4 ms·

I rest my case.

b112 2y ago
Your case was "that made up 'science' is real, and you can't say no because you haven't studied it for years". I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Yet I've hear a lot more philosophical blather than that, and so yes, I have enough data to make a determination. There's an inner logic to tarot cards, books and books on it, but that doesn't make it useful or valuable.
- Ma8ee 2y ago
  You very clearly illustrate andybak’s point by showing that you just don’t even know what philosophy is.
  - b112 2y ago
    So your argument, is that one must spend years studying nonsense, to have an opinion on its worth? I've already clarified why this is not so. Thus, your main, true disagreement is that you do not agree with my assessment.
    - Ma8ee 2y ago
      No, my argument is that you lack even a rudimentary understanding what it is all about. You only need some curiosity and an open mind to get that. I’m certain there are something in Wikipedia that can help.
      - b112 2y ago
        I'm sorry my friend, but Wikipedia cannot help philosophy. Nothing can.
        Ma8ee 2y ago
        It’s not philosophy that needs help.
- djur 2y ago
  Philosophy is not and does not purport to be a 'science'. The fact that philosophers make and discuss propositions that seem incorrect to you does not mean that the field of philosophy is fraudulent or unimportant.
- tadala 2y ago
  Shocking comment. Do you think the scientific method is inbuilt in our DNA or something? Where do you think it all comes from?
  - b112 2y ago
    You think it comes from philosophy? This is like claiming our democracy comes from God, because he edictorially spoke through ancient kings!
    - djur 2y ago
      The term "scientific method" is itself a philosophical term (as is "method" in this context). Read, or even skim, this and notice how many of the important figures listed were philosophers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
- sethammons 2y ago
  > I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Copernicus deniers didn't need years of study either as their source material said differently. I'm not saying anything either way on philosophy, I'm simply pointing out that your presented logic there is flawed
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

I rest my case.

b112 2y ago

Your case was "that made up 'science' is real, and you can't say no because you haven't studied it for years". I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Yet I've hear a lot more philosophical blather than that, and so yes, I have enough data to make a determination. There's an inner logic to tarot cards, books and books on it, but that doesn't make it useful or valuable.

Ma8ee 2y ago
You very clearly illustrate andybak’s point by showing that you just don’t even know what philosophy is.
- b112 2y ago
  So your argument, is that one must spend years studying nonsense, to have an opinion on its worth? I've already clarified why this is not so. Thus, your main, true disagreement is that you do not agree with my assessment.
  - Ma8ee 2y ago
    No, my argument is that you lack even a rudimentary understanding what it is all about. You only need some curiosity and an open mind to get that. I’m certain there are something in Wikipedia that can help.
    - b112 2y ago
      I'm sorry my friend, but Wikipedia cannot help philosophy. Nothing can.
      - Ma8ee 2y ago
        It’s not philosophy that needs help.
djur 2y ago
Philosophy is not and does not purport to be a 'science'. The fact that philosophers make and discuss propositions that seem incorrect to you does not mean that the field of philosophy is fraudulent or unimportant.
tadala 2y ago
Shocking comment. Do you think the scientific method is inbuilt in our DNA or something? Where do you think it all comes from?
- b112 2y ago
  You think it comes from philosophy? This is like claiming our democracy comes from God, because he edictorially spoke through ancient kings!
  - djur 2y ago
    The term "scientific method" is itself a philosophical term (as is "method" in this context). Read, or even skim, this and notice how many of the important figures listed were philosophers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
sethammons 2y ago
> I don't need to study astrology for years, to know it's nonsense in about 10 minutes. Copernicus deniers didn't need years of study either as their source material said differently. I'm not saying anything either way on philosophy, I'm simply pointing out that your presented logic there is flawed
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]