• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

What useful stuff has *modern* philosophy accomplished for man-kind?

Seriously, how do i determine if he's in a position of authority with respect to satire, or if he's just jealous of those that do it and get away with it?

I would imagine you could read the introduction I alluded to. You can probably do a search on Novalis/Carlyle and find it easily enough.

I respectfully suggest that you refrain from typing 'Um'. I'm pretty sure it's more of a reflection on you than the person you're addressing.

Pretty sure, not certain, as Detective Kinderman would say.

:joy:
 
Kharakov said:
I've has my work dismissed in public by someone who spoke from position of authority, rather than knowledge. It is one particular case- it hasn't happened often, but it stuck in my mind because of the situation. They totally appealed to their authority in their field of discipline to dismiss something that is true. They said something along the lines of "I've been doing this type of math for over 25 years, almost every day, and I know that you can't do it that way." Guess what? They were wrong.

People who are authorities in their area of expertise can sometimes make stupid mistakes, and assume that the only way to do something is the way they've been doing it for 20+ years, because that is the way they'd been taught to do something. Math is math, and when it works, it works, and that's one of the greatest things about mathematics. You know that your work is right when it generates the same results as the other persons "only correct way to do things".

So while I always questioned authority before this experience, after this experience I absolutely knew as an absolute fact that I could never accept what an authority figure in any discipline claimed was an absolute truth. In other words, I've got to know it myself, which the majority of you here would totally agree with.
Oh man, you must be SERIOUS! :p
EB

Another aspect of scientific bullying is in gotcha pranks where public-spirited open-mindedness is mocked as naive vulnerability to woo-woo pranks. Disgusting.
Your misinterpretation...

Kharakov is notorious for posting deadpan nth-level humour and I have been had several times taking his posts too seriously. My last post was only understandable in this context.

I would in fact concur that some posters on the science forum, sometimes venturing into a philosophy forum, have a tendency to reply at the level of schoolyard culture to non-hard-science topics. I started a thread a few months ago on FRDB about the significance of human beings in the universe and got mostly horseshit from the science forum.

EB

+ 1 for Speakpigeon! [bolding in quote mine]
 
Ironically, it was the Pythons who maintained a serious and totally respectful dialogue, while defending their film "Life of Brian", and the religious duo who did little but resort to mockery and ad homs.
Um...that's not irony.
It's probably their strategy. I'm sure when they prepared for the show, they knew that the religious would be expecting mockery and humour. So that's what the religious prepared to fight. In essence, the Pythons mocked the religious for expecting that they were capable of nothing but satire.
My overall point is that there is a place for mockery and satire, and a place for rational discussion.
Thus my comment, if he's going to attack science without any support for his claims, why is the burden on others to respond to this shit rationally?
This forum is called Talk Freethought, and I assume it's supposed to be intended for rational discussion.
Yes, and you're expected to support your claims.
No Robots doesn't fit that latter description.
Knowing a lot of shit does not mean you're not stupid. It's what you do with the information you have that defines stupidity. NR has a few surveys and quotes and tries to apply one person's opinion to the whole of an industry. One prank defines the soul of science. One quote counters any number of facts. There's no universal definition of what 'philosophy' even means, but he's presented Spinoza's opinion as THE definition.

That's irrational.
 
I love ya, Keith, but at this point I'm beginning to wonder if you can be reasoned with,
But i don't see you reasoning.
You quote authority figures and belabor your opinion.
If i don't accept them as authority figures, or share your opinion, there's not much going on that i'd call 'reason with.'
By 'reason with' do you really mean a simple 'agree with?' Because that would fit.
 
Um...that's not irony.

It's probably their strategy. I'm sure when they prepared for the show, they knew that the religious would be expecting mockery and humour. So that's what the religious prepared to fight. In essence, the Pythons mocked the religious for expecting that they were capable of nothing but satire.

Of course it's ironic. The Pythons are one of the worlds foremost purveyors of satire and mockery; therefore, when they behave themselves in front of two hyper-religious people (one of them an obvious 'poofter': NOT that there's anything wrong with that. < Humour) we have a perfect instance of irony. Most humour, especially Python-type humour, is all about irony.

Examples: a bunch of policemen sitting around knitting; a six-foot-five boxer (Cleese) getting into the ring with a little girl in a dress and repeatedly knocking her down; a clinic where a person can pay to have an argument, and then become involved in an argument about the definition of an argument, etc. Irony is the unexpected. Humans find the unexpected terribly funny. I know I do. Do you? Nobody expects the..!
My overall point is that there is a place for mockery and satire, and a place for rational discussion.
Thus my comment, if he's going to attack science without any support for his claims, why is the burden on others to respond to this shit rationally?
This forum is called Talk Freethought, and I assume it's supposed to be intended for rational discussion.
Yes, and you're expected to support your claims.
No Robots doesn't fit that latter description.
Knowing a lot of shit does not mean you're not stupid. It's what you do with the information you have that defines stupidity. NR has a few surveys and quotes and tries to apply one person's opinion to the whole of an industry. One prank defines the soul of science. One quote counters any number of facts. There's no universal definition of what 'philosophy' even means, but he's presented Spinoza's opinion as THE definition.

That's irrational.


I don't think NR has presented Spinoza's definition of philosophy as "THE" definition. In fact, you assume that he has, when he hasn't.

That being said, Spinoza does kick ass, philosophically speaking. Deleuze calls him "the prince of philosophers"; Hegel (another misunderstood genius) venerated Spinoza, as did a host of others.

*puts on prophet's hat*: Spinoza's time still hasn't come. Eventually, he will be recognized universally (meaning globally, not literally in all the universe) as the greatest of philosophers. *takes off prophet's hat*.



Um sort of sounds like aum. So everytime you say Um, Imma say aum.

Aum... (< levity)
 
I love ya, Keith, but at this point I'm beginning to wonder if you can be reasoned with,
But i don't see you reasoning.
You quote authority figures and belabor your opinion.
If i don't accept them as authority figures, or share your opinion, there's not much going on that i'd call 'reason with.'
By 'reason with' do you really mean a simple 'agree with?' Because that would fit.

Damn, you caught me before I deleted that bit and replaced it with something nicer.

I am reasoning quite well, thanks. Yes, I quote poets and authors, but there's no appeal to authority in any formal sense. All I'm doing is quoting poets and authors who've written things I happen to agree with and use certain tidbits to emphasize and bolster my point of view. This is common practice, and has been in literature, for centuries!

You read, I'm sure? Haven't you noticed how overrun with notes, footnotes, and footnotes to footnotes, a lot of the more 'intellectual' books are? Especially back in C19! I've read PDF docs of various books, history, poetry, philosophy, from that period, and in those days some of the books published were so overwhelmed with notes, footnotes, notes about footnotes, footnotes about notes, that I couldn't figure out who was saying what or what the bleedin' hell was going on.
 
I am reasoning quite well, thanks. Yes, I quote poets and authors, but there's no appeal to authority in any formal sense.
Funny. Then why mention what any given person says on the subject?
All I'm doing is quoting poets and authors who've written things I happen to agree with and use certain tidbits to emphasize and bolster my point of view.
But all you've offered is your point of view. I mean, you haven't actually offered any argument about why mockery is wrong, in and of itself.
You've stated that it's wrong, and list people who agree with you. Where's the reason?
 
That being said, No Robots is not attacking science per se, or science qua science, but certain scientists, and the proliferation of scientism. Scientism isn't merely a bad word thought up by theists or wooers to be offensive to science, it's a very real thing: it is happening. This is NOT to say that it is indicative of a state of affairs wherein the majority of scientists, or people who endorse and advocate the manifest success of science, are guilty of scientism. It is only to draw attention to the fact that some people endorse and advocate science to the near exclusion of any other form of intellectual endeavor, and that this is an unfortunate symptom of the proliferation of scientism.

I think that you are saying is reasonable. But I got the impression, given some of his remarks, that No Robots was going a fair bit further than attacking certain scientists and 'scientism.'

Thanks for reminding me of something, DBT: I should not be speaking for No Robots. Just as Speakpigeon probably shouldn't have gone to bat for Togo. We should all pull our own weight here, and if we all behave like gentlemen or gentlewomen (are there any women here today? < Python humour, Life of Brian, stoning scene, rollickingly funny) no one should have to speak for anyone else or go out of their (YAY! a gender-free word!) way to defend another poster.

From now on I want you all to call me Loretta. Honestly.
 
Funny. Then why mention what any given person says on the subject?
All I'm doing is quoting poets and authors who've written things I happen to agree with and use certain tidbits to emphasize and bolster my point of view.
But all you've offered is your point of view. I mean, you haven't actually offered any argument about why mockery is wrong, in and of itself.
You've stated that it's wrong, and list people who agree with you. Where's the reason?

Alrighty then, howzabout we start another thread about mockery and satire, and I will enter that thread and explain to the best of my disability my views on that subject?

Why mention what any given person says on the subject?
Keith, I answered that question. I'll repeat though: to emphasize and bolster my point of view.

It's a time-honored tradition amongst us scribbler types to quote from our scribbling ancestors. We like to do it. We like to give props to our betters (or worsers) and to keep things on/in a certain continuum.

Go read my latest entry in the New Poem A Day thread, in the Lounge. It's actually pretty good. I borrow and steal from my betters with a will, and it's the first time I've ever attempted terza rima, the form invented by the great Italian poet Dante for his Divinia Commedia way back in C13.

Or don't. I realize most people would rather stick needles in their eyes than read poetry.

*****Edited in. I didn't say mockery and satire were wrong, exactly. I said there was a time and place for it. Actually I DO think that making fun of people (as in particular individuals) is wrong, wrong, wrong. Unless you can do it in universals, and with great wit and intelligence, like Monty Python.

Not to say that they didn't make fun of specific individuals. Maggie Thatcher and various others were often the nub of their jib, or the rub of their...something.
 
Last edited:
Of course it's ironic. The Pythons are one of the worlds foremost purveyors of satire and mockery; therefore, when they behave themselves in front of two hyper-religious people ... we have a perfect instance of irony.
No, we don't. If you examine the works of the Pythons, they were not just randomly making up insults. They were very well educated and their works are very precisely aimed at given ideas, people, traditions, or whatever. There was always a layer of very intellectual processing in the creation of their humor. All they did was present the work that went into The Life Of Brian, which was always there.
There's no juxtaposition of opposing ideas in their performance.
Most humour, especially Python-type humour, is all about irony.
Yes. But the fact that the end product was ironic does not mean that the fact it was well-thought out is ironic. It doesn't make it ironic that they had a rational explanation of what the film really meant, and did, rather than the shallow understanding being used by their opponents who probably hadn't actually seen it, or if they did, watched it JUST for things to mock.
Irony is the unexpected.
No. Slapstick is 'the unexpected.' Irony is far more subtle.
I don't think NR has presented Spinoza's definition of philosophy as "THE" definition. In fact, you assume that he has, when he hasn't.
Allow me to review the post in question.

Edit to add:
Philosophy stands outside and above science, and is thus empowered to criticize it. In fact, the chief duty of philosophy is to criticize, correct and lead science. Here is the guiding principle of philosophy:
quote spinoza​
You're right. He didn't say 'definition.'
He also didn't say "A" duty of philosophy, or "A" guiding principle of philosophy, or 'the duty/guiding principle of Spinoza's philosophy.'

I feel incredibly unapologetic for the mistake that I made, frankly.
 
You're right, I gave an incorrect definition of irony.

I apologize for my mistake.
 
Why mention what any given person says on the subject? Keith, I answered that question. I'll repeat though: to emphasize and bolster my point of view.

It's a time-honored tradition amongst us scribbler types to quote from our scribbling ancestors. We like to do it. We like to give props to our betters (or worsers) and to keep things on/in a certain continuum.
So, name-dropping a celebrity that agrees with you as if he endorses your position is different from argument by authority?
You're sure about that?
Actually I DO think that making fun of people (as in particular individuals) is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Okay.
Am i mocking No Robots or am i mocking his argument, his lack of evidence, his misuse of evidence, his overextended claims?
 
So, name-dropping a celebrity that agrees with you as if he endorses your position is different from argument by authority?
You're sure about that?

Egads. An argument from authority is when someone claims that since X said Y, then Y has to be true, because X is/was an authority. I have not done that.

We are not having a formal argument, and I have not committed the fallacy of an appeal to authority! Are you going to force me to use exclamation points! I hate exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If everyone who quoted a different author by way of citing material that was congruent with his/her argument, then virtually EVERY writer in EVERY field of intellectual endeavor would be guilty of appeals to authoritay!

(^ Southpark Humor. Decided to use the mercan spelling this time, out of a sense of fair play.)


Actually I DO think that making fun of people (as in particular individuals) is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Okay.
Am i mocking No Robots or am i mocking his argument, his lack of evidence, his misuse of evidence, his overextended claims?

I think you've been unnecessarily unkind and ungenerous to No Robots. What's really unfortunate about all of this is that you're actually not very good at satire-slash-mockery. If you were better at it, like the wicked-smaat (Bostonian accent) Kharakov, then I'd be less inclined to keep nagging you about it. I'd really prefer to stop nagging you about it, in fact.

And in fact, I'm sorry that I've nagged you about it. I'm all too-human and I have ONE HELL of a time keeping my Hyde-side under sedation. At this point, this fact is ridiculously obvious to everyone, despite my ongoing effort to be polite, gentle, and kind.

I really am sorry! Honest. < this is NOT mockery or satire, but comes from my heart. I swear on the sacred lives of my two sons. I can't make a more sincere oath than that.

It may be time for me to take a month off, if we can still self-ban, because I've got a monster of a headache and I can't see this dialogue improving over the long-stretch...

At the very least, I won't make another cyber-peep for several hours. Promise!

:sad-smiley-021:

(I would really like to be called Loretta, by the way...)
 
Egads. An argument from authority is when someone claims that since X said Y, then Y has to be true, because X is/was an authority. I have not done that.
Okay.
We are not having a formal argument,
Wait, you can only commit a logical fallacy in a formal argument?
If everyone who quoted a different author by way of citing material that was congruent with his/her argument, than virtually EVERY writer in EVERY field of intellectual endeavor would be guilty of appeals to authoritay!
Well, yeah. Except, of course, that sometimes they really are authorities and it's not a fallacy. Actually, the fallacy is argument by respect for authority. Offering Einstein's opinion on God, for example.
I think you've been unnecessarily unkind and ungenerous to No Robots.
But you think all mockery is unneccesary in discourse, so how does one gage this comment?
Like, if a blind guy says that the dance hall is too dark. Do we add lights, leave it the same, what?
What's really unfortunate about all of this is that you're actually not very good at satire-slash-mockery.
Awwww. You judge my skill based on the effort i think it requires to point out No Robots' errors.
Well, being judged is the human condition.

Are you a Blackadder fan, by any chance? I think i do a bit of alright:
http://elephanticity.250x.com/oldhex/parody/trekadder.html
I really am sorry! Honest. < this is NOT mockery or satire, but comes from my heart. I swear on the sacred lives of my two sons. I can't make a more sincere oath than that.
William, i believed you as soon as i read it.
 
The life of Spinoza—

Pass over to this side all of you, fighters in this battle, ye Espritals [Geistigen]—for you are the fighters against the powers of spiritlessness—ye Espritals, who feel the importance and the depth of life, and who experience by and in yourselves the marks of the Eternal at its foundation, those colossal marks of Art, Philosophy, and Love! Ye Esprital fighters, who at present and at all times pursue in your life and with your life one great mission of Truth; and who, in return, get your reward from mankind—pass over to this side and look at this life of Spinoza, which by itself is quite a clear manifestation of eternal Truth. Look at Spinoza when someday you feel humiliated and despondent. Remember the life of this man, how they treated him during his life; and how, after his death, at the very sound of his name, for one hundred years, not only "the theologians used to spit," but all who knew how to spit, and not least the philosophers, too. Remember the anathema which was suspended over his life: "Cursed be he during the day and cursed be he during the night; cursed be he when he lies down and cursed be he when he gets up; cursed when he goes out and cursed when he comes back. God will not forgive him....We decree that nobody communicate with him by word of mouth or by writing, that nobody do him any favor, that nobody remain with him under the same roof, or nearer then four yards from him and that nobody read writings composed or written by him." And that curse whereby he had been cast out from the community of outcasts influenced the whole human race: nobody, nobody wanted, nobody dared associate his name with the name of Spinoza, for he, too, would become thereby an object of general abomination. Three generations of educated people erected for Spinoza an unparalleled monument of stigmatisation, such as was never seen before, under which they believed to have buried forever his work and his memory.—"The anger and the wrath of God will flare up against that man and God will erase his name from under heaven and will reject him unto the Evil one." This is what God has done through his men, through his educated men. Hear it all of you, who have decided yourself for truth, to fight for it all your life, listen to the way the name of the truest of all messengers of truth has been annihilated and rejected to the evil one: They changed his name Benedictus into Maledictus; they called him the Cursed, the earth has never born a more cursed being, never a viler devil as this hell-hound barking from his three throats.—They said that his mind was obscured and that his temperament was by nature lazy, sly, and insidious!—They called him a skulking author; and, on the other hand, also shameless, brazen, crazy, arrogant, fanatically ambitious, who wanted to be torn into pieces in order to become world renowned, a lying boaster who was playing the jeerer of religion and has brought into the world all those ignominies only to make his name famous. According to others he was supposedly a very ignorant, apathetic and extremely stupid man, who was incapable of understanding the difference between one and many,—The poor rascal of a Cartesiano-cabalistic somnambulist, the cabalistic charlatan, the murderer and highwayman of Common sense and of Science.—His work is so careless that it makes you disgusted!—Everything in it is rough and undigested—wrong definitions: the sterile teacher with his superficial manners, his impudence and the worst errors of logic, paradoxes, absurdities, miseries! The Ethics, liber pestilentissimus, on account of which one has to cry shame on mankind, that such a work could have come out of it!—the miserable and immature product of an unfortunate and immature understanding—it advocates the most shocking and the most ridiculous of all hypotheses!—All that is galimatias, fiction and nonsense!—For at times he was not in his right mind!—The wretched Jew, the buffoon, the fool, who should have been put into a lunatic asylum—all he brings are the weakest and most pitiful caricatures and trifles, which shouldn't have been simply punished by admonitions, but by blows—and all his doctrines are plagiarism—the horrible doctrines which this tasteless Jewish philosopher, with your permission, has sh.. into the world!—The poisonous stinking doctrines—dunghills—the rather bestial than human heresies—that system of lies—and he himself the worst liar and hypocrite who wanted to play a decent person—a wicked sophist who, fully conscious of his malignant intentions, counterfeited in the most loathsome manner—a cunning impostor as it were (impostor nulli secundus, veterator turpissimus), a swindler thrice, four-times branded; a miserable, spiteful creature, a knave of knaves, a worthless villain, an outcast of humanity, a loose bird, a libertine who through excess in eating and drinking and with women, contracted a phthistic consumption and finally departed in frenzy and in madness—it is reported that in his desperation he committed suicide—and even nowadays a deformed portrait of his is shown around by them, with the caption: "He carries the mark of rejection on his forehead."

Hear ye all this, ye messengers of truth, ye good militants, and remain inflexible and firm in this fight, and be even more confident and happier in your hearts than before; all this was to no purpose, all this infamy came to naught; but not a single word of truth remains fruitless! Thus you in turn may be besmirched during your lifetime and after your life and may lie a hundred years like dead hounds: all the storms and floods of destiny shall pass over your names, and then will come your own enemies and they shall be obliged to awaken your truth, so that it may live and henceforth live forever!

—Extract from Spinoza contra Kant by Constantin Brunner​
 
There was a thread at FRDB about someone who had published a nonsense paper in a prestigious journal. This person did that to illustrate the exact problem that No Robots is attempting to hone in on: the general ease with which a person who knows just enough in a particular field, and just enough popular rhetoric and jargon, can hoodwink his/her colleagues.
I think that the problem is probably that scientists are often very competitive, and when not, forced to be so, and mostly too busy taking care of their own reputation (and possibly that of their most immediate perceived nemesis) to spot some nondescript fake paper smuggled into a bunch of genuine ones. In the examples given in this thread, it's obviously more a matter of organisation and management, even of psychology, than of science proper. It reminds me of this video showing I think a sort of gorilla sautering right in the middle of a group of basketball players and apparently going completely unoticed by studentswho had been asked to watch the video to follow the ball or something. Examples of fake science that have been taken seriously even after due consideration by scientists specialists of the field seem very uncommon and seem to have required skills and scientific expertise on the part of the fraudster. Here, all we have are papers that didn't even receive due consideration by specialists to begin with. Probably most were not even read properly and read only by some junior staffs.
EB
 
Thus you in turn may be besmirched during your lifetime and after your life and may lie a hundred years like dead hounds: all the storms and floods of destiny shall pass over your names, and then will come your own enemies and they shall be obliged to awaken your truth, so that it may live and henceforth live forever!
Kinda like when the Believers quote the Books, saying that God promised they'd have scorn heaped upon themfor their beliefs, sure that the scorn they get today makes their claims valid.
 
Actually, the fallacy is argument by respect for authority.
Don't forget the ultimate appeal to authority: argument by truth.

The truth is used (intentionally or not) to obscure other aspects of the truth, with truth being perceived as the ultimate authority in argument. Sleight of mind can be taken the wrong way.
 
I should not be speaking for No Robots. Just as Speakpigeon probably shouldn't have gone to bat for Togo.
I didn't. I was addressing DBT's wrongful treatment of a post that happened to be that of Togo. Clearly I'm doing that kind of thing more often than most and most never do that at all. Maybe I'm getting too old but I guess I was concerned about the standard of the discussions and about misbehaviours. In this case I only addressed the issue because DBT's wording is often sloppy enough to obscure to most readers what he is actually doing. Again, whether he is doing it wilfully or not is beside the point once his attention has been properly drawn to the problem.
EB
 
Therefore, in addition to the intellectual faculty, the will also brings out a moral faculty — a faculty to endure hardship, to bear suffering, and to remain steadfast in its effort to attain the ideal. This faculty is faith. Faith is not a passive faculty for mere belief. On the contrary, faith is an active power of the will. Faith, as St. Paul tells us, is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. A veil of darkness usually enshrouds us, obscuring our vision, and overwhelming us with fear of the untried and the future. But faith lifts up that veil of darkness, showing us the bright future in the making. By this we are assured of the realization of the things hoped for. Faith enables us to remove mountains of difficulties, and encourages us to persist in our struggle for a better world, despite universal opposition and disappointment. Faith enables us to identify ourselves with our ideal to such extent as to seem to us a present living reality. One that has faith cannot anymore doubt the successful outcome of the struggle for the ideal.... In making our own history, and in making it in an ever more efficient and improved manner, we must have an ideal; and, in our efforts to attain our ideal, we must have faith. Without an ideal we will degenerate to the level of the beast; and without faith, they will not attain their ideal. The ideal must be begotten of the union of the intellect with faith. The ideal must be sublime in its nature and universal in its scope, so as to afford unlimited scope for the universal will to gratify its universal nature. Only such ideal can adequately inspire men and afford them gratification even while struggling for the attainment of that ideal.--Harry Waton / The Philosophy of Marx, p. 145-6​
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
Back
Top Bottom