Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by MSC

  1. On 11/12/2020 at 8:05 AM, Phi for All said:

    Maybe it's just the timing, but I don't remember being this disgusted by a religious assertion before. It shows a myopic and desperate need for privilege that ignores reality. This is the stance that can justify wiping out species wholesale, because they were only put there "for us to enjoy". 

    It's also intellectually dishonest to misuse scientific claims to bolster your shaky belief system. Please stick to your Iron Age sky spirit worship.

    I think you're being a little unfair here! 


    On 11/11/2020 at 9:56 PM, Charles Graham said:

    Based off this evidence, it's pretty clear to me that everything was put out there for us to enjoy as God's special creation.  What an amazing discovery. 

    For example; if god exists, I like that they created stupidity for us to mock. Life might be boring without little gems, such as posts like these. :P

    it's pretty clear to me, that everything that was put in this thread has been fairly entertaining, gods creation or not, I enjoyed its specialness.


  2. 4 hours ago, MigL said:

    But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of Black American children are born to homes without a father present.
    And,as the mother then becomes the sole provider, and has to work, a lot of these kids don't even make it through high school.
    Whatever the reasons for the fathers not being there, even you must admit that makes the situation a lot worse for the kids, and leads to a cycle of poverty.

    Oh absolutely I'd agree with that. I experienced it myself, except it was my mother that left. I was 5 and she walked out on us and was gone for awhile. That being said; she was still a lot more present and emotionally available than my father, who would essentially have arguments with my teachers using me as a proxy. It was like it didn't matter what I was taught, to him, he'd already decided that I was stupid and couldn't be right about anything. Kind of takes the genetic fallacy to a whole new meaning there. Irony. 

    4 hours ago, MigL said:

    The study I quoted is freely available to all, and I would say that, far from being irrelevant because of its age, things have actually gotten worse in the past 60 years, and not just for Black Americans, but for all groups surveyed.
    Meanwhile you claim a study, for which you give no link, that 'quality' time is what's really important, neglecting to mention how subjective 'quality' is.
    ( is being your child's friend higher quality than being his parent ? The two are very different and we both know which is more important, yet better 'quality' depends on whether you ask the parent or the child )

    That's because I was working from memory and got a few details wrong. My bad. I've digged it up and attached it now. The subjective aspect of 'quality' would impact all demographics however. There is a strong likelihood that 1-5% of the present parents, from all backgrounds are abusers and I wouldn't even care to try and guess what percentage were avoidably negligent. I say avoidably as it has already been pointed out by others that it is much more difficult for working class parents to be able to spend quality time with their kids without sacrificing on their required time to earn enough for the basic needs of housing, energy, clothing and food on the table.

    Which I think brings us to the most important aspect of this debate. Class based demographics. 

    I can accept that we might never have schools that don't unfairly discriminate, but I don't think I can accept a society where the ability to bring discriminating individuals to justice, is determined by how deep your pockets or your parents pockets are.

    Which bring us to something extremely important. Probably the barrier we should e focussing on most.

    Here is something that is definitely true; it is illegal to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, religion, marriage, sexual orientation, gender.. It is not currently illegal however, to discriminate based on class or caste. They are not protected characteristics. There would be little to stop me or anyone else from denying equality to people because of their socio-economic background. There are means tested scholarships available but it tends to go that either their aren't enough of them for everyone who wants one, or there is no guidance on how to apply for them when they are under applied for. It's why I really like the look of the University of Arizona in Tuscon. They are one of the few institutions that I know of that seem to go the extra mile and try their best to make sure your education is financially achievable and that funding is smooth and debtless. Sucks that it is so far away though. We'd have to uproot and move again and we are thinking of buying a house here in IL...

    Sorry, I'm rambling. Suffice it to say, I think this has been a constructive discussion for all involved. 

    4 hours ago, MigL said:

    So you can go through life depending on others to fix problems ( and we both know there will be resistance to this ), or you can take the initiative and fix any problems that are in your power to fix.
    Last time I checked that was called 'responsibility'.

    Oh, and I appreciate that my comments 'interested' you

    You know I study philosophy and ethics. So you must know by now that you've already opened up a whole can of worms in the subjects of power, control and responsibility, right? I think the stoics and taoists put it best with The Archer. You can draw the bow perfectly, do everything within your control to give yourself the best chance of hitting your mark, and still fail because you cannot control the wind. In this analogy, I see other people as wind. I know I can't control them, I don't want to control them. Yet I can't pretend it is raining when really people are pissing on all of our legs.


  3. 41 minutes ago, Dord said:

    This thread reminds me of the "return journey effect" which has continued to confuse me since my childhood trips to the seaside.



    A good point. Maybe OP should forward their questions on to the psychology section. 

    Philosophy of Time isn't really an area of discussion where we look at the subjective perception of the passage of Time. 

    That being said; OP may enjoy reading about A and B theories of time. I'm partial to the quantum block A theory myself.

  4. 1 hour ago, swansont said:

    How would we know? Do we have any data on this? We have humans, most of whom are able to appreciate regularly repeated events. Perhaps you should look up studies of blind people and their time perception 

    This is a good suggestion.

    I'd add to Swansonts points by directing you to research the psychology of time perception. 

    There are anecdotal experiences claimed by some who say they get periods where it feels like everything around them is moving super fast. Some drugs can also produce a feeling that everything has slowed down.

    These experiences are extremely difficult to study however and it is obviously impossible for time to be speeding up for one person while everyone else around them is experiencing the perception of time normally... I mean, unless you're moving at the speed of light I guess or if you're observing something being sucked into a black hole. None of this actually changes the passage of time. It doesn't even make sense to say "This minute was twice as long as the last" all that would mean is 3 minutes have passed. Yet the clock says only two have actually passed. It might look as if an object is slowing down as it approaches a black hole, to the object in question time is still flowing and they will be across the event horizon long before you actually witness this happening. 

  5. On 10/13/2020 at 1:55 PM, MigL said:

    The first cause for concern was a 1965 report by a Democrat D Moynihan.


    It is areal phenomenon, not imaginary.
    But its cause is rooted in systemic poverty of Black Americans.

    I'm familiar with this old study. Did you know that part of the figure for absent black fathers comes from two things; black fathers who were in prison due to racial profiling and overly punitive sentences, and black fathers who were in fact in their childrens lives but just didn't live in the same home as their children. Basically, a fair portion of that figure were actually black fathers who were sitting down to a family meal with their children almost everyday, who were being labeled as absent fathers purely because they didn't have the same address as their children.

    There are also similar figures for white fathers absences. In a questionnaire delivered to kids as part of a more modern study, it turned out that black fathers on average spend more quality time with their children than white fathers do. Even when that white father lives in the same household as their children. 

    You also need to keep in mind that at the time of that particular study, racial discrimination was more rampant and the people involved in producing that study, ultimately misled people into thinking that black people were more likely to be bad fathers than white people. It's just not true, that study was extremely flawed and the intent behind it seemed to be used to justify more negative stereotypes of black people. I'm saying this as a white person too, so it's not like I am biased toward debunking this because I'm black. I've seen figures of student demographics in a number of different schools and the pass rates for historically disadvantaged people from ethnicity to disability, are truly shocking.

    Even if the study wasn't dubious, it's from 1965. What makes you think it is still relevant today?

    I misspoke slightly when I wrote that OP, owing to being pissed off at the time (I really need to stop posting things when I'm in a mood, doing no one any favours that way).

    On paper, most institutions are against discrimination in most forms. Which is great, except the individuals they hire, from admissions to faculty, are capable of being biased, racist and ableist and they are capable of hiding this. Which leads to a bias within the institution where staff are allowed a great deal of freedom to practice as much discrimination as they like, by citing some unrelated and irrelevant reason as to why they went ahead with a prejudicial act and since the higher ups claim that their institution is against such acts, they close ranks and double down on the discrimination in order to defend their staff. 

    It's gotten to the point where in some schools, even suggesting that you may be being treated unfairly due to a protected characteristic, is seen as more egregious and wrong than someone who is discriminating based on those characteristics and lying about it. 

    Personal responsibility cuts both ways. Staff and student both. Students have a personal responsibility to care about and want an education; just as staff in schools have a legal and personal responsibility to give equal access to that education and to make reasonable adjustments for students who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own. 

    Here is what disadvantaged people have to go through to take personal responsibility for their education under the current formats; they are expected to do the same coursework as their peers with less support and less resources, they are expected to keep silent about all the little ways the school makes things harder for them vs the majority of it's students. They are expected to show tolerance toward the implicit and explicit biases and prejudices of their peers and the institution itself, even though it makes college life far more difficult for them than it does for the majority of it's other students.

    A simple analogy, the disadvantaged are being asked to run a race with a ball and chain in tow, against others who have no such ball and chain and they have to give the unchained a head start too. Despite the ball and chain, some people still finish the race. However if you were to ask one of the people that didn't finish why they weren't able to finish when others did, they would say this; because not everyone can finish a race with a ball and chain attached to them and it's extremely demoralising to know that you're going to be unfairly compared to someone who ran the race without that ball and chain. It is not an excuse to say "I couldn't finish the race because I had a ball and chain attached" it's a reason, it's a cause.

    Now I'm not saying there are not people who just can't be bothered to put the effort in when they are given a chance at education without the balls and chains. They are a minority though, so generalising every drop out, every person who does not have a degree, as not having it because they didn't want it enough, doesn't take into account the individuals who put up obstacles specifically meant for them. 

    Now; if schools now were as inclusive as it is possible for them to be, then I'd maybe not have posted this at all, I'd maybe not have given up on physics because a teacher said I should since they thought I wasn't "PhD material". Probably because in a school that is truly inclusive, would never have deemed it acceptable for any teacher to be allowed to say such a thing to someone who was disabled and the first of their family to get into higher education. 

    Schools aren't that inclusive though, until they are then maybe they should focus less on putting the lions share of the fault on students and more on themselves. Until they are more inclusive, blaming their students who are keen to learn and keen to contribute to society is mostly an attempt to reject any consequences to their own actions and policies when they naturally trip up the disadvantaged. 

    Maybe I am biased toward this perspective because I am from a disadvantaged group of people in multiple ways, but that doesn't make me wrong when I say that schools could absolutely do more to produce more competent graduates from all walks of life. Maybe I've just been going to the wrong schools or have been unlucky with the staff I've ended up dealing with. It's not easy to figure out if the contributing common denominator is me or the system of education, however those figures I spoke of earlier would suggest that I can only contribute so much when the school system is failing people.

    It's important to keep in mind that some people aren't giving up on their education. They are giving up on the school that is failing to give them one. As Mark Twain says "Never let your schooling get in the way of your education."

    P.S sorry for the lateness of my response but I was on my hiatus when you commented about that study, but I've been dying to tackle it since you said it.

  6. On 10/2/2020 at 11:56 AM, Saiyan300Warrior said:

    Hmm so what do you think is a better way to think, or better bunch of guidelines to think with. If you don't focus on any one negative then how do you know what is a more positive trait or which is really a negative bias? No filter is chaotic mess, filter is unique to everyone but collective thinking gives us common guidelines... so... what do you think is like middle ground? Critical thinking? Again I will google it one day just not today 

    The middle ground here would be ethics. If you're asking questions of the meaning or distinction of positive and negative values then we are in meta-ethical territory. That's not me saying, the middle ground is being ethical, the middle ground is thinking critically about what the good and bad are and what they mean. 

    Also, google everything you can. If I had a dime for everytime I forgot to google something or go to the library, I'd be a rich man who's probably about to forget where he left that bloody fortune. 

    Why you should research what you're thinking before you say it out loud; to avoid calling yourself stupid later. Not other people, yourself. 

    Which brings me to the situational context sensitivity of things like being egotistical. Sometimes, it's beneficial, other times it is not. It depends on how the ego manifests itself. 

    Imagine this scenario, a group of students file into an exam room. Two of the students are extremely arrogant. One believes outright that he will pass, because after all they are amazing. The other, believes outright they will do the right thing and use all the time they are given to complete the exam, because after all they are amazing. 

    Both students believe they are going to perform really well, but only one of them is going to rush through the exam and leave early without checking over anything. 

    As INow says, it's best not to build a bias toward egotistical thinking. Just because an egoic asshole says something which is true every now and then doesn't mean they will corrupt the knowledge, just their view of themselves. They might not even be corrupting that.

    You should also be aware that there are some theories that speculate that every act a human does comes from a place of egoism, even if they think they are being selfless or altruistic since even those acts can have positive benefits besides financial reward or thanks. I don't actually agree with them but the work behind them is still pretty insightful amd true to a limited extent. 

  7. 16 hours ago, MigL said:

    Reminds me of the 1st episode of the 3rd season of Star Trek: TOS, "Spock's Brain", where a bunch of dumb, good looking women use 'old' knowledge to steal Spock's brain, for the purpose of running their underground environmental functions.


    " Fascinating. It could explain much, Doctor. My medulla oblongata is hard at work apparently breathing, apparently pumping blood, apparently maintaining a normal physiologic temperature."

    Classic Star Trek, always finding novel and entertaining ways to engage an audience in the deep stuff. 

    No one quite puts it quite like Jean-Luc though;


    PICARD: Did you read that book I gave you? (Wesley reacts, barely concealing a grimace as he recalls.)
    WESLEY: Some of it.
    PICARD: That's reassuring.
    WESLEY: I just don't have much time.
    PICARD: (re the book in his hand) There is no greater challenge than the study of philosophy. (Wesley glances over at Picard's book)
    WESLEY: William James sure won't be on my Starfleet exams.
    PICARD: The important things never will be. Anyone can be trained to deal with technology, and the mechanics of piloting a starship.
    WESLEY: But Starfleet Academy--
    PICARD: It takes more than just that. Open your mind to the past... to history, art, philosophy. And then... (re: the stars) ...this will mean something.
    (Wesley considers this, almost embarrassed as he realizes Picard does truly care about him.)
    Then: PICARD (continuing) Just consider James' wisdom: "Philosophy... is not a technical matter... it is our sense of what life honestly means... our individual way of feeling the total push and pressure of the cosmos."
    (then) That's what I want for you

    If we are all just brains in vats however, another Picard line might be more pertinent, since we can't know either way;


    Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all Number One, we're only mortal.

    Basically, why worry and waste time wondering if you're a brain in a vat, in someone elses dream or a bit of code in a videogame? Live in the moment, be the dream, be a bit of code. What else were you really going to do if you knew one way or the other anyway?

  8. 58 minutes ago, MigL said:

    You provided a google search ) result page , not a specific link.

    If I take the 2nd ( same as 4th ) result in that google search ...


    I get the following

    "We investigate recent claims for a detection of "Hawking points" (positions on the sky with unusually large temperature gradients between rings) in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature maps at the 99.98% confidence level. We find that, after marginalization over the size of the rings, an excess is detected in Planck satellite maps at only an 87% confidence level (i.e., little more than 1σ  ). Therefore, we conclude that there is no statistically significant evidence for the presence of Hawking points in the CMB."

    So, of the links you provided, the 1st one claims 'apparent' evidence, while the second de-bunks it.
    I would think that, at best, you could claim there need to be further observations/investigations into the matter.
    Certainly NOT claim there is evidence.

    Fair enough. I didn't actually understand the part about the confidence level at all. I saw 87% and didn't understand the second figure so I couldn't really draw agreement or disagreement with that, as it reads like there is a high confidence level for the evidence of hawking points that falls short of 100% confidence.

    To the inexperienced of us, what exactly does the debunking article say? As it's conclusion seems confusing to me. Is it debunked or is it saying there is currently no way to be 100% certain that those hot patches are hawking points?

    The problems I see with CCC, if the universe does have evolutionary phases that would appear cyclical, that does not mean there is no end point where entropy can be reset to a low entropy universal structure. There could have been many bounces before, even if it is impossible for another contraction to occur in this phase due to expansion. 

    This is why my questions in my OP were directed more at the image used to represent the theory. It shows a CCC universe getting larger after each contraction. Which seems really strange to me. I can understand how a big crunch contraction can happen in universes where there is far less expansion at work, that does not appear to be this one however. 

    So if there is a cyclical universe as has been described by Penrose, can it really be an indefinite infinite one or would that universe also reach a point where it cannot contract anymore and suffers a heat death?

    To be very clear as well, I'm not claiming with 100% certainty that this is evidence, I'm just repeating back how it is presented elsewhere and I'm just trying to understand. This is all hypothetical and I don't have access to the same resources as you. I can only repeat what is said in science news outlets and what I can get from free resources. I already pay out of pocket for access to philosophy and ethics publications. So if I say something is evidence, it's not me saying it is that, I'm asking you if they are right to call it evidence. 

    If it makes it at all easier to have an open discussion, what I'm really asking is how would a CCC universe exist and is it impossible for such a thing to exist? Whether that is this universe or not. 

  9. 31 minutes ago, MigL said:

    Small Black Holes ( smaller than stellar sized ) are very 'hot' and evaporate very quickly.
    If there is evidence of BH evaporation in the CMB, that would be evidence for primordial BHs, and, would be big news.

    I don't know of any evidence for primordial BHs, their evaporation, or CMB evidence.
    So maybe include links for your assertions.

    There is a link in my last, about hawking points.

  10. Evidence of hawking points

    Sorry I misspoke before, beyond SMBHs in the early universe and explaining how they grew to such a size so quickly; there is also evidence of blackhole evaporation in the CMB.

    Which to me presents a bit of a dilemma. If the universe is a little under 14billion years old, and it takes 10^64 years for a regular sized blackhole to evaporate, how can we explain the potential evidence of black hole evaporation in the CMB without throwing out the age of the universe?

    As for the voids, I double checked what I meant there and withdraw that completely. I was thinking of the bootes void and I remembered watching a documentary of some kind that probably put a bit of woo science in there for dramatic effect. It cited that the universe wasn't or isn't old enough for the bootes void to have formed to the size it is, but having double checked that myself before replying I think it might be a load of BS. 


  11. 1 hour ago, iNow said:

    These could be interesting topics to explore in their thread, but come across as a hijack here. 

    Fair enough. Personally I prefer discussing simulation theory, as the brain in the vat hypothesis has a lot of problems, as a thought experiment. A brain in any kind of container that can still feel touch just strikes me as a brain with what functions as a body to house the brain. That and whomever is caretaking the vats has their own vat problem to consider... They might just be a brain in a vat inhabiting a simulated experience where they care for other brains in vats. The whole thing just becomes a great big headache. 

    That being said, another thread on simulation theory might already be kicking around somewhere. Even though it has the same problems and the same headaches. 

  12. On 11/18/2020 at 7:04 AM, arnold3000 said:
    If the hypothesis of the brain in the vat is correct, this means that we cannot touch another person or object.
    The point is that it doesn't matter whether these hypothesis are correct or not. The only thing that worries me is how the touch happens if in the real world it is the interaction of atoms (in particular, electrons). thanks

    This would beg the question; is everyone a brain in a vat or is there just one brain in a vat hallucinating everyone else?

    Let's say you and I are both brains in vats. Are we occupying different simulated experiences or the same one? If it is the latter, then there would still be atomic touch interactions at a longer distance, if we bumped fists in the simulation. If it is the former, then touch between two persons is an impossibility. 

    What would it mean for you if the hypothesis was correct? Or if simulation theory was correct?


  13. 16 hours ago, MigL said:

    Biggest problem with all versions of cyclic cosmologies is the fact that entropy has to be 'reset' to the low initial state.
    One mechanism proposed by R Penrose with Conformal Cyclic Cosmology is that all particles have to eventually decay.
    And while a proton decay is possible ( even with other theories ) after more than 1032 years, the decay of fundamental fermions is a lot tougher to come to grips with.


    Thanks for the response! How are you keeping MigL? 

    I don't understand how particle decay of protons or fermions relates, admittedly. 

    Isn't that only a problem with indefinite and infinite cyclical cosmology? There could very well be bounces without an entropic reset, how many possible bounces there are might be something with a hard limit. It could even be that the limit has already been reached and that is why expansion seems like it will overcome any ability for a contraction to take place again.

    Why cyclical cosmology seems relevant to me; there are black holes and voids that are described as potentially being older than the big bang. Not to mention Methuselah, if the margin for error on that approximate age calculation falls before the big bang. 

    All that being said, maybe I'm not reading from the right sources but would be interested to hear your thoughts.


  14. 21 hours ago, joigus said:

    Very interesting topics. Looking forward to seeing them posted. I've got some other historical topics to suggest.

    I'm glad to have you back, @MSC, after the pachi-dermatological treatment.

    As am I! I've a few historical ones of myself to suggest in the future. 

    Yes, the treatment worked wonders. Turned out all I had to do was try to bathe in a field of cacti and listen to Dostoyevsky insult me five or six times a sentence. Half-True story, everyone should try it!

    Disclaimer: The cactus stunt suggested here is fictitious and should only be performed by the professional idiots out there in the world... To YouTube!


  15. The Big Bounce - Quantamagazine


    In a cyclic universe, periods of expansion alternate with periods of contraction. The universe has no beginning and no end.

    I don't know if I'm understanding this correctly. Is there no upper limit to how large the universe can bounce up to or is the image misleading? Is matter a fixed finite or is more created at each bounce? 

    If I view it as a series of warping bubbles moving through this multiversal vacuum space, at what point is everything so spread out that it just pops? If expansion is stretching everything further apart, how can another contraction take place if there is no force great enough to overcome expansion and pull everything inwards again for a bounce? 

    Another thing I don't understand due to the image, does the universe have some form of directionality in its expansions and contractions? How and why?

    Sorry if these seem like stupid questions. I'm sure someone here can help me understand. 


  16. On 10/14/2020 at 5:57 AM, swansont said:

    If MSC chooses to return (with perhaps a slightly thicker skin), then perhaps they will be willing to do a little legwork to prove that we should have a these suggested subsections inside of philosophy by providing us with some statistics of how many e.g. logic threads exist already. Maybe going back a year. Along with some examples so we can check the data.

    In addition, they could also tag their thread titles (e.g. Some title [logic])  so we can track what happens. With that and other suggested subsections (Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics and Phenomenology)


    You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we don't apply logic, or that we don't understand logic. I didn't say you don't need to understand logic to do science. I'm saying we don't have to have discussions about logic in order to do good science, which is the kind of discussion you would expect in a logic subsection.

    You can say the same for math. Physics uses a lot of math But you can have physics discussions independent of the math section, because you don't need to contemplate the purely math considerations. You are using the math, but you are not discussing the math. You can say you need to integrate the force dotted with displacement to get the work — that's a physics question — but that's not a discussion about what a dot product is, or what an integral is, which is what you might discuss in mathematics. IOW, we don't have a mathematics section because you need it to discuss physics. We have a mathematics section because there is a lot of traffic in people discussing mathematics.

    Which is why "Without logic, no science" is a non-sequitur for making the case of having a logic subforum. 



    My skin is thicker, or I should say the environment is no longer thinning my skin. I had a lot going on personally last month and I sincerely apologise to you and the other moderators for taking out those frustrations on this forum and causing offense. I hope I can earn your forgiveness by displaying a more relaxed attitude within this space, that you all do an excellent job of overseeing, despite the fact that it is voluntary within your own time. 

    I'd also like to thank you for not having a knee jerk reactions to my criticisms of this space and not banning me outright, thank you for allowing me to come back.

    I do see your points, I did do some checks on logic threads, I also did a check on individual comments alone. While there are certainly a few instances of individuals who display a lack of understanding of what logic is, the traffic is low and the context of those dialogues usually either leads to someone correcting the logic anyway or it just not being touched with a ten foot barge pole.

    Should the traffic for any of these things increase, I'll make a politer petition at that time and won't make it a hill to die on. 

    That being said; Aesthetics and History.

    The Sculptures made of Almonds, with a few rule tweaks could also be an area where aesthetics can feature. I think it could not only be enjoyable for users, but moderators too. If we use a broad definition of art. Music, TV, Movies, Paintings, Almond Sculptures obviously, theatre, paintings, who the fuck is banksy? Etc. You don't even have to change the name of the thread. It can just be like an inside art joke on comedy. 

    I do also like the idea if a history section as it is such a catch all. Every field has it's history after all! It's also one of those subjects where if it was there, I think a lot of traffic would naturally flow into it more than if it wasn't there. A good analogy might be to say that a History thread would be like a new highway, as opposed to a Logic thread, which is just new footpaths.

    One thing that I should highlight for everyone who would want a history section and an aesthetics section; How should they be moderated and what should the rules and guidelines be for those new forums? What does a good thread and a bad thread look like in those forums? 


    On 10/15/2020 at 2:55 PM, MigL said:

    I don't care; I still want a History forum.
    I ( and CharonY ) are constantly having to sneak in historical tidbits into other forums.

    Please, please, please.please, ...

    Hi MigL! Hope you are well! Can you give an example of a thread you would post in a history section? Me personally; I would use it to ask questions about history for things that I don't know but am curious about. Things like, Who built this? How did this war start? What turned this dictator into such an asshole? That sort of thing. But only if I had a hard time finding information on those things myself or conflicting accounts.

    As for Aesthetics; I'd probably just post things about movies, video games, the occasional painting, artists, books, music. With questions about those like, What is the moral of this story? What does this song mean? 

    As for how they would be moderated and what the rules for these new forums should be.. *Shrugs*

  17. 41 minutes ago, studiot said:

    The downvotes are nothing to do with me and this seems to be the real content of your last post, along with a large clutter about not giving a shit.


    Actually I find that using google is good for finding threads on subjects at SF.
    Put in SF plus subject plus any members you know have responded.

    The place for your resume of Cohen's book should surely be in this thread  ?

    I have recommended some beginner's books on logic in other threads but don't know this one so I am interested to know more.

    You may like to look at

    E J Lemmon's "Beginning Logic"


    Simmon's "Introduction to Topology and Modern Analysis"

    if you don't already know them.

    I have also found the book reviews section at SF to be pretty unpopular for some reason I don't understand.

    Familiar with Simmons, not Lemmons. Will take a look when I've finished my Dostoyevsky novel.

    23 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

    But if I thought we should have them, would it be better to make an intellectual appeal by promoting discussion along these lines, or should I just stamp my foot and demand that it be done?

    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.

    46 minutes ago, studiot said:

    have also found the book reviews section at SF to be pretty unpopular for some reason I don't understand.

    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.

  18. 8 minutes ago, swansont said:

    What happens when you get a contradiction of the premise in a logical argument?

    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.


  19. 9 minutes ago, iNow said:

    You can action this all you want when you start your own forum. For now, you're doing more harm than good by continuing to comment as you are. Logic dictates that you shouldn't act abrasively toward those from whom you need help to get what you want. 

    Hume would disagree but then whether or not something is "abrasive" is subjective. Some undergrads find compatabilism "Abrasive" to their beliefs in free will. 

    12 minutes ago, swansont said:

    Nobody is claiming that the site is free of the use of logic. Logic is not a required topic of discussion when discussing science. Feel free to peruse the science threads and see how many of them do not go into discussions of the finer points of logic. IOW, no logic ≠ no logic section

    But hey, nice strawman.

    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


  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.