JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Reply
Old 11th November 2012, 03:21 AM   #361
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
http://philosophy.eserver.org/anonymous.html
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:26 AM   #362
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Philosophers have different opinions. Which philosopher, past or present, had the real knowledge?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that philosophy cannot be a field of knowledge because philosophers say different things and they can't all be correct?
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 03:33 AM   #363
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that philosophy cannot be a field of knowledge because philosophers say different things and they can't all be correct?
Yes. Philosophy is a speculative word game. Anyone with a good vocabulary can join in. My own view is that a priori aspects of epistemology are of themselves empirical and propaedeutic in nature and therefore absolutist and transcend consequentialism.

Last edited by dafydd; 11th November 2012 at 03:40 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:08 AM   #364
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:30 AM   #365
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,699
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.
Why? Does thinking something mean you have to exist? If I think I'm Jesus, does that make Jesus appear?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:32 AM   #366
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Yes. Philosophy is a speculative word game. Anyone with a good vocabulary can join in. My own view is that a priori aspects of epistemology are of themselves empirical and propaedeutic in nature and therefore absolutist and transcend consequentialism.
Scientists have said different things throughout history, so why don't you denounce them?

I imagine that your answer is going to be 'because of the use of experimentation to confirm their results', but philosophers reach their results via logic, so what's the difference?
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:33 AM   #367
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
Scientists have said different things throughout history, so why don't you denounce them?

I imagine that your answer is going to be 'because of the use of experimentation to confirm their results', but philosophers reach their results via logic, so what's the difference?
Experiments are real.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:34 AM   #368
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
If we can get back to the OP the philosophers who think that they don't exist wouldn't be able to think that they don't exist if they didn't exist.
You know, I think someone earlier in thread suggested that the actual position of these particular nihilists was that language implied they didn't exist. Does your memory go back that far?

Also, someone already tried this witty retort.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:35 AM   #369
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Why? Does thinking something mean you have to exist? If I think I'm Jesus, does that make Jesus appear?
In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:36 AM   #370
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Experiments are real.
And yet they rely on logic, which you don't seem to consider to be real.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:37 AM   #371
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
You know, I think someone earlier in thread suggested that the actual position of these particular nihilists was that language implied they didn't exist. Does your memory go back that far?

Also, someone already tried this witty retort.
Not witty, but true. I find it odd that people who have to exist in order to use a language could consider that the language they use implies that they don't exist. Perhaps they should get out more.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:38 AM   #372
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
And yet they rely on logic, which you don't seem to consider to be real.
It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy.

Last edited by dafydd; 11th November 2012 at 04:43 AM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:39 AM   #373
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.
That's paraphrasing Descartes. 'I think therefore I am.'
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:41 AM   #374
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Not witty, but true. I find it odd that people who have to exist in order to use a language could consider that the language they use implies that they don't exist. Perhaps they should get out more.
Why?

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Logic is real.
If that's your opinion, then why do you dismiss philosophy? Its results are based on logic, and logic is within its purview.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:42 AM   #375
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,699
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
In order to think about something you have to exist. You can't make things exist by thinking about them. Common sense again.
Didn't you just make your post exist by thinking about it?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:46 AM   #376
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
I give up, the word game has become very boring. I'm off to play non-logical fiddle at a local jam session, providing that I exist, of course. All the best, folks.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:50 AM   #377
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Didn't you just make your post exist by thinking about it?
Yes, but it's not material. But you knew that, of course. Salut!
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:54 AM   #378
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,699
Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away.

"Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon."

"Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query."

"Very good sir, but please be aware there are women and small children about."
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th November 2012, 04:58 AM   #379
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
Philosophy has the power to make people feel uncomfortable. This is a good reason to keep it locked away.
It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, I find the word games amusing.

Quote:
"Excuse me sir, I believe you are asking too many pointed questions here with no foreseeable resolution in sight. Please produce your license to philosophize or I shall have to beat you about the buttocks with my truncheon."

"Kant. Emmanuel Kant, 007 -- licensed to query."
I'm shaken , but not stirred.

I have to get ready to appear before my public. You lot will have to find somebody else to toy with for the rest of the day. Cheers!
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:02 AM   #380
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,665
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.
You can't know what you don't know.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 07:47 AM   #381
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Merton View Post
What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.
How many philosophical quandaries did Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain answer before they got to work and invented the transistor? My guess is none.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 12:23 PM   #382
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Ah, you're both back.

Originally Posted by tsig View Post
You can't know what you don't know.
(I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable')

Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room.

You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
How many philosophical quandaries did Shockley, Bardeen and Brattain answer before they got to work and invented the transistor? My guess is none.
That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it.

In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.

Last edited by Twiler; 12th November 2012 at 12:35 PM. Reason: Grammar
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 01:42 PM   #383
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,665
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
Ah, you're both back.



(I'm reading this as 'What isn't known is unknowable')

Well, you don't know the colour of the carpet in my room, but you could know the colour of the carpet in my room.

You don't know that there isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room, but that's because you can't know that there is or isn't an imperceptible dragon in my room.



That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it.

In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.
I see that once again you want to write my posts and answer them at the same time.


(Protip, using the phrase "I'm reading this as" makes the straw all that more visible.)
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 02:19 PM   #384
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I see that once again you want to write my posts and answer them at the same time.


(Protip, using the phrase "I'm reading this as" makes the straw all that more visible.)
Perhaps I should try the new and innovative approach of asking you clarifying questions about your position?

(Seriously, what do you want from me? You disapprove of me making assumptions, and you disapprove of me asking questions. In the circumstance when I don't know exactly what you mean, how can I continue the discussion without doing either one of those things?)
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:09 PM   #385
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post



That's a good point, but you don't need to know how something works in order for you to employ it.
And you don't need to grapple with philosophical quandaries in order to employ it.

Quote:
In addition, it wouldn't be necessary for they themselves to solve the quandaries, someone else could do it.
What kind of philosophical quandaries needed to be solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor? I can't think of any.

Last edited by dafydd; 12th November 2012 at 04:12 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:18 PM   #386
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
And you don't need to grapple with philosophical quandaries in order to employ it.
Yes, that's what I meant. You don't need to understand philosophy to use science.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
What kind of philosophical quandaries needed to be solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor? I can't think of any.
We got to this point in the discussion from Merton's post earlier:

Originally Posted by Merton View Post
What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.
-which provides the quandaries relevant to this subject.

So, the discussion has gone:

Merton: Here are some quandaries that need answering before we can do science.

dafydd: The inventors of the transistor didn't consider those quandaries.

Twiler: They wouldn't need to solve them themselves.

dafydd: There aren't any quandaries that need answering to invent the transistor.


EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results.

Last edited by Twiler; 12th November 2012 at 04:25 PM. Reason: Realized mistake
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:37 PM   #387
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post


EDIT: Actually, I can see a problem with what I've said here; There needs to be a better distinction between a specific group of people using science, and humanity in general using science. Someone needs to think about these quandaries for science to exist in a useful form, but it doesn't have to be the specific people engaging in scientific activity. You need the philosophy of science to avoid cargo cult science, where a method is followed, but not a method which provides meaningful results.
Do you have any specific quandaries in mind? I strongly suspect that many of these quandaries will be moral problems and not philosophical in nature.

Last edited by dafydd; 12th November 2012 at 04:39 PM.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 04:42 PM   #388
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Do you have any specific quandaries in mind? I strongly suspect that many of these quandaries will be moral problems and not philosophical in nature.
I meant the quandaries in Merton's post:

Quote:
What constitutes evidence? What is knowledge and how does one obtain it? What can we know and what can we not know? These are philosophical quandaries that need answering before one can experiment and obtain evidence.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 05:06 PM   #389
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known.

''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know''
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 05:10 PM   #390
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
What quandaries? The definitions of the words evidence and knowledge are quite well known.

''Boys, we can't go ahead and invent the transistor, we haven't figured out yet exactly what it is that we cannot know''
They are now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.

(Actually, can you tell me what definitions you're thinking of so I can make sure we're thinking along the same lines?)
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th November 2012, 05:21 PM   #391
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post
They are now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.

(Actually, can you tell me what definitions you're thinking of so I can make sure we're thinking along the same lines?)
There are many dictionaries available. As for my thinking, I don't believe that the impenetrable word games of philosophy have anything to do with science and invention. Those that can, do. Those that kan't, philosophize.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 12:00 AM   #392
Twiler
Master Poster
 
Twiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
There are many dictionaries available.
Repeated with emphasis: They (the meanings of evidence and knowledge) are (widely known) now, but they wouldn't be if no-one had ever thought about them.

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
As for my thinking, I don't believe that the impenetrable word games of philosophy have anything to do with science and invention.
So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science?

Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Those that can, do. Those that kan't, philosophize.
Descartes was a soldier, a mathematician and a teacher as well as a philosopher. That's just one example that overturns that theory.
Twiler is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 01:06 AM   #393
llwyd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
It all depends on your definition of logic. A scientist carrying out an experiment is doing something practical, not cogitating on neo-Kantian metaphysics or Spinoza's ethics. Of course the scientist has to think logically about his work but I wouldn't consider that to be a branch of philosophy.
Well, I don't know about metaphysics, but I think ethics and morality are very important questions for us. The fact that philosophy is not a natural science doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Do you think that art and literature are meaningless too? Are only measurable, material things meaningful? And what exactly is their meaning?
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 01:32 AM   #394
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Valley Lodge, USA
Posts: 2,136
Sometimes I wonder if levi, with his repeated threads asking the same questions that he's received very direct answers to before, is some kind of self-justifying hoax by the the philosophy haters here.
__________________
Google search help
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 04:05 AM   #395
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post



So, how do you think we got a scientific method that avoided the pitfall of cargo cult science?
Experiments.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 04:10 AM   #396
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by llwyd View Post
Well, I don't know about metaphysics, but I think ethics and morality are very important questions for us. The fact that philosophy is not a natural science doesn't mean that it's meaningless. Do you think that art and literature are meaningless too? Are only measurable, material things meaningful? And what exactly is their meaning?
I think that the word philosophy is a vague term. Apparently just thinking about something is philosophizing. Which branch of philosophy do you consider to be the most meaningful?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 04:11 AM   #397
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Twiler View Post



Descartes was a soldier, a mathematician and a teacher as well as a philosopher. That's just one example that overturns that theory.
Was he philosophizing as he was fighting?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 04:16 AM   #398
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Gazpacho View Post
Sometimes I wonder if levi, with his repeated threads asking the same questions that he's received very direct answers to before, is some kind of self-justifying hoax by the the philosophy haters here.
I don't hate philosophy. I notice that nobody has answered my question about which philosophical quandaries were solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor. I've been told that these quandaries exist but I have no inkling as to the nature of these quandaries, and I've only received vague answers, in the true spirit of philosophy.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 06:24 AM   #399
llwyd
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Helsinki
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I think that the word philosophy is a vague term. Apparently just thinking about something is philosophizing. Which branch of philosophy do you consider to be the most meaningful?
If you'll answer me, I'll answer you! Deal?
llwyd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th November 2012, 08:52 AM   #400
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 11,699
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I don't hate philosophy. I notice that nobody has answered my question about which philosophical quandaries were solved in order to pave the way for the invention of the transistor. I've been told that these quandaries exist but I have no inkling as to the nature of these quandaries, and I've only received vague answers, in the true spirit of philosophy.
I don't know enough about the invention of the transistor to have a good answer, but I want to guess anyhow.

Here's the quandary I have in mind: The meaning of i in the calculations. (Not the meaning of "I", although that would be cool, but the meaning of complex numbers in a real world application.)
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:48 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.