dimreepr

It's strange how often an ideal is dismissed as unworkable, by people who don't want it to work...

Philosophy doesn't accept what's generally believed, it's there to question 'why it's generally believed'; you freely admit that you've not been trained in either discipline. To do something practical in a violent situation also requires training; otherwise you're just an angry old man trying to take out Bruce Lee in a street fight. Just because you're capable of throwing a punch, it doesn't mean you'll be effective. Entropy is in eternal progress, science/philosophy lives and dies with us...

It should, but not it seems, if you change your mind...

OK, so how is that gender specific?

That depends on how wealthy you think you are...

Welcome to the middle of the bell curve...

Indeed, just an overpaid athlete that's frightened of a slight pay cut

If it's truely equal pay, the binman/woman would be paid the same as a professional footballer; but first things first, let's just admit that women have an equal say in the future of us.

Nothing, literally... Thanks +1 another lesson learned...

You misunderstand my confusion, what I don't understand is, how you can hold so many opposing position's at the same time? I understand cognitive dissonance, but this is some next level stuff...

I wouldn't vote for him...

The actual question of the thread is, what's wrong with progress and why is it an ism? IMHO...

I suspect we're talking past each other, I'm not saying the question's are literally the same, I'm saying they think about the answer's in exactly the same way. It's a good job I took @MigL advice, and invested in a quality 'irony meter'...

There's two thing's that's wrong about that assumption: You're basing it on just one side of the argument. You're not allowing for a confused child that's full to the brim with hormones. And you're not allowing for a genuine change of mind. Three!!! there's three things that's wrong about that assumption; but then nobody expects a Spanish inquiry. 😁 So, you've got nothing against PC or social or justice or warrior, as long as you agree with what they say; otherwise "they're not worthy" to listen to, even their more reasonable suggestions; sound's awfully religious to me, please explain my confusion.

There's a difference between being (politically) correct and being righteously indignant...

I certainly hope you do, just with reasoned arguments, rather than your usual handwaving insistence that you're right, because you say so. Not the same in a literal sense, but the same in the way they think about our contemporary surroundings and knowledge there of; the question's haven't changed, only the day the answers are given.

Yet again!!! you've failed to directly address a single point I've made, if and when you do (and I hope you do) we can have a decent conversation; until then I won't be replying to you...

Indeed, football is the most egalitarian of sport's; it doesn't care who your ancestors are or what gender you are, it only cares if you're good enough to pay; it's only a matter of time before some women are recognised as good enough to pass a ball to a man...

OK my bad, I assumed you were referring to their interpretation's, as you've suggested in previous thread's; please clarify their interpretations, as they relate to this thread. That doesn't argue the point I was making, as regards to ("the coin") the way of thinking; his dislike of philosophy suggests a bias, that 'he' can't see past, or are you cherry picking to justify your own bias? That's an appeal to authority (a logical fallacy) and it doesn't argue my comment; BTW did he actually author what you've quoted him saying? I haven't got the time to investigate... I joined this site because I was arrogant enough to believe I knew better than a trained scientist, I stayed because the member's here taught me the error's in my thimking and because I trusted what they taught me; and like you (I love science now) I thought philosophy was wrong and superceded by science until @Eise taught me the error in my thinking... We all think, but poor philosophers are like poor scientist's, they just lack the training.

And so, my fellow Americans: Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

Philosophy and science are two sides of the same coin; it's a way of thinking, and they both think in exactly the same way; the goal of both is also exactly the same, to eliminate, as far as possible, one's bias' and expectataion's in order to discover the fudamental truth of the question at hand. The only difference between the two is, the type of question they 'tend' to ask. The problem here is, none of them are applying the scientific way of thinking; Lawrence Krauss and Neil Degrasse Tyson clearly use a different way of thinking about an experiment, as they do in the interpretations you speak of; as for Bertrand Russell he's got it arse about face, science is what we don't yet know:philsophy is asking, are we sure we know that?

I can't help but go old school...

That "Eureka!" moment is oh so sweet and not limited to science; the problem is, so few, if any, of our contemporaries understand "the joke"...

As are you... It's not. Then WTF are we talking about?

You should really stop digging...