what he will do in the book and what he WON'T do. To respond to the book as if it's trying to do what he clearly says he won't do indicates careless reading. 

I have talked before with "polymath," so I know how confident he is in his beliefs. It's not a good use of one's time to continue, once he has announced his conclusions.

Bold mine - did you just admit to trolling?