If thou gazest long into the Pit, the Pit will also gaze into thee

Krautrock:

[youtube]g1klpKy_3hY[/youtube]

ooh! that was post 100.

Krautrock plus god's cock, for the win!

sacha wrote:Krautrock:

[youtube]g1klpKy_3hY[/youtube]

I like how there's people still over on that pappy thread giving him his marching orders in 5 paragraphs and handing him their "required reading" lists about 8 hours after the guy went to bed.

sacha wrote:Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dracula is a villain, unless they recently Twillighted the shit out of him without my knowledge or consent. Don't tell me he sparkles now.

I've never seen, or read anything Twilight. I was referring to Bram Stoker's novel. He's not a villain to me, but my brain isn't neurotypical, so I see things a bit differently.

StueNever wrote:

sacha wrote:Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dracula is a villain, unless they recently Twillighted the shit out of him without my knowledge or consent. Don't tell me he sparkles now.

blameless wrote:I like how there's people still over on that pappy thread giving him his marching orders in 5 paragraphs and handing him their "required reading" lists about 8 hours after the guy went to bed.

I've been trying to give Pappy some support, but I can't get Rationalia to load either.

sacha wrote:I've never seen, or read anything Twilight. I was referring to Bram Stoker's novel. He's not a villain to me, but my brain isn't neurotypical, so I see things a bit differently.

StueNever wrote:

sacha wrote:Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dracula is a villain, unless they recently Twillighted the shit out of him without my knowledge or consent. Don't tell me he sparkles now.

I'd hate to see what you consider to be a villain then. Hannibal Lecter count?

sacha wrote:Dracula is the best of the dark anti-heroes. I'd take it as a complement.

Dark. Malevolent. Sexy.

StueNever wrote:I'd hate to see what you consider to be a villain then. Hannibal Lecter count?

I suppose Dracula could be an archenemy, but I don't see him as a villain.

then again, I don't see Hannibal Lecter as a villain either...

KiwiInOz wrote:Dark. Malevolent. Sexy.

*wink*

Benson's drooling -

http://i.imgur.com/daU4t.png

As far as atheist leadership goes, I think PZ was thinking he could be the Fourth Horseman after Hitch died (like that's going to happen). Instead, when they got together again, they invited Ayaan Hirsi Ali (very good choice and someone who knows a little about getting REAL threats).

I can though, picture OB sitting on PZ's back screaming, "Come on you jackass, they're leaving us in their dust".

Re: Periodic Table of Swearing
by AnonymousCowherd » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:11 am

But if you take the whole of philosophy, it has done one thing that science couldn't do. It gave birth to science, so that's good.

Thankyou. At last, a concrete answer! I have never garnered even a sniff of a concrete answer from any of the professional philosophers who I have quizzed, including the usually straightforward Blackford. (Nor of course, the philosophaker Orwellia Bansome).
You are several brownie-points ahead of them.
A Koala Stamp for you.
The giving birth to science is at least one of the benefits of philosophy that I, and other philosophobes such as Prof Peter Atkins, have always granted as perhaps its best (by virtue of its possibly singular nature) benefit.
So, we are in agreement here.

I should perhaps elaborate on my friendly 'challenge', or 'prodding to be honest'.
It has always been to at least proffer the absolute best practical advantage that philosophy has above science.
But preferably list additional concrete benefits.
In either case, one is required to give real-world examples.
(Sometimes, philosophers have given me as concrete examples, extracts from fiction as though that counted! Believe it or not.)

If the genesis of science is "the best", then so-be it. (Later on that as you ask about this very 'utility' thing below)
But if that is the best, then I have won by default.
Just as the JREF have $1m on offer, yet no-one has passed a preliminary test. Disappointing.

Astrology gave birth to Astronomy.
Alchemy gave birth to Chemistry.
Theology gave birth to Philosophy.
Magick gave birth to Medicine.
...and so on.

That does not mean that Alchemy, nor Astrology have anything to offer today, and the same applies to Philosophy, unless otherwise demonstrated. (Which has yet to be done).

More than that, it has provided a well that at least some physicists (of the Einstein era at least) could sample from time to time
to prevent them falling into the current “shut up and calculate” state that a lot of the current crop of quantum folk seem prone to.

It iis passing strange that you should bring this up, as it is a classic example of THE EXACT REVERSE of what you propose!
Einstein even shamefully admitted as such later on in a letter to another famous physicist of who's name I am unsure.
"I may have said that when I was young. I may have even wrote it. But it was nonsense all the same" — Berty-boy E. rapping about Logical Postivism. Yo.

For it was the philosophy of positivism, (especially that of Ernst Mach, Einstein's once hero), that significantly RETARDED Einstein's perception into his even proof of the existence of atoms.
(Einstein's main reason for success was his childlike lack of indoctrination, until philosophers indoctrinated him into believing in intrinsic limits to though.)
JJ Thompson discarded this retarding philophy as well, and thereby discovered the electron, whereas his German competitor WOULD have discovered the electron years before him, but was blinded by the philosophy that told him that he 'could not really know' this, and abandonded his more accurate measurements as a result as meaningless in a sea of poorly-named positivism.
Retardation of knowlege as a direct result of Philosophy.
It was only when Einstein abandonded philosophy that he actually made headway.
There are quotes and references to these documented facts. (Prof Steven Weinberg has a neatly written potted history in his popular book "Dreams of a Final Theory". He is in the news again with the discovery of the Higgs Boson)

I'll shut up soon.

But before you outline (with example) a concrete issue in which is is superior to science?
As demonstrated above (astrology, etc), merely giving birth to a useful discipline doesn't count in terms of my challenge.

Lastly, why is the question one of the relative usefulness of science and philosophy?

I don't, personally.
I only do so because of the countless chanting mantras by professional philosophers (such as Russell Blackford, AC Grayling etc) and their groupie hordes that "Philosophy is vital!!" "Philosophy IS IMPORTANT!"
My question is aimed at them, and their ilk.
Put up, or shut up.

Has music, or painting, or literature done things that “science” doesn't (or can't)?

I don't really care, to be honest.
I do a lot of things that are trivial, out of the sheer pleasure that it invokes.
Let's get this straight:
If others want to 'do' philosphy, fine! Go ahead. I'll even encourage you.
Just don't lie about its utility is all I ask.

That is EXACTLY what this entire thread is about: Intellectual Honesty.

So far, not a single responded, professional or amateur, has been able to conjure a single concrete example of where philosophy has outperform science, yet they regularly make claims, both express and implied, that it regularly DO SO!
Hypocrisy, by any measure.
It is that which I am attempting to rectify.
Either:
1) They admit that philosophy does not trump science.
or
2) They provide me with but a single concrete example of where has.
...and I shall consider the challenge 'won' by them.

Whereas I am able to provide clear documented examples of where philosphy has retarded crucial science to the tune of decades if not centuries.
(I have an Aristotle up my sleeve to show that it extends to millennia)

PS Are you any good with that cricket bat?

Nah, not unless there is a full pint glass behind the wicket.
As you can see it is quite untouched.
Like Ian Botham's bats.

There's a local national team could do with some help. And if you could bowl a couple of overs without needing to be carried of in an iron lung....

Mmmm... That I *can* do. A walking stick is acceptable for a s(p)in bowler, surely?
-----------------

And now...
AndrewV69 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:40 am

Well, I disagree that philosophy is useless.

Good on you mate!
Example, please?

mordacious1 wrote:As far as atheist leadership goes, I think PZ was thinking he could be the Fourth Horseman after Hitch died

There is a famous bit of artwork showing PZ on an infant's wobbly wooden hobby-horse, weilding an ineffectual toy sword whilst the other equestrians are depicted in the usual gothic horror style.
I do believe that PZ was proud of this when it emerged.
It was certainly an accurately targeted bit of sarcastic venom, if I ever saw such a thing.
Accurately targeted because if the victim had a profound narcissistic disorder, they would be blinded to the biting humour.

I liked the inclusion of AHA. Politically very similar to Hitchens, I think... I'm a fan of both. But she, er, really was the only choice, she was practically a fifth horseman anyway.

Was following Justin's twitter-ness and blog today at work. Find myself unsurprised at the way they reacted to your offer. They are sad, wounded little people.

rayshul wrote:...They are sad, wounded little people.

They have either self-selected to be so, or have been filtered by the sieve of The Ministry of Truth to be so.
Either way, they are the residue of processes that all Tyrants have in place to ensure that they are surrounded by nauseously toadying sycophants.
And yes, they do seem to be terribly scarred in the psychological departments of independence, sociality and especially sanity.
Hitler did the same. And no, that was not a Godwin.
I meant Hitler the landscape artist, not Hitler the tyrant with a blog who did not compare ANYONE to the behaviours of the Nazi party.
(And there was that nice Mister McGoering from the Bell and Compasses. If you want to hire bombers by the night, he's your go-to guy.)
But nothing to do with Nazi allusions.
How do you do there squire, also I am not Minehead lad but I in Peterborough, Lincolnshire was given birth to, but stay in Peterborough Lincolnshire house all during war, owing to nasty running sores, and was unable to go in the streets play football or go to Nüremberg. I am vetired vindow cleaner and pacifist, without doing war crimes (hurriedly corrects himself) tch tch tch, and am glad England win World Cup - Bobby Charlton, Martin Peters - and eating lots of chips and fish and hole in the toads, and Dundee cakes on Piccadilly line. Don't you know old chap I was head of Gestapo for ten years. Five years! No, no, nein, I was not head of Gestapo at all...
I make joke.

Michael K Gray wrote: And now...
AndrewV69 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:40 am

Well, I disagree that philosophy is useless.

Good on you mate!
Example, please?

My dear sir did you not see the insult I left for Laden? I believe it was on the Thunderf00t blog.
In any event, this insult would not be possible without philosophy. Can you think of a finer use for it?

Fie on thee foul turd, of Rosenzweig, never heard?
Spenglers Golden man, yet absurd.

I rest my case.

AndrewV69 wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote: And now...
AndrewV69 » Mon Jul 23, 2012 10:40 am

Well, I disagree that philosophy is useless.

Good on you mate!
Example, please?

My dear sir did you not see the insult I left for Laden? I believe it was on the Thunderf00t blog.
In any event, this insult would not be possible without philosophy. Can you think of a finer use for it?

Fie on thee foul turd, of Rosenzweig, never heard?
Spenglers Golden man, yet absurd.

I rest my case.

I was inclined to leave it at that. An amusing rodomontade as it was, for the sake of comity.
But t'would not be in the spirit of my challenge to concede to such an insouciant yclept response.
For surely your excellent barb was sharpen'd on the whit-stone of learned literature;
but to be buffed to a mere ruder bluntness by the philosopher's stone?
(And you omitted a vital apostrophe)

Tachikoma

The bunny in question was quite obviously male at birth and is now pre-op transexual, though i have heard it debated that the bunny in question was a male bunny who liked dresses and pink speech bubbles.

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/2637/ogltwitter.jpg

Greg Laden on Twitter speculating that he'll be back at FtB in a month. Not that this is a surprise to anyone.

The Worst Guy wrote:

justinvacula wrote:
Is Ophelia for real? Is her post not genuine or something?

She doesn't negotiate with terrorists!

Ha! Rice Krispies everywhere! :lol:

Ophelia is so weird. She genuinely seems to believe she is a champion of free speech and open debate, and that she has a skeptical approach to things. But when you point out that the evidence rather suggests she doesn't, she will disagree vehemently and then ban you, entirely oblivious to how stupid that makes her look.

As my old manager used to say, "it buggers belief".

Za-zen wrote:Tachikoma

The bunny in question was quite obviously male at birth and is now pre-op transexual, though i have heard it debated that the bunny in question was a male bunny who liked dresses and pink speech bubbles.

Was the lagomorph in question a cartoon image, or a cloth reproduction of the genera Oryctolagus Cuniculus?

Michael K Gray wrote:I was inclined to leave it at that. An amusing rodomontade as it was, for the sake of comity.
But t'would not be in the spirit of my challenge to concede to such an insouciant yclept response.
For surely your excellent barb was sharpen'd on the whit-stone of learned literature;
but to be buffed to a mere ruder bluntness by the philosopher's stone?
(And you omitted a vital apostrophe)

I am a perverse creature sir, I delight in delivering an insult that can be interpreted on several levels and my never be completely understood.

I was also pretty sure Laden would sense he was insulted far beyond calling him a foul turd, but how exactly?

Clearly, our cherished yes I dare say cherished, and greatly esteemed Laden fancies himself an intellectual so let us test his mettle and see if he can perhaps determine exactly how he has been abused?

The answer no doubt is to perhaps read Rosenzweig and Spengler to tease out the meaning of the Golden Man, yet absurd. The answer to that is to be found in Spengler perhaps, who quarrelled with Rosenberg?

Or perhaps he may sense that Golden Man is a reference to Goldman, who writes as Spengler at Asia Times and who would have us believe that he is influenced by Rosenzweig?

Oh dear, a bit of a puzzle that. May have to do quite a bit of reading our Laden, to try and determine exactly what I was getting at. Hours and hours of reading, but he may benefit from it in the end, could keep him busy for a couple of years too.

Stiffen the moral fibre, What? Put hair on his chest and back I say, not on his head though, too late for that, pity.

As for the missing apostrophe, well sorry old chap. Can not be helped now though. Just have to live with it I suppose. and yes *cough* other point taken also. Sorry about that too, I know you were expecting better, let you down I suppose, but I did have a feeling I was setting you up. A bit sheepish about that too.

Shake hands? Kiss and make up?

AndrewV69 wrote:...Shake hands? Kiss and make up?

As you can see by the overload alarm that is blaring in this elevator, I have triplicate copies of this 5,173 page harassment agreement in my femail in-tray.
I got it from the FfTB Harassment Squad.
That may go some way to explain why it is not an ANTI-Harassment policy, but there you are.
Now, lemme see. Shake hands. Shake hands? Where the hell was that now? Chapter 412 - Socially obligatory but unwanted skin contact without express verbal permission?
No. That is covered by clause 4,891 in the homo-gender physical advances clause (Sub-section applying to Aspie-to-Aspie interactions).
Sign Here......
and here............
but not here............ (That is to consent to being given cards with gratuitous 2D depictions of coquettish puppies.)

Right. Kiss?
Fuck off. (Sub section 2C)

These Aunty-Harassment policies are such a boon!

Michael K Gray wrote:Right. Kiss?
Fuck off. (Sub section 2C)

These Aunty-Harassment policies are such a boon!

Well that's all right then. I can take no for an answer. While we are still in the elevator though... coffee?

AndrewV69 wrote:...Clearly, our cherished yes I dare say cherished, and greatly esteemed Laden fancies himself an intellectual so let us test his mettle and see if he can perhaps determine exactly how he has been abused?
The answer no doubt is to perhaps read Rosenzweig and Spengler to tease out the meaning of the Golden Man, yet absurd. The answer to that is to be found in Spengler perhaps, who quarrelled with Rosenberg?
Or perhaps he may sense that Golden Man is a reference to Goldman, who writes as Spengler at Asia Times and who would have us believe that he is influenced by Rosenzweig?

I may have been premature in my additional assumption that this might have been interpreted (even subliminally) by the erudite as an oblique poke at Benson?
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the courtiers convinced by PZ the King to spy on Hamlet, using their claimed friendship with him to gain his confidence, so that: according to one W. S. Gilbert's comedy where Rosencrantz schemes Guildenstern to screw Hamlet into the ground, so that Rosencrantz can marry Orphwelia.
To me, it is crystal clear, as p'raps it was to you, good sir?

AndrewV69 wrote:

Michael K Gray wrote:Right. Kiss?
Fuck off. (Sub section 2C)

These Aunty-Harassment policies are such a boon!

Well that's all right then. I can take no for an answer. While we are still in the elevator though... coffee?

Yeah, OK.
But only if you have Dilmah loose-leaf Tea.
I will vomit all over you (with your written consent) if I have even a wee dram'o'coffee, Jimmy.

Michael K Gray wrote: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern were the courtiers convinced by PZ the King to spy on Hamlet, using their claimed friendship with him to gain his confidence, so that: according to one W. S. Gilbert's comedy where Rosencrantz schemes Guildenstern to screw Hamlet into the ground, so that Rosencrantz can marry Orphwelia.
To me, it is crystal clear, as p'raps it was to you, good sir?

Alas! I was under the impression that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead!

You give me too much credit sir, I had no spur (prithee forgive me),

To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . . .

AndrewV69 wrote:To prick the sides of my intent,
but only Vaulting ambition,
which o'erleaps itself,
And falls on th'other. . .

Yep. I used to ride them dang horses too, buddy. (spit)
Never could get them spurs right 'till ma Pa tells me that youse wear 'em on the outside o' yer boots, and not in yer posin' pouch.
"To prick the sides of my intent"? You got that rite bud!
Hey! Here's a Yankee joke: "the sides of my intent"?
You an A-rab or summin'?
Geddit?
"in-tent"!!?
We Merkins got the best sense-o-humor this side of the Pecos! Yeehah!
(Gotta sign up with Fox for ma 25 year ca-rear as a rival to that there Carson, or whoever his replacement be. Conan the Librarian?)

Michael K Gray wrote: (Gotta sign up with Fox for ma 25 year ca-rear as a rival to that there Carson, or whoever his replacement be. Conan the Librarian?)

I think you have displaced a side of the pond sir! In any event I am off to grab some sleep.

Oh BTW, you did remember Newton and his passion for alchemy? Not quite the same as your Einstein but still, a bit of a shame really. All that time spent on it.

Well, we all have our manic obsessions I suppose. Good night sir! And Good Day!

AndrewV69 wrote:I think you have displaced a side of the pond sir!

It's due to 'quantum'.
Ask Mrs. Cosmopolite.

Oh BTW, you did remember Newton and his passion for alchemy?

And kooky theology.
He spent MORE paper on showing that the god-head could not really be conceived of as a trinity than he did on all of his ground-breaking physics combined!

Not quite the same as your Einstein...

I do not understand that remark.

Well, we all have our manic obsessions I suppose.

What is wrong with a harmless innocent playful interest in the cryohydric subgelatinisation of politicians?

And that's another thing.
Shared with franc is my hatred of the apparent need of 'smilies', is the hatred of the feeling that I should put the Latin [sic] to indictate that an apparent mistake is, in fact, deliberate.
cf:
"For surely your excellent barb was sharpen'd on the whit-stone of learned literature;"
with
"For surely your excellent barb was sharpen'd on the whit-stone[sic] of learned literature;"
I know that it is "whetstone".
So the hell should you.

There'll be a test later.
What's that Carter?
"It's an Ocarina, sir"
Bring it up here. The man now starts making thrusting movements with his pelvic area, moving the penis up and down inside the vagina, so-- Put it there, boy. Put it there on the table.
While the wife maximizes her clitoral stimulation by the shaft of the penis by pushing forward,-- Thank you, dear. Now, as sexual...

Thunderf33t has a new post:
Skepchick: Embrace Victim-hood!
snippet

If you are banging your head on the desk in disbelief at the moment I just want to remind you that this is a girl who blogs regularly on skepchick, and has been supported by freethoughtblogs. She’s also the girl who makes those little ceramic pendants that many people wear (or maybe used to wear at conferences before Amy’s crying over a Tshirt antics). Indeed the only way I think you might have a chance of explaining her self-centered position to Amy is though the concept of reciprocation.

My comment is Copyright©

I just have to say that thunderfoot being invited to fftb was one of the greatest things ever. He jumped in the deep end and he's now walking on water, doing a tap dance for good measure.

DownThunder wrote:I just have to say that thunderfoot being invited to fftb was one of the greatest things ever. He jumped in the deep end and he's now walking on water, doing a tap dance for good measure.

Yep.
It is the classic Frankenstein's Monster, created by a power-crazed loon, now on an unstoppable course to destroy its creator.
It is almost biblical, as in the Hebrew Golem.

...once the golem had been physically made one needed to write the letters aleph, mem, tav, which is emet and means "truth," on the golem's forehead and the golem would come alive. Erase the aleph and you are left with mem and tav, which is met, meaning "death."

Quite a prophetic metaphor.
Erase the truth from your creations' heads, and it means death to your entire cause.

I disagree with tf insofar as i do not believe that you could demonstrate the stupidity of it to her. In the same way that when you tell a believer that they are an atheist with regards to all the other gods, and you simply extend your disbelief to encompass their god, their eyes glaze over as they pronounce that it's different because their god is the real god.

Special pleading is at the very heart of the fftb/skepbabe cult. It's why no questioning of the dogma is tolerated, it has to be accepted a priori.

Example:
Premise; females feel unsafe in groups dominated by males
Circumstance; A convention where female attendance numbers are below average
Proposition; males must change the environment to make it feel safer for females.
Conclusion; An environment that feels safer will attract more females.

If we reject the premise of this example, the proposition is legless. The circumstance of below average female attendance could be caused by a number of factors, upon which the proposition would have no effect whatsoever. You may argue that the conclusion stands on it's own merit, but it is not neccesarily so:

"safer" is subjective and relative. One persons version of safe is an exclusion zone of ten feet between them and the next person, and safer has no meaning out of context of an identifiable threat. If the threat is unsubstantiated then zero change has to be made, nor could it be made to create a "safer" environment. That brings us neatly back to the need for an a priori premise.

secondly feels safer, does not equate to safer. The conclusion standing on it's own suggests that females need the illusion of safety in order to feel safe, kind of like proposing a child needs a security blanket to protect them from the monster under their bed.

This is all why the conclusion cannot stand on it's own, in order to be safer from X, we must first identify X and agree that is it a viable danger that requires protection from. Again we go back to the need for an a priori premise!

This really should have been a blog post.

How insane FfTB spew-crew See Laden. How the sane world see him.

Those pictures are a lot more family friendly than those of Osama bin Laden himself!

PS - PZ thinking he could become a horseman? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Im on twitter and already got blocked by dillahunty :lol:

How long do you think it will take me to get the full house, all i had to do was ask dillahunty why i was banned from axp

OK Folks!
Competition time.
Time to win points!
And we all know what points mean don't we audience?
YES! Points means Prizes!
Simply accurately match the descriptions to the monkey photos.
Can our assistant Abbie please wave her hand over the prizes whilst grinning inanely, as though this were a skill deserving of a 6 figure pay-packet?
1st Prize is a weekend in Dubbo, Australia!
2nd Prize is two weeks.
3rd Prize is an all expenses paid knight out with the ost-meister himself, Ass. Prof. Paul Zachary Myers!
4th Prize is a half-used Travelodge Ballpoint pen with a bit of the desk chain still attached.

It'll be neck-and-neck between grabsees for the 3rd & 4th prizes here tonight, folks!

OK.
Match the following names to to the appropriate photographs.
(Fill in your screens with crayon or lipstick, and post to:
The Taliban Execution Committee
43 Alton Towers,
Ipswitch, DRCongo
by the end of post, Aug 1988)

a) Bansome
b) Surely Aimee
c) Watson

With:
1) 2) 3) Not as easy as you thought, eh?
An Order of the Australian Koala Stamp for the first person to answer cheekily.

Improved version -

http://i.imgur.com/9kJCp.jpg

First one is cry baby
Second one is the going down babe
Third one is dotty old bat

Za-zen wrote:First one is cry baby
Second one is the going down babe
Third one is dotty old bat

Damn.
Thanks for blowing that cliffhanger out of the water for all of the kiddies out there.
How did you guess?
You saw my secret files, didn't you, you bastard.
At least you won't find my diamond mine!

Andrewv69: I wasn't saying that philosophy was outright useless. Rather I was attempting (as MKG's comments show) a somewhat elliptical defence of at least its glorious past, while lamenting its current state.

MKG: I was aware of your argument re Einstein and Mach etc, but I was contrasting the general approach of the physicists of Einstein era with the mathematically adroit “technicians” of today, rather than claiming that adherence to any one particular theory (scientific or philosophical) drove (or hindered) scientific progress.

Obviously, clinging to one or another theory in the face of evidence to the contrary is exactly the opposite of both science and, done properly, of philosophical analysis as well. Adherence to Mach did get Einstein some way, but then he went past him, perhaps on the basis of evidence, but perhaps on the basis of pure conjecture. Is that science? Yes, as we now define it, it is. But if it was pure conjecture, why wasn't that a philosophical contribution? If, as a philosopher, I sat down and had a Big Think and came up with a Grand Unified Theory or the cure for cancer etc etc, would I have done science? Once upon a time if you played with triangles and hypotenuses, you were a philosopher. Now, you might be called mathematician (at least if you progress beyond Pythagoras). Nothing wrong with that unless one is (oh la de da!) trying to establish the non-usefulness of philosophy, because every time an example of some utility is given, it is defined as “not philosophy”. Again, I have no problem with that, but the argument doesn't make the case. On one view, the whole of mathematics can be seen as just a branch of philosophy (cue the “numbers are real!” crowd, but then deciding that issue is a philosophical matter, and it's way above my pay grade).

And I'm not trying to suggest that philosophy has much to teach science. I agree completely that having philosophers tell you how to do your science is not only annoying, but typically a waste of time for both parties. In fact, if the name of a subject begins with “The Philosophy of ...” it can usually be safely ignored, anything of value it might have had to say will just turn out to be a special case of some epistemological, metaphysical or ethical argument and you will have heard it already if you were paying attention.

But not everyone is a wizard science type. Arts types (whose subjects you seem to agree do not need to provide examples of their superior-to-science-utility in order to be valuable) are at the mercy of any kind of tosh if their critical faculties are not somehow engaged beyond the level of “why is the busticket literature, in exactly the same way Dickens is”? Because you said so, Mr Authority Figure. Do I pass now? Philosophy was (and I emphasise was) one method for doing that, though I think the current practice of it is well short of its best. Nunc dimittis.

I know you'll think I've squibbed by not giving you a concrete example, despite what I've said above and the fact that I think it's a loaded question. So I'll give one example of where philosophy comes into my (ex) area of (arguably) science.

In trying to come up with a theory of cognition, the dominant idea is some mix of physiology and its “emergent” properties or some undefined notion of “software” somehow running on the wetware. Now science tells us that brains are universal Turing Machines, so your iPhone is an equivalent machine (allowing for limitations of memory). The temptation to see mental functioning as a program running in the brain is overwhelming and, of course, such a program would be formally equivalent to that mental functioning so any useful result I want to obtain can, in theory, be found by following this through and working out the program. (In practice, this doesn't work out so well.)

The trouble is that the brain (or the person, or the subject, whatever) knows things about the real world but if it does this by manipulating some form of representation (brain state, sensory datum yada yada) then, as the philosophers point out, the whole scheme collapses to solipsism since the object of knowledge is the representation, not the world itself.

That doesn't tell you the answer in some “utility” sense, but it does tell you that a new answer is required and it ought to look a bit different to the one that is going around. While not a direct corollary, it suggests that building detailed internal representations of environments may not be the best way to get a robot to move around it, and that suggestion (coincidentally) seems to be bearing out lately. So from my point of view, if I'd stayed in the field, a philosophical point might have saved me twenty years of faffing about with the wrong approach to modelling cognition.

Aren't you glad you asked?

I can think of other, more specific examples from discussions of the work of various friends of mine in assorted areas of science, but I suspect you would not consider my input to be actual philosophy. After all, I'm not a philosopher, eh.

Anyway, I'm not strongly disagreeing about the value of much of current philosophy, but your request for an example of the superior utility of philosophy sounds a little like Dudley Moore asking to see one of the ravens Peter Cook has trained to fly under water.

Za-zen wrote:Im on twitter and already got blocked by dillahunty :lol:

The fall of grace of Dillahunty is sad to watch. "Facts don't matter" will haunt him forever. Fancy him getting nobbled by the Baboons like that.

With regard to Osama Greg Laden's implication that he might yet have a future back FfTB in a couple of months time, it does remind me of (sorry non UK posters) Peter Mandelson's constant reappearance with the Labour Party after he was "forced to resign" after various scandals. He just kept coming back out of the shadows...

The Baboons are itching to get Dreg Laden back on board because he is their chief henchman.

Considering that many radfems incorrectly call all sex work 'rape', tell me, what on earth did Caine do in the porn business? Was he a fluffer? A cameraperson? An actor? (which the radfems will consider a rapist/raped)? An office-boy editing clerk sort of thing (which the radfems would consider being paid for women to be raped)? Or does he just run a bunch of 'free' traffic sharing sites (I know someone who made enough to retire on by getting in on that sort of internet business very early on)? And mostly, what on earth does Skeptifem think about Caine's work???

A couple years ago, I argued about porn with her. She claimed all actresses were really being raped, despite all consents to the contrary. She also admitted that she liked and watch porn until she began to believe in the radfem ideology that porn was always rape.

I asked her if she had been successful in getting her body to go along with her politics. In other words, can she no longer get horny from porn if she were to watch it again? She freaked out, called me a creep, which made a fellow commentor declare me the winner. Fun times! :)

That's all in a saved file I have, the original of which, PZ has now erased or hidden on his old SB site. The site where ever so conveniently, his comment sections all disappeared and he has NO idea why! Suuuurre, Peezy. This was at the start of, or during, the FfTBers attempts to complain about Abbies threads in hopes they'd get taken down. Peezy probably realized that his own comment threads at SB over the years broke the rules much worse than the things on Abbie's comments, many times over.

Now, the only question is, when it's blown over, will he re-open his comment sections? I doubt it. But, he might. Of course, he'll have absolutely NO idea of HOW they left and came back, being the lying toxic weasel that he is.

The formatting may be a little fucked up on all my saved htm files, but it's still easy to read which commenter says what, in the proper order. I also have the original 3 ElevatorGate threads from there (yes, PZ even tried to memory-hole that), where Dawkins commented 3 times. And, of course, I also have the full backup of all the SlimePit pages, even those first two before I discovered the SlimePit.

Hey, anyone remember when or by who, the name "SlimePit" was coined? I can't remember which FFTBer was so freaked out by our discussions that they called us that.

PZ, you there? Oh, of course you are. All of you who protest too much that you never come here, come here all the time. Well, this paragraph's for you, PZ. Heed it well. Freedom of speech contains, within it and as part of it, the freedom from FORCED speech. Doc dropping is forced speech. And it's even worse, because it also implies that someone is going to physically show up at one's residence/workplace or tell tattletales to their real life friends and acquaintances in hopes of making them look bad. You know this full well, so stop with your free speech nonsense. You yourself have docdropped many people, figuring them as fair game so long as you find reason to deem them bad.

Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

Hello - new here.

Justin, I'm from your bailiwick: Were you around a few years ago when the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese had a conniption because Elton John was going to be appearing at a local venue on - gasp - Good Friday? Because there apparently shouldn't be any entertainment available to anybody on such a solemn Christian day. I note he didn't try to shut down movie theaters or bars - just poor old Elton. I got kind of a charge out of the fact that, a few years later, Elton came back to town - on Good Friday!! Again!! I don't remember any outcry that time though.

I first heard of Rebecca Watson when I started listening to the SGU, the year after Perry died. I went back and downloaded old episodes and I encountered Perry. I wondered what had become of him and was very sad when I found out. Watson, on the other hand, baffled me. I could not imagine what she was doing on the podcast. She came across to me as rather dimwitted and annoying; definitely the weak link. I didn't want to feel that way, because I applauded their decision to have a woman on the podcast, just not her.

I started reading Myers' blog about two years ago, I guess. I got more and more uncomfortable with him, for a couple of reasons. First, he tended to post rants about stuff he came across, without checking to see if he was falling for a scam. His minions had to tactfully tell him he'd been had. Not very skeptical of him. Speaking of the minions, they were the other thing that started to bother me. Such constant nastiness, done just for the pure joy of being obnoxious, or so it seemed to me. He really started to lose me when he began sneering at "dictionary atheists." He was entitled to his opinion about what atheism is, or should be, but there was no reason for name-calling and bad language directed at those who didn't agree. I didn't agree, even though I did give thought to his opinion. No, just no. After that, he really went off the rails with the whole Watson-elevator-extreme feminism nonsense. I stopped reading him. I stopped listening to the SGU, too. I had hoped that Watson might fade out when she got married and moved, but no such luck. After the whole fiasco last summer, I can't stand to hear her voice. Plus, I don't think the podcast is as interesting as it used to be.

Oh, I'm an old lady of 60+ who used to work in the criminal justice system, so I think I know a bit about gender prejudice! And I never had a problem with the guys after I showed them I could do the job, and gave back anything they threw at me!

...I was attempting (as MKG's comments show) a somewhat elliptical defence of at least its glorious past, while lamenting its current state.

As was I, by comparing it to Religion, and its 'glorius' past.

MKG: I was aware of your argument re Einstein and Mach etc,

You hid that awareness remarkably well, if I might be so bold to observe.
In fact, you hid it so well that you argued the reverse.
A skill that I fear I shall never attain.

but I was contrasting the general approach of the physicists of Einstein era with the mathematically adroit “technicians” of today,

Such as? I did specify concrete examples are required in this to-n-fro.
I may agree with you with respect to (say) Wheeler, but not his protégé Feynman.
Please be specific. Name names. Give examples.
It is SO INTERCOURSINGLY frustrating when attempting to grapple with wraiths and will-o-the-wisps pretended as thought they were firm statues.
Cut it out.

rather than claiming that adherence to any one particular theory (scientific or philosophical) drove (or hindered) scientific progress.

Meaningless vacuous twaddle. I have provided but a few examples of where philosophy has actively and demonstrably criminally retarded progress, scientific, cultural, technological and 'thinkological'.

Obviously, clinging to one or another theory in the face of evidence to the contrary is exactly the opposite of both science and, done properly, of philosophical analysis as well.

So: philosophy is a subset of science.

Adherence to Mach did get Einstein some way, but then he went past him, perhaps on the basis of evidence, but perhaps on the basis of pure conjecture.

And your point is?
My, and Einstein's point is that philosophy was a retardant upon his thinking. This is recorded history.
Einstein did not admit that philosophy "got him some way". He eventually 'fessed up that without it, he would have reached his ground-breaking conclusions far earlier!

Now you are just 'making it up'.

Is that science? Yes, as we now define it, it is. But if it was pure conjecture, why wasn't that a philosophical contribution?

Because it WAS NOT pure conjecture. It is the realm of philosophers to which is granted the payment for 'pure conjecture'.
Einstein based his conjectures on the solid data of the known speed of light, of Maxwell's elegant equations, of Heinrich Hertz' revealing observations, of Boltzmann and wossisname (I am doing this from memory, sans the UofGoogle) you know, the guy who invented the Quantum?
Max Planck! IOlivia Neutron Bomb's Grandfather!
Ol Bertie based is musing on solid data, and nothing less.
The data were his bounds, his mind was the tourist bus.
And look at the result!
Einstein rejected philosophy. He won a Nobel Prize and made your GPS possible.
Nietzsche did not.
Go suck a lemon.

If, as a philosopher, I sat down and had a Big Think and came up with a Grand Unified Theory or the cure for cancer etc, would I have done science?

No. You would have been extremely lucky.

Once upon a time if you played with triangles and hypotenuses, you were a philosopher.

Because then the referential term 'scientist' had not been invented.
I class that objection into the facile bin.

Now, you might be called mathematician (at least if you progress beyond Pythagoras).

I have a degree in mathematics.

Nothing wrong with that unless one is (oh la de da!) trying to establish the non-usefulness of philosophy, because every time an example of some utility is given, it is defined as “not philosophy”.

I have yet to do that, in fact I have been willing to do the opposite.
Your false objection reeks of special pleading in order to crudely avoid the clear requisites of my challenge.
I've seen worse attempts, mind you.
Again, I have no problem with that, but the argument doesn't make the case.

/snip/

I know you'll think I've squibbed by not giving you a concrete example

Yes. Yes I do.
For that is a prerequisite of my challenge.
How would you react to a claimant to the JREF $1m who promised that they could conjure gold ingots, but when challenged reacted:

I know you'll think I've squibbed by not giving you a concrete example

Aren't you glad you asked?

Yes. Yes I am glad.
I am glad that it adds another data point on my graph of "Philosomavens are utterly and hopelessly incapable of supporting their position."
If I seem grumpy and intolerant of your valiant and welcome attempt to engage in this discussion, that is entirely my fault.
My fault through having been worn-down by Sparkling Jade abrasives

After all, I'm not a philosopher, eh.

That is a point in your favour.

Anyway, I'm not strongly disagreeing about the value of much of current philosophy, but your request for an example of the superior utility of philosophy sounds a little like Dudley Moore asking to see one of the ravens Peter Cook has trained to fly under water.

You have inadvertently “made my point for me” with pinprick precision.
For I do not seek this utility.
What I seek is the honesty of the philosophers who make great claims to its utility to 'fess up that it has none, and that they do it for fun.
That would satisfy me.
Like this thread, it is all about brutal honesty.

Oxy wrote:Hello - new here.

Justin, I'm from your bailiwick: Were you around a few years ago when the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese had a conniption because Elton John was going to be appearing at a local venue on - gasp - Good Friday? Because there apparently shouldn't be any entertainment available to anybody on such a solemn Christian day. I note he didn't try to shut down movie theaters or bars - just poor old Elton. I got kind of a charge out of the fact that, a few years later, Elton came back to town - on Good Friday!! Again!! I don't remember any outcry that time though.

Come to an NEPA Freethought Society meeting :)
www.nepafreethought.org

Dilurk wrote:

Søren Lilholt wrote:

The Worst Guy wrote:Wait, did I read that correctly? Did Mr. Myers actually suggest that free speech advocates must surrender their right to privacy in order for their advocacy to be taken seriously? The buffoonery, it's limitless.

It would appear so. I swear, I read his blog for half a decade without him really dropping the ball once, and now he can't keep hold of it for shit.

In fact, he seems so loopy now, I'm wondering if it is possibly a side-effect of the heart meds he's on? Can those sort of meds do that?! :?:

I already alluded to that some posts back. ; - ) viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=2776&hilit=heart#p2776

Of course, not being a medical doctor or even a trained biologist, I would never diagnose anyone's mental health due to a heart problem.

lame replying to my own post, but wowsers.

Mood and personality changes after bypass surgery
Heart surgery and personality changes

It's easy to find many stories on the Internet about this. Wow.
Again, I am not a medical doctor I am not in any way diagnosing anyone. I do however find this interesting.

Scented Nectar wrote: Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

Lsuoma wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

I do photography as well. Perhaps I should drop you a PM and some links to my stuff? ; - )

Oxy wrote:Hello - new here.

Justin, I'm from your bailiwick: Were you around a few years ago when the Bishop of the Scranton Diocese had a conniption because Elton John was going to be appearing at a local venue on - gasp - Good Friday? Because there apparently shouldn't be any entertainment available to anybody on such a solemn Christian day. I note he didn't try to shut down movie theaters or bars - just poor old Elton. I got kind of a charge out of the fact that, a few years later, Elton came back to town - on Good Friday!! Again!! I don't remember any outcry that time though.

I first heard of Rebecca Watson when I started listening to the SGU, the year after Perry died. I went back and downloaded old episodes and I encountered Perry. I wondered what had become of him and was very sad when I found out. Watson, on the other hand, baffled me. I could not imagine what she was doing on the podcast. She came across to me as rather dimwitted and annoying; definitely the weak link. I didn't want to feel that way, because I applauded their decision to have a woman on the podcast, just not her.

Reverse discrimination is just as bad, though I admit I still cheer on competent women.

I started reading Myers' blog about two years ago, I guess. I got more and more uncomfortable with him, for a couple of reasons. First, he tended to post rants about stuff he came across, without checking to see if he was falling for a scam. His minions had to tactfully tell him he'd been had. Not very skeptical of him. Speaking of the minions, they were the other thing that started to bother me. Such constant nastiness, done just for the pure joy of being obnoxious, or so it seemed to me. He really started to lose me when he began sneering at "dictionary atheists." He was entitled to his opinion about what atheism is, or should be, but there was no reason for name-calling and bad language directed at those who didn't agree. I didn't agree, even though I did give thought to his

His sneering at so-called "dictionary atheists" I found annoying as well.

opinion. No, just no. After that, he really went off the rails with the whole Watson-elevator-extreme feminism nonsense. I stopped reading him. I stopped listening to the SGU, too. I had hoped that Watson might fade out when she got married and moved, but no such luck. After the whole fiasco last summer, I can't stand to hear her voice. Plus, I don't think the podcast is as interesting as it used to be.

I finally removed links to PZs blogs. His science and some of his antitheist posts used to be a fun read on SB, now he has turned into a mean whiney man with a chip on his shoulder. Can't stand it now.

Oh, I'm an old lady of 60+ who used to work in the criminal justice system, so I think I know a bit about gender prejudice! And I

I'm an old lady of 59, with a grandson and another grandchild on the way. (Sheesh how did that happen?) So it is nice to see you.

never had a problem with the guys after I showed them I could do the job, and gave back anything they threw at me!

I know a thing or two about gender prejudice big time as well. Though it was not always easy. I keep reiterating the same mantra though in case someone actually listens. Treat other people with respect that's all that is needed. The old idea of colour/gender blindness may be an obsolete term, but it is one that comes closest.

Anyway, welcome to the slymepit where people are treated with respect despite differences.

Lsuoma wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

I got all excited thinking you were giving me a link to photos of something to do with two quoques. It's just a camera review place! That's not what I was expecting. :)

What made you uneasy about the camera review site?

Scented Nectar wrote:

Lsuoma wrote:

Scented Nectar wrote: Skeeve, I must admit a fondness for tu coques on occasion. Oh wait a minute, never mind. I was going by how it sounds. Seems to mean something else. Now, what's all this fuss about sax and violins on TV?

I'm a keen photographer, and one of the leading sites in the field is dpreview.com - I can never get over a slightly uneasy feeling visiting that site...

I got all excited thinking you were giving me a link to photos of something to do with two quoques. It's just a camera review place! That's not what I was expecting. :)

What made you uneasy about the camera review site?

"DP"/two coques...

Yes, I'm very juvenile...

Power play! I wonder if the 'cyberstalking team' will be all over this one?

http://i.imgur.com/U34DP.jpg

Dilurk wrote:

Dilurk wrote:

Søren Lilholt wrote:

The Worst Guy wrote:Wait, did I read that correctly? Did Mr. Myers actually suggest that free speech advocates must surrender their right to privacy in order for their advocacy to be taken seriously? The buffoonery, it's limitless.

It would appear so. I swear, I read his blog for half a decade without him really dropping the ball once, and now he can't keep hold of it for shit.

In fact, he seems so loopy now, I'm wondering if it is possibly a side-effect of the heart meds he's on? Can those sort of meds do that?! :?:

I already alluded to that some posts back. ; - ) viewtopic.php?f=31&t=73&p=2776&hilit=heart#p2776

Of course, not being a medical doctor or even a trained biologist, I would never diagnose anyone's mental health due to a heart problem.

lame replying to my own post, but wowsers.

Mood and personality changes after bypass surgery
Heart surgery and personality changes

It's easy to find many stories on the Internet about this. Wow.
Again, I am not a medical doctor I am not in any way diagnosing anyone. I do however find this interesting.

Ive considered this myself-- Not only the personality changes post-heart-surgery, but also that Myers suffered brain damage during his brief death-scare/lack of oxygen earlier that year.

Or maybe he just has been hanging out with dipshits like Watson and Christina and Marcotte too much at Skepticon.

The simpler explanation is that Myers has always been a jackass. We are trying to rationalize why we didnt see it earlier, 'It MUST be because of X/Y/Z! He wasnt like this when I was a fan!' Rationalize how stupid we were to go along with it with 'Those stupid people who still dont 'get it', HAHAHAHA!'

Seriously, go back and read his older non-science stuff. He has always been like this. And we went right along with it because he was going after someone who 'deserved it', or he was going after someone we didnt know enough about to care.

We fucked up. So we can either recognize that and try to do better in the future, or pretend we didnt have a hand in this mess at all and get sideswiped again in the future.

Lsuoma, I get it now. Which is not to say that right now, as I type, I am "getting it". Oh, you know what I mean. :)

judging by justinvacula's post at http://www.slymepit.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... 2800#p3865, I guess that means that neither Grothe and Kazez ever actually visit here, or they are so far up their nether regions with confirmation bias and predisposition they are unable to see the difference.

Right: respectful disagreement equals constant anal rape jokes and wishes for people to die. Right, sure folks.

These so-called intellectuals are a constant source of surprise and disappointment at how weak their critical thinking and intellectual abilities so often turn out to be.