Yet another logic question.

[Angra Mainyu]

This is a strange forum.

Why do you think so?

I would say it has some pretty bad features, but they seem common to me.

For example, many (probably most) posters attack other people very frequently, and for no good reason. But in my experience, that is the most common feature of internet forums in which there are political, religious, and/or ethical debates, leaving aside some (not all) blogs run by professional philosophers.

Also, most posters usually grossly misunderstand and misconstrue what others say, and no amount of clarification will help. But again, that seems pretty common. While usually that happens in political, religious or ethical discussions, it tends to carry over to discussions of other matter, since most posters are predisposed already to behave in that manner.

That said, perhaps you've identified a different, unusual feature? Or maybe some of the above features is less usual in the places you are familiar with? (this one might be pretty likely, if you tend to go to places for math, science, etc., discussions, rather than politics, religion, morality, etc.).

 

[A Toy Windmill]

Why do you think so?

Most forums I've been on that are based around freethought, science and atheism don't have cranks running the show.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Why do you think so?

Most forums I've been on that are based around freethought, science and atheism don't have cranks running the show.

That is interesting. My experience is different: I've been on this forum (in one incarnation or another) for many years, and it used to be considerably better in that regard. But as time went by, it degraded. However, all other forums based around science and atheism and freethought I was familiar with worsened as well, or they shut down.

That said, it's been a couple of years since I'm half-retired from posting (I participate much less than before), and I haven't been checking out other forums. There may well be some new good forums I've missed. Or old ones that recovered, or at least stopped going downhill and are now better than this one. I guess maybe you're familiar with some of those (I'm not asking for links because that might not be allowed, though I'm not sure at this point).

Still, there are a few things worth reading here: mostly, Bomb#20's posts, and also some of bilby's posts on nuclear energy, some of lpetrich's science posts, and a few other assorted posts. But I think we should leave it at that that before I get in trouble for OT posts.
I hope you can find a good place to discuss things, or at least find some good stuff to read on these matters.

 

[steve_bank]

Not so strange. compared to the way the forum used to be it is quite tame. People came to debate and critique. Lively discussion. The idea was if you posted something you had to be able to defend it.

It appears philosophy forum has reduced to repetitious triviality.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Good, I voted. To put a little sanity in there.

Steve, you crank, stop running the show!!!

The really strange thing is how this specialist in mathematics carefully avoids to argue his points with the "cranks". It's probably easier and more comfortable that way. Won't fool anyone, though.

And then what's the point of posting on a forum if you avoid debate?

That's what's really strange.

Or maybe not. Appart from Steve, people prefer not to argue about things they don't understand.

Still, the strange thing, then, is how come they don't understand something which is 2,500 years old?
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The really strange thing is how this specialist in mathematics carefully avoids to argue his points with the "cranks". It's probably easier and more comfortable that way. Won't fool anyone, though.

Well, obviously it is more comfortable not to be repeatedly and grossly misrepresented and/or insulted by other people - who, additionally, do not know what they are talking about. But nothing wrong with avoiding talking to them. I'm just trying to limit the damage you do (steve is probably not in a position to do that, because his words are not sufficiently understood by readers), but there surely is no moral obligation to do so.

And then what's the point of posting on a forum if you avoid debate?

To exchange ideas with other people who are also being reasonable, for example. Moreover, A Toy Windmill did not avoid all debate. More likely, he avoided debate he reckoned - by reading the exchanges - was only going to lead to misconstructions and attacks, etc.

That's what's really strange.

Or maybe not. Appart from Steve, people prefer not to argue about things they don't understand.

That is not true. You prefer to argue about things you do not understand. A Toy Windmill does understand this stuff (and yes, we have terminological and maybe some philosophical disagreements, but if he decided to discuss the matters further, we could just continue doing so both reasonably and civilly).

Still, the strange thing, then, is how come they don't understand something which is 2,500 years old?
EB

You, for example, do not understand Aristotelian logic. Is that strange?
For example, you believe that Aristotelian logic has valid arguments that are not valid under the definition of validity that says "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.".
Obviously, that would make Aristotelian logic disastrously flawed, as it would not be truth preserving, as I repeatedly proved in this thread.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, the strange thing, then, is how come they don't understand something which is 2,500 years old?
EB

You, for example, do not understand Aristotelian logic. Is that strange?
For example, you believe that Aristotelian logic has valid arguments that are not valid under the definition of validity that says "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.".
Obviously, that would make Aristotelian logic disastrously flawed, as it would not be truth preserving, as I repeatedly proved in this thread.

LOL. You are hopeless.
EB

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Still, the strange thing, then, is how come they don't understand something which is 2,500 years old?
EB

You, for example, do not understand Aristotelian logic. Is that strange?
For example, you believe that Aristotelian logic has valid arguments that are not valid under the definition of validity that says "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.".
Obviously, that would make Aristotelian logic disastrously flawed, as it would not be truth preserving, as I repeatedly proved in this thread.

LOL. You are hopeless.
EB

No, you are.