MSC

Familiar with Simmons, not Lemmons. Will take a look when I've finished my Dostoyevsky novel. Tried that, no one was biting and INow made a point to put words into the forums mouth and drive off any interest. If at first you don't succeed, try again and again. When it is clear it won't work, stamp your feet until they listen. Worked for Wittgenstein. I don't understand either. I can only guess as to what Neurotypical unwritten social BS makes that happen. Anti-intellectualism is everywhere even in intellectual places.

Depends on the type of argument, but it usually casts doubt on the validity of your conclusion. An example: We can't be sure of anything Therefore we know nothing. If the premise is true, then we do know something. We know that premise. So the conclusion is immediately falsifiable if we believe the premise. A premise is contradictory if it both asserts and denies the conclusion. Another example would be to say something like; God can do anything So god can make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it. But then he can't do anything if he can't lift the stone. That only covers contradictory premises in logical arguments though. Not incorrect premises or missing ones. For example: until recently we were missing dark matter as a premise in the models we made. We can now try to make logical arguments about the nature of the universe a little bit more accurately now that we have found that premise. The problem, what is dark matter? If we get it wrong, any conclusion we make is thrown into doubt. The conclusion should be different depending on how we answer the question of "what is dark matter?" You and your colleagues can do quality science with low quality logic. You can have a conclusion that is probable, even if the premises it took to get there are in some way wrong or contradictory. It would just mean you were lucky or intuiting premises without mentioning or being consciously aware of them. It would also mean you'd have an explanatory gap between a true conclusion and the why it is true. The danger of saying something (not an argument) is illogical, doesn't mean it isn't logical. It means you don't understand the logic or how it is being used. I'm going to leave it here now. My partner pointed out that I've been in a somewhat manic state for a few weeks and now I'm falling into a depression. I still want a logic section added, but I'm sorry for getting so worked up about it. That's not how I want to be or how I want to present myself. This stuff, science and philosophy means a lot to me and it provides me a lot of relief from the meaninglessness of my current existence. I feel like I haven't contributed enough to society, but I don't know how to get anyone interested in even allowing me to contribute anything. I'm going to take a long break from here for awhile. You'd probably be able to help with that by applying a temporary ban for a month. I'd be able to be less obsessed with this place and focus on my Dostoyevsky book.

Hume would disagree but then whether or not something is "abrasive" is subjective. Some undergrads find compatabilism "Abrasive" to their beliefs in free will. No but it is a requirement to do science well. God forbid any premise to any scientific argument is missing or wrong. Not a strawman. Learn some manners and respect when people go out of their way to do the same for you. You're easily the most "Abrasive" moderator here. No one is going to convince me that I'm in the wrong here without first learning how to speak respectfully to others. Your comments to me yesterday were uncalled for and they were off-topic to the discussion and you put words in my mouth. Philosophy birthed your entire field as it is today. Show it some respect. If you'd climb down off your pedestal and apologise, like I did yesterday for upsetting you, just for stating some facts about science and philosophy, then maybe we can have an adult conversation instead of a pissing contest. Next time you want to talk about fallacies in logic, like strawmen. Do so in the appropriate logic forum.. Oh, wait

The primary focus can't be science if there is no logic. Without logic, no science. Tell that to Swansont.

I would but there is no section for it all to be found. Why should I have to promote logic at all? It's a field of study you can take a class in at most University's and you can get degrees in it. It's important. It's not my job to explain the reality of that to others who allegedly went to university. Just so you're all aware, I could have 1000 downvotes and still not give a shit. They aren't real communication and half the reason they are programmed into anywhere is to make the screen more addictive. "Oh yay I got an upvote, free dopamine!" "Oh no I got a downvote from a stranger, I must have been bad boohoo." So yeah, downvote away. I couldn't give less of a shit. It's the go to response for people who have no good response.

Why do you assume it's because his dad isn't on the scene? You do realise most black fathers aren't leaving. It's a vicious stereotype that needs to stop. It's not like there aren't absent white fathers too.

Yeah, my behaviour is clearly the problem. Only asking for my field to not be denigrated and insulted. Clearly I'm bang out of order. Projections are a pound a piece here it seems. It's not like I'm not also stressed.

My petulance? What about Swansonts petulance yesterday in the general philosophy section? Takes one to know one.

Our own making. Collectively or as individuals? A number of pragmatic theories of ethics highlight that in terms of blame, Society is the object of moral responsibility and is far more deserving of moral condemnation than any individual who happens to randomly be born into it, without any say in the matter or any say in how society treats them for things beyond their control. It's all very well to say that individuals have to do more to contribute to our moral ecology, but institutions have far more power to do this than any one individual can and many actively try to uphold a maladaptive status quo that harms our moral ecology and life as a whole. Why? Because money is God. People are expendable if there is enough money in it for institutions. One of the hurdles to getting a degree in ethics for example; is the desire of the ethical student to have an ethical teacher. How can he have an ethical teacher when his teacher props up a system of inequality and coercive manipulation? A system that uses people up and milks them for all they are worth. A system that has the audacity to talk about Free education as a good idea while it puts all mention of it behind a paywall so that only those who have proven themselves worthy by buying into it, can read it only to see it as a joke because why would they need free education when they've already paid for it? In my experience this is something every child has, not everyone allows children to keep it though. I can only afford this luxury because I refused to listen to anyone who said I should give it up since I was never going to be able to "Make money like that." I wanted to go on to study physics at University but all the adults in my life at the time, said it would be a waste of time and money and that I should just settle for joining the army so I could "stay out of prison."

Differences between moral and causal responsibility. Would you say this to a five year old black kid, who's teachers have point blank said to him to give up on his dreams? Does the five year old black kid need to take personal responsibility for his failure there? Is it even his failure? Or should he just be put through it all and left to figure out at 30 that his teacher was talking shit? Responsibility cuts both ways. A good attitude and a willingness to learn gets you nowhere when it comes to career prospects and getting around other peoples prejudices and biases. It is not a failure of the victim that they are victimised by others. Victim blaming BS. As for the people without a questioning attitude and a desire for some kind of positive attention, they seek what they have lacked their whole lives. They seek what was taken from them in childhood and excluding and isolating them DOES NOT HELP.

Everyone should read this book. Until you've read it, don't talk about logic. You don't know what you're talking about.

Trying to drum up interest in these fields. Focussing on Logic. Is there a good reason why Logic should NOT be added to the forum? One that isn't based on whether or not people show an interest. Lot's of people have no interest in mathematics in their daily lives yet it's still important. Same is true of logic, especially when there are clear misunderstandings of what logic is and how it is used, being shared on the forum. Which makes it impossible for logicians to take things seriously.

Sometimes others underthink things.

What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia? Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this. It's a shame really, a lot of discouraging and disparaging comments being made about people, who through no fault of their own, simply are not offered the sort of education their disparagers have allegedly had and have no means of getting it.

Palpable entitlement and privilege. You also use "logically" impossible/possible incorrectly. Which is ironic considering the mention of Math. Seriously moderators can we have a logic section already so people can stop misusing the tool of logic like this? I can't even engage with this seriously due to this complete misunderstanding of what logic is. Basic logic skills are in serious need of overhaul in this post.

Glad you're familiar with both!

- Albert Schweitzer

Why don't you just decorate your classroom with the relevant data and formulas? My highschool math teacher had "Pi = 3.14" on the wall among countless other aids. Then your memory of those things just gets better every time you are in the space.

Want to start an open discussion on empowerment theory applied in therapy.

31 Fallacies in 8 minutes Good video. She's hilarious.

How do you treat symptoms of systematic attack on the normal development of feelings of personal power and agency in Moderate to severe forms of PTSD/C-PTSD?

I appreciate the sentiment and the help. My partner is actually a woman and I'd never ever have them committed to an environment where I don't know if I can trust the staff. There are other ways for allowing deep self reflection to occur. Without getting in to the specifics, a trump move last month has my partners work sector having to work massive amounts of overtime because of the empty love bombing move of the administration in the run up to the election. She is also pregnant so the initial event that proceeded my creating this thread may also be hormonal in nature, contributing to the scale of the argument. My work load has been increased by the same trump move so I've been pretty stressed lately. This all also coincided with a critical stage in my work, which relates to my discussions with scientists on the forum. I'd have probably disagreed with your forced commitment. I believe the best change for an individual has to come through empowerment to change, not force to change. Especially where power dynamics themselves are part of the problem.

Thank you, couples therapy is something that has now been broached and accepted as constructive by both parties. Thanks for not echo chambering and being impartial too.

This is quite a charitable interpretation of my question and I'd like to thank you for altering some of the parameters of it so that it actually made sense. I'm glad people are aware that I am only dealing in complete hypotheticals for the sake of testing how my imagination is trying to explain to me how gravity, expansion, BHs and Dark matter all fit together in the same universe. Since I don't know how to use Math to do it. Rolled up in my question when I read back on your reply, is a thought. Why are things expanding more rapidly than most models can account for? What is missing from the models to explain this? The only thing that makes any sense to me is unknown sources of gravity that we aren't seeing. The only explanation my mathematically uneducated brain can conceive of is that Dark matter is responsible. So how could dark matter have a gravitational force powerful enough to explain the rate of expansion and why the rate of expansion is sometimes described as not uniform based on variance in expansion rates when we look at the behaviour of different galaxies? We often hear people say that Dark Matter doesn't interact with regular matter, does that mean it doesn't interact with itself either or can dark matter clump together the way regular matter can? If so, why couldn't it also form black holes? Thank you for everyone's patience with my questions. I'm doing my best to try to keep up and I apologise in advance for any ignorant questions I may ask. I'm doing what now? I'll have to take your word that the math of what I'm doing is explainable that way. Thank you for your patience. I'm unfamiliar with the term "Energy Vacuum." Looking up now! Thank you for the guidance.

It might be friendly though and I want to give it a hug.