Jump to content



  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vaelastraz

  1. Logic is applied to just about everything within philosophy, because it is a truth-preserving operation. Other than establishing validity, consistency and the like, it has no content on its own, it's more like a grammar. That's why logic alone cannot be used to determine what a moral action is. For that, we'd need a set of premises as well and at least one of them would have to be normative to begin with, since we can't get any morals from purely descriptive/factual premises. Now justifying those normative premises is quite the problem and that's where I think theistic theories have a disadvantage, as their premises involve a deity. (Which means that the plausibility of their premises is linked to the probability of the existence of that deity.. not a good thing if you ask me ) But the logical validity... well that's really a necessary requirement for any argument, if it's deductive. I'm sure there are theistic moral philosophies which are ok logically speaking.
  2. This cinematic is absolutely awesome. Almost on par with Blizzard's cinematics. I don't agree with their choice of music though.. TSL's music doesn't fit here imo. Also, the Sith look rather boringly designed to me, especially the Sith Lord.
  3. I'm an agnostic atheist. There's no evidence, or any hint for that matter, which suggests the existence of a god. 1. At the age of 17 I think. 2. No. My parents aren't religious even though they do believe in god. 3. They didn't make a fuzz about it.. I actually had lots of interesting discussions with my dad where he played devil's advocate. 4. Religion should be a personal, private thing. It shouldn't influence politics or moral issues. 5. No. 6. I haven't read a single book entirely devoted to this issue. I find it very interesting though (the epistemological side of it) so I will probably read one at some point. 7. Contemporary authors? Dawkins, Harris, Dennet.. Hitchens not so much. I really like Hume and Russell. ;> 8. I don't have a favourite philosophy.. even though I'm a philosophy student. I don't live by any philosophy. I'm interested in epistemology, philosophy of science, logic & set theory, morality. 9. I'm not sure what that is supposed to be about.. I'll go with just about anything Descartes has to say about God in his Meditations on First Philosophy.. 10. I don't know.
  4. When you say "prove" what exactly are you talking about? Science is not math. We cannot prove scientific theories the way we prove propositions in math. Math is axiomatically-deductive, science is not. So I guess by "prove" you actually refer to having gone through the scientific method. Well evolution has, creationism, or intelligent design, has not as it's not science.
  5. I realize that lots of people probably believe in God for the reasons you mentioned. But to me, that seems a lot like pascal's wager. Whether god exits or not is completely unrelated to any of that.
  6. Hm.. I'm not awfully familiar with homoeopathy, for example, but if proponents claim that their medicine works, state a hypothesis to that effect, deduce a necessary fact from the hypothesis and test for it.. I don't see why a hypothesis like "unbelievably diluted substances cure this and that" can't be a scientific hypothesis.
  7. I know you didn't mean that seriously but perhaps it's best to clarify something. A hypothesis can be perfectly scientific and false.
  8. Hi, I thought it'd be interesting to have a thread on science and pseudo-science and how to distinguish the former from the latter. I guess one popular approach to this problem of demarcation is Popper's account of falsifiability, ie a hypothesis is scientific if and only if its falsity can be shown by observation or empirical evidence. But there are differing opinions among philosophers and scientists, and this is probably also true in this forum. I'd be interested in reading them.
  9. Personally I stick to the rule of thumb that there are no girls on the internet.

  10. I'm not female. :/

  11. And why should looking at Lenin, or Stalin for that matter, tell us anything about what Communism or Socialism actually are? There's a reason we distinguish between "Real Socialism", "Socialism" and "Communism".
  12. Garfield, do you seriously not see that arguments of the following form are deductively invalid? Premise 1: P conducted research study X. Premise 2: P conducted research study Y. Premise 3: Y is skewed and biased. Conclusion: Therefore X is skewed and biased.
  13. Indeed. And this is exactly what Skinwalker provided us with. I'm sure you've noticed that anyone here but you considers the research study to be empirically valid. You do not. Please demonstrate why we should believe you. And do so by referring to the empirical data, not Nyborg's history. So far, your treatment of this research study is akin to saying that Harry Potter sucks because Rowling has a history of writing bad books. Without actually having read Harry Potter.
  14. Why don't you take a look at the data at hand? This is just unbelievable.. Skinwalker went to great lengths and posted details about the methodology yet all you do is spout something about how the guy got into trouble somewhere.. If you want to show that the data is biased, skewed bad or whatever, do that by referring to flaws in the methodology. You can't just go "oh that guy has a reputation for blalblalbla, therefore the data is false".
  15. I hope you're not trying to insinuate something about pokemon or transformers here..
  16. lol how is this even a fight Revan all the way he's the most powerful jedi ever
  17. This theory has an amazing predictive and explanatory power and is pretty much confirmed with evidence. Pure WIN.
  18. DotA Allstars for Warcraft III TFT. Best damn mod ever, I've been playing the game since 2003 online and it's still entertaining.
  • Create New...