4 ms·

Note here you haven’t contradicted him. Your first argument isn’t substantiated, just an appeal to recency. Your second argument makes a false dichotomy between

Note here you haven’t contradicted him. Your first argument isn’t substantiated, just an appeal to recency. Your second argument makes a false dichotomy between physical and non-physical phenomena that is irrelevant to the underlying issue. It may have escaped your recollection, but Meno and Socrates were discussing the physical phenomenon of bees as an analogy to studying the non-physical concept of virtue. Reading up on the history and the logic here helps. Again, I would love analysis, but it seems like most of what you’re doing is asking epistemologically uncoordinated questions, and failing to make assertions/counter-assertions of your own. It does not follow, simply.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago
It’s not an appeal to recency. I am just saying that appeal to the authority of Socrates is unwarranted. Not to mention interpretive arguments about Plato’s writings which makes the whole reference even more needless. I didn’t imply any dichotomy between physical and non-physical. Not sure what you are talking about. Identifying common features of foobars is simply not a good endeavor no matter whether they are physical or abstract. Another example as we have talked about bees. Imagine that you have been studying bees. You come up with an ad boc description without any coherent explanation of these features. Some of bees bite you, some of them only sting you, some make honey, some don’t, some are big, some are small. Their features are contradictory, some have most of them, some have only few of them. And all of that looks weird until you realize that you’ve been confusing bees, wasps, hornets and whatnot. Our modern understanding of science can help us distinguish those things to the point of tracing their ancestry by analyzing their DNA. The understanding of ur-fascism by Umberto Eco rather looks like inability to distinguish bees from wasps. We can also talk about fish. And how grouping dolphins with fish may lead you astray in your inferences. Grouping things together based on superficial similarities is just bad science. That’s all.
- fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
  This is a straw man through and through. I’ve seen enough, thanks for the time.
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
    It’s called an analogy.

LudwigNagasena 4y ago

It’s not an appeal to recency. I am just saying that appeal to the authority of Socrates is unwarranted. Not to mention interpretive arguments about Plato’s writings which makes the whole reference even more needless. I didn’t imply any dichotomy between physical and non-physical. Not sure what you are talking about. Identifying common features of foobars is simply not a good endeavor no matter whether they are physical or abstract. Another example as we have talked about bees. Imagine that you have been studying bees. You come up with an ad boc description without any coherent explanation of these features. Some of bees bite you, some of them only sting you, some make honey, some don’t, some are big, some are small. Their features are contradictory, some have most of them, some have only few of them. And all of that looks weird until you realize that you’ve been confusing bees, wasps, hornets and whatnot. Our modern understanding of science can help us distinguish those things to the point of tracing their ancestry by analyzing their DNA. The understanding of ur-fascism by Umberto Eco rather looks like inability to distinguish bees from wasps. We can also talk about fish. And how grouping dolphins with fish may lead you astray in your inferences. Grouping things together based on superficial similarities is just bad science. That’s all.

fleetwoodsnack 4y ago
This is a straw man through and through. I’ve seen enough, thanks for the time.
- LudwigNagasena 4y ago
  It’s called an analogy.