501. The Return of Religion

Comment #212722 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 3:17 pm

271. Comment #212697 by Mark Smith

I don't think it is accurate to say that "Steve advocates some versions of Buddhism". I think that Steve advocates not lumping some versions of buddhism in with all supernatural religion. Which is not at all the same thing.

502. The Return of Religion

Comment #212713 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

259. Comment #212679 by Eric Blair

But all of those points have been addressed, Blair.

I'm not going to bust out my good stuff when there isn't even a dialogue. It's just a comment, on an article.

The guy also says some untrue, and nasty things. Also it's hard to see straight when someone is saying that your rhetoric is reminicient of Luther. They aren't trying to have a constructive conversation then, they are trying to be belligerent.

Maybe I've allowed this to escalate, and only deliver better support for his case about what nasty-meanies people like me are.

C'mon people, I've already been made to feel the fool once in this thread, lay off.

503. Anti-Darwinists turned away by Israeli academia

Comment #212693 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 2:54 pm

I would have a problem with this, if it wasn't for the fact that I (as has already been mentioned) am extremely skeptical of the idea of a "serious scientist" whom does not accept the science of evolution.

The things are clearly mutually exclusive.

504. 'Condoms won't change HIV rates'

Comment #212677 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 2:32 pm

I can think of some colourful words to describe this comtemptible individual, but I will reframe.

505. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212674 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 2:23 pm

This whole Darwinism buisness is just silly.

I don't know how many times I've been told that my "atheist bible" is "Darwin's: the theory of evolution". They could at least get my bible's title right.

506. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #212657 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 2:07 pm

727. Comment #212624 by barras

I don't think that is fair. I don't support it, as I argue against it for pages in this very thread (and in others). As did many other posters. Saying "this website supports" is plain wrong.

It leads me to believe that you never bothered to even seen what anyone thinks, or read a few posters that did support it and made a sweeping generalisation.

From my experience discussing this over the past few days, more people are against than in support.

507. The Return of Religion

Comment #212650 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 1:59 pm

"Theology: A very short introduction".

Was that an explanation of how to say "goddidit" in four thousand words or more?

508. The Return of Religion

Comment #212641 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 1:43 pm

233. Comment #212638 by CocoCantare

I never considered the bystanders when I onloaded. I'm not as clever, articulate, or eloquent as Cartomancer, so my ghetto-white-trash natural tends to surface when I get annoyed.

Being challenged on old and nasty habits is a quick way to see your error, and try to move past them. Which is what I'll try to do.

Thanks.

509. The Return of Religion

Comment #212632 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 1:22 pm

207. Comment #212594 by CocoCantare

Well, in my defence, I do use dick far more often. Though I never used it to connotate weakness. I use it in the sense of a contemptable person, the same way as dick. Though I apologize for causing you offence, and I have no real defence for doing so.

It was insensative of me, and I was wrong to do it. There are a lot more terms I can use to signify my contempt.

I will make an effort to refrain from using the words in such a way again.

The last thing I want is for someone to feel that I am singling them out in some way, and insulting, or being abusive to them for no reason.

I am sincerely sorry.

510. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212597 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Besides all that, as I mentioned much eariler on in the thread, but it went unanswered, doesn't the second amendment only grant the right to bear arms to "well regulated militias"?

511. The Return of Religion

Comment #212589 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 11:53 am

What the hell Morgan? I was by far the most forceful, loud, persistent, and offensive. I mentioned physical retribution, and cunts large enough to have measureable astronomical effects.

512. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212564 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 10:52 am

463. Comment #212554 by Ed-words

Oh, I was just playing around, Ed-Word.

Besides, I don't turn to ad hominem, we're always walking hand-in-hand.

513. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212551 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 10:26 am

461. Comment #212548 by hungarianelephant

I think that we can all agree that Ed-word is retarded.

514. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212545 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 10:18 am

456. Comment #212539 by Sciros

Well, clearly there is a lot of pretty silly equivocations going on. I also am very supportive of the right to offend. I am not arguing that you shouldn't offend religious people.

I am arguing that you should not breach agreements, whether unspoken or not, and break the rules of organized events of anykind without due cause.

In this way it is perfectly analogous to a sports event. Because the reactions will be different, one you are likely to offend, the other just annoy. The important similarity is the fact of the wanton violation of the rules that you, even if unspokenly, agreed to upon participating.

I don't care if you're disrupting a child's tea party or pissing in the holy water. What matters is that you are needlessly, and purposelessly disrupting, and violating the rules of the event.

Which I find to be civically and ethically questionable.

515. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212534 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:59 am

452. Comment #212531 by Ed-words

Can't you read? What have I been saying?

What I said to you was, don't ask us what it means to them, ask them. I don't give a shit what it means to them, I only care about the fact that it means something to them.

I don't know nor do I care about the specifics of what it means to them. Nor is it relevant.

516. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212529 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:54 am

450. Comment #212525 by hungarianelephant

I really don't think that it an invented concept. I also don't think that Mr Cook has done anything wrong. He made a mistake in the procedure that was not explicated to him, and they took action that he was not aware that they would take.

If they expect the rules to be followed, they need to explicate them, and their importance, and say themselves that there is a conditional transfer. I did not once say that there was I said "can't it be argued for", as in "is the concept coherent?"

I don't know the rules, or the practices. I do think that anyone, who does know them, and does understand that they consider it against the rules to the degree to foster such outrage, goes, and aquires one of their crackers under false pretenses, is being civically and ethically irresponsible.

517. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212524 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:44 am

448. Comment #212521 by Ed-words

I don't care what it is to them. Ask them about what it is to them, and how to replace it. You asked us who aren't them a silly question.

You might as well ask us how it can be the body of christ. Your answer isn't going to be what they think.

518. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212518 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:39 am

446. Comment #212516 by Steve Zara

It's kind of sad, isn't it Steve? I do feel awefully silly trying to arguing the conditions and proper procedure of eating a cracker.

519. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212514 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:35 am

443. Comment #212511 by hungarianelephant

Not everything is worth legislation, that doesn't mean that similar rules cannot apply. The only difference is that in one case, the breaking of the rules results in damages in ways accessive enough to warrent civil action. I only agreed that this doesn't warrent civil action.

You're clearly equivocating. Clearly because they may noy enforce those rules, but they sure as hell are trying to enforce this one. So clearly they don't consider it the same thing, and thus not all the conditions are equal.

I already disagreed with your analogy, further use will not change my mind.

Clearly there is a spectrum of severity of breaking with the rules. You again appear to be equivocating.

520. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212512 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:28 am

442. Comment #212504 by Ed-words

Perhaps, but you asked how they are going to replace it, which was a silly question. So I gave a silly answer.

521. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212501 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:10 am

439. Comment #212494 by hungarianelephant

Clearly I didn't mean an actually legal case. Just the principle. That the cracker is only tranfered to you under the condition that you follow through with their ceremonial practices. If you neglect to do this, then the cracker was never actually transfered to you because you did not meet the conditions of the transfer.

At the very least, there is a breach of trust, and I think that it is disengenuous to pretend that there are not conditions in this ceremony, just as their are in a sport. It is not like a pair of socks that they give to you with the assumption of that you wear them on your feet. It is a case where the actions that you follow upon receiving the cracker are manditory, not merely suggested or implied. Thus the controvery, and thus the outrage.

522. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212492 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 9:02 am

434. Comment #212486 by Ed-words

Apparently they manage to by the next communion. Are you really trying to figure out how it works?

I'll give you a hint (*pst*) It doesn't, it's all make-believe, and in imagination land, things work however you want them too, even the logically incoherent(*pst*)

523. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212489 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 8:59 am

435. Comment #212487 by Sciros

She didn't get to keep it, and I imagine if she spent any she'd be having sunlight pumped to her right about now.

524. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212485 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 8:56 am

430. Comment #212474 by hungarianelephant

But can't a notwithstanding claus me argued for? Something may be freely given to you, but that does not mean that the transfer of of title doesn't come with conditions.

525. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212481 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 8:54 am

The bank "gives" you $100,000 through a computer error.

526. The Return of Religion

Comment #212424 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 7:47 am

114. Comment #212272 by MPhil

Yes, I noticed this too, quite awhile ago. I pointed it out to my father (who was using such a tactic) to my younger brother's amusement.

It is plainly self-deprecating. I likened it to gay rights activists calling their opponents "fags". It's mind boggling.

It's also a kind of silent concession isn't it? They are agreeing that religions is bad. You can't attempt to insult someone by aligning them with something you think is good.

527. The Return of Religion

Comment #212420 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 7:35 am

15. Comment #211815 by AdrianB

What argument? That atheists are big-meanies, theism is true because he feels it in his heart, and consciousness is hard to understand?

528. The Return of Religion

Comment #212418 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 7:33 am

Roger Scruton, you are a huge, massive, colossal, gargantuan, egregiously-large cunt.

That is all.

529. The Return of Religion

Comment #212407 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 7:14 am

[Article]

Richard Dawkins is the most influential living example of this tradition, and his message, echoed by Dan Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, sounds as loud and strident in the media today as the message of Luther in the reformed churches of Germany.

530. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212404 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 7:08 am

I'm wondering, after an atheists kills 'em all, who sorts 'em out?

531. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212398 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 6:59 am

420. Comment #212293 by Steve Zara

I find that philosophers tend to sagway back and forth between natural language and formal language in a way that can often be confusing.

416. Comment #212259 by Bonzai

I think that there are many that call themselves philosophers, and some of them even are, that act as if god died yesterday and now we're all fucked. They're absolutists that don't believe in absolutes, and theists that don't believe in god. (this is ignoring the many philosophers that are theists and absolutists of course)

Every nihilist I've ever conversed with fitted this description.

They act as if it should matter that there is no objective values, or meaning, and no absolute truths or answers. That this is something that is not just a new revelation, but is something that is new all together. As if this means something at all.

I think that such people often talk in absolute terms, and give an impression that they matter, and warrent mention at the very least. I couldn't disagree more, beyond hyperbole, I don't think absolute terms belong in our vernacular at all.

532. Fury at funeral songs ban

Comment #212350 by Mitchell Gilks on July 17, 2008 at 4:17 am

When I go I just want the $100 cremation in the $40 cardboard box. No one better spend money one a stupid coffin and plot. What a rippoff.

533. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212178 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm

I should also point out that if people are looking for definitives from philosophy, then you are asking for something unreasonable. No such knowledge exists when talking about the world and reality, including preceptions, and logical, semantic, conceptual abstractions of reality.

We are not privy to definitives, and I don't think that it is possible that we ever will be.

We will only ever have "better", "more elegant" "more parsimonious" "more appriopriate" "holding more explanatory value" "more logical".

These are all we will ever have, and they are all that is reasonable to expect. We also know this because of philosophy.

Absolute knowledge and truth, is the horizon, we can only ever pretend we're actually appraoching it. All we can hope for it a gradation of improvement in the elements of our ideas that I mentioned.

534. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212165 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 6:13 pm

This is why I am overly bothered by instances, of like that women durring RD and Stephen Pinkers talk talking about what "really is a lion".

She may have a point to make, and it may even be lucid, and reasonable given you know what she is talking about. She alluded to some philosophical position briefly to justify her position.

What annoys me, is that the average listener is going to hear nothing more than a women say something that is a kick in the stomach to their common-sense.

She appears to be doing nothing more than attempting to overly complicate an extremely simple issue.

This gives people that are prone to hasty generalisations, and quick over-arching normative judgements based on little data, the impression that philosophy is nothing more than complicating something that is otherwise simple. They may think they do this because they're morons, or dicks, but the common impression is that they are just trying to feign wisdow and intellectualism by doing this.

I don't know what her point was, or what she was drawing it from, though I find it extremely easy to draw a similar conclusion, at least about her, based on that incident. It is also true, that like in any field, there are more people bad at their jobs than good at them.

I think that philosophy is a discipline that has not been as refined and formalized as mathematics, because it isn't considered as applicable, or useful. I think that there have been insights, and ideas that have come out of philosophy that were necessary for science to be developed, for formalized logic, for the enlightenment, for many political systems, and many extremely interesting, and respectable ethical outlooks. It can influence morality, rationality, and science in ways that are impossible to ignore or dismiss, and it has a hell of a lot to still offer. For instance, morality and ethics is still a subject no one is really digging into, at least not as a society. We either leave this (beyond legislations) up to personal intuition, or religion. I find this no different than leaving reason, up to the same faculties/institutions. It's ludicrous.

In order to move forward, morally, and ethically, we need to formalize a reliable system of morality, just as we have formalized logic. This cannot be done without philosophy, and I really think that the more people deny this, and are content on leaving it up to their intuitions, or the dictates of religions, the more we will be held back in this area. We move forward as a species in so many areas with lightning speed, but our ethics crawls along. There is no reason why it's progression should not match our other achievements.

I'm not sure if it is appriopriate to compare philosophy with mathematics, but I do think that it is of equal importance, and it plays a much larger rule in our lives than we realise.

I'm done my diatribe.

535. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212124 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 4:22 pm

405. Comment #212099 by MPhil

That whole "essence" buisness has been a head-scratcher for me as well. Spinoza refered to a dodgy "substance" thing as well, that I found more intelligable, but I didn't get to far into "spinoza on ethics" before I had to stop. He writes so axiomatically, or formulaically. I found him extremely hard to follow.

Though in his outlining of his idea of the absurdity of talking about people being mad from mud, and that things must come from other similar things, with only slight variations. I really was impressed, it sounded like he was pretty damn close to an idea of evolution. Though, hindsight is 20/20 and he may not have even considered the idea as I interpret it with my modern knowledge.

536. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212114 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 4:12 pm

He needs to be on a static IP for a ban to work, though, I think where ever he is (presumably where knowledge and intelligence cannot permiate, and where he'd be allowed to teach), it must be somewhere extremely backward, and thus use an old modem. So he is likely on a dynamic IP.

537. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212102 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 3:51 pm

103. Comment #212095 by MPhil

Oh...right...that... I forgot about that. I just neglect thinking about that. I remember right after reading his books I sent him an email asking for some time of clarification. I said I'm sure he has received several and has a prepared "copy and paste" response, that would be just fine by me. I never received a response, though I'm sure he received far too many email to respond to.

I really wish he's expatiate more about them. I really don't think I'm the only one who doesn't quite get what he means, and would like to to spell it out precise. Not opt a defence for it, or something like he normally does, but just explain what he means exactly, as clearly as he can. I think he tends to get defensive about it, and start defending it, when no one really even knows what he is defending. That is one thing I just kinda ignore. I meant besides all that... lol. (Some compartmentalization on my part there I guess)

I will get around to reading it, and I have watched a few of his lectures about his belief in belief ideas. (and Rush wrote a song called "faithless" that includes the phraze)

I agree that belief in the supernatural is a probelm, but I think that it is a subset of a more general irrationality problem, that is not helped by getting people to think "supernatural = wrong". That may help fight a class of irrationality, but it does nothing against irrationality itself.

538. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #212088 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 3:29 pm

101. Comment #212018 by MPhil

Yes, Dennett least when it comes to Atheism. I haven't really read anything by him. I hate to confess, but I haven't actually read "breaking the spell" I've only read Sam Harris's books, Hitchen's "God is not great" and "the portable atheist" (I liked the portable atheist a lot, I thought it was better than god is not great, but both were fantastic.) From Dawkins I've read "The God Delusion" "The ancestor's tale" and "river out of eden". I haven't read anything by Dennett, so that is probably why.

I find myself agreeing with Sam Harris the most, may I ask what points you differ from him on? Mostly I like his advocacy of reason in general, and calling out irrationality, and bad ideas whenever we see them, not just when supernatural. Not to be a dick to anyone, but I find a lot of people that hang around here just reject the supernatural and call themselves rationalists. I really don't think that supernatural beliefs are any bigger problem, or necessarily more irrational than any absurd, and completely unjustified belief. It takes more than the rejection of a certain class of proposition to justify calling yourself a rationalist in my opinion.

539. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212079 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 3:13 pm

401. Comment #212022 by MPhil

The constant headache, and paranoid fear that it is something life threatening (despite knowing that it isn't) has been really what has bothered me. Though I have run out of proscribed medication now for a couple weeks, and the headache isn't going away. I will go back to the hospital if it doesn't go away by the end of the week. This is going on six weeks now. I'm just a big complainer, it really just my working excuse for being lazy.

I do not have an extensive, nay, any, knowledge of formal logic, so I will heed your advice.

540. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212057 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 2:26 pm

452. Comment #211836 by Bonzai

This is accurate, a large portion of suicides are committed by bipolar individuals, on a down trip. People with bipolar disorder hit lows lower than people with depression. It is a chemical imbalance, leaving one experiencing something similar to what ectasy users refer to as "suicide tuesdays" when you have spent all weekend on ectasy, and experience the effects of burning up a large portion of the endorphins that regulate mood by tuesday. Which takes the form of a deep depression.

For a bipolar individual, they need relatively fast access to something to kill themselves with, because they will not stay in that state for a prolonged period of time.

541. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212010 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I favor yuri series, or at least ones with female leads.

Both of the ones you mentioned do have the latter, but I haven't watched them, even my anime track has fallen behind. I wasted a year and a half playing world of warcraft (where I aquired two level 70s Female NE DW fury warrior, and a Male BE pure-fire mage. Epic flying mount, and the best of the pvp gear, and then a lack of interest in playing anymore. Seeing the new diablo 3 trailers have sunk the last nail in the coffin of WoW for me. Now I must have diablo again. I'll revert to my ps3, with MGS 4 and FF XIII for gaming for now), so I'm trying to get through my lists of anime and manga I've missed. Of course with yuri at the top. Though since I heard such good things about Clannad, I've moved it to the top of the list.

I'm estatically waiting for the first OVA of Shoujo Sect to come out at the end of this month. Just as the last OVA of Mnemoynse comes out this month. Also, if I'm not mistake, the second OVA of My Otome O~S.ifr~ comes out this month as well. It is a good month for yuri.

542. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212003 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm

396. Comment #211990 by MPhil

I'm have let a lot of work and stuff stack up over the last month because I've been sick and paranoid about how sick, but I will write those titles down and really try to get around to them. I am deeply interested in the subject.

543. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #212001 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 1:00 pm

395. Comment #211983 by Sciros

She was fury, it didn't count. Don't be dis'in' Spice and Wolf. Fantastically clever, funny, intelligent and entertaining series. One of the best for sure.

All I have to do is try to work in cute girls with philosophy and I'll have a successful manga.

544. Ants, terrorism, and the awesome power of memes

Comment #211995 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 12:54 pm

I agree with MPhil about RD, but I must stress that I don't think that he pretends to anymore depth in the area than he possesses, and he is better read, and has more depth in the subject than someone like me, but there is indeed a noticable difference between him and a philosopher.

I don't know MPhils opinion, but I am personally very impressed by Sam Harris's clarity of thought, and depth in the areas. I enjoy reading and listening to him the most out of the four. Hitchens second, RD third, and Dennett fourth.

545. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211973 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 12:39 pm

Damn MPhil, you read a lot of books. You have probably read as many books as I have watched animes. Or maybe read manga would be a better analogy. Oh I've read at least a thousand. Though many weren't more than a few dozen pages.

If only they made some about philosophy! Spice and Wolf was about economics. Maybe I should do one, it is bound to have a huge fan base!

546. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211961 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 12:28 pm

389. Comment #211944 by MPhil

I think that "is there a god" is an empiricle question. How could one go about solving that with pure reason?

I'd like to see someone prove that a rabit exists with pure reason.

547. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211935 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 12:05 pm

386. Comment #211929 by huzonfurst

Kind of hard to have a constructive conversation with someone without knowing what they mean by stuff.

Besides, I know I wasn't trying to "one up" MPhil.

Even if it turns out that we were talking differently about the same thing, I feel that I come away from this with a clearer understanding of the concepts.

Without semantics, no one could communicate, and without semantics, that sometimes appear pedantic, and anal, you can't communicate specific and naunced subjects, intelligently, and clearly.

Lastly, I find it amazing that we do finish a discussion in agreement. That rarely happens, for me anyway. Often this is probably largely because of a misunderstanding that was not rooted out and stifled.

548. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211915 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 11:47 am

379. Comment #211909 by MPhil

Yes, I think we've once again reached an agreement here.

549. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211911 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 11:43 am

378. Comment #211906 by MPhil

Indeed, there is natural and formal science. I'd hate to go without formal science because it doesn't generate so-called "real" knowledge.

550. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211902 by Mitchell Gilks on July 16, 2008 at 11:38 am

372. Comment #211886 by MPhil

In a sense that no one thought about it before, then yes. In a sense that it couldn't have been thought of without some form of external investigation, then no.

Perhaps I should seperate knowledge into categories. When I think about knowledge, I think about information being derived about the world through investigation of the world.

This would be a different kind of knowledge (in this case) one that is derived from through introspection, or pure reason.

I think that at the very least a distinction should be made, because of the lack of cross-over.