Is philosophy critical thinking applied to philosophical problems?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:04 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155880 wrote:
If you think so. Whatever you think, even without reason.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 08:34 PM ----------



If you say so. Look, I think Einstein was a basket-weaver. And I don't care what anyone else says, because sometimes you have to stand alone. And also think that there is a Spaghetti Monster, and it doesn't matter whether I am insane, because sometimes you have to stand alone. Right? Even if you are put into a straitjacket.


Hmm am I or are the others crazy??? ring any bells. I dont think there is anything crazy about being apparently the only one to require my science to be scientific lol. You have just displayed the most destructive thought process in human history for us all. What i said would be all anyone of rational thought would need to hear to agree.

So you are saying that even though what he did is unscientific you are going to call it science because others have? i suppose you believe that the united states is a democracy because that is what people say? if and only if something falls under the definition of science should it be called science. This debate is making me sick and is sucking the hope i have for the future right out of me. I am sorry but there is no room for dogmatic belief in philosophy and please do not bother saying that my requirement for something red to be red to call it red is dogmatic as that is foolishness.

Dogmatic is you saying mathematical physics is science even though it in no way adheres to the laws of science or the definition of such. You are literal as wrong as someone claiming that a circle is a square because other people say so.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:27 pm
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;155903 wrote:
Hmm am I or are the others crazy??? ring any bells. I dont think there is anything crazy about being apparently the only one to require my science to be scientific lol. You have just displayed the most destructive thought process in human history for us all. What i said would be all anyone of rational thought would need to hear to agree.

So you are saying that even though what he did is unscientific you are going to call it science because others have? i suppose you believe that the united states is a democracy because that is what people say? if and only if something falls under the definition of science should it be called science. This debate is making me sick and is sucking the hope i have for the future right out of me. I am sorry but there is no room for dogmatic belief in philosophy and please do not bother saying that my requirement for something red to be red to call it red is dogmatic as that is foolishness.

Dogmatic is you saying mathematical physics is science even though it in no way adheres to the laws of science or the definition of such. You are literal as wrong as someone claiming that a circle is a square because other people say so.


Please try to remember that the issue is whether Einstein was a physicist. You seemed to deny he was. I pointed out that he won two Nobel prizes for physics, and then the conversation began to degenerate and you turned to how you stand alone against all authority. Do you feel like going back to the issue of whether Einstein was a physicist?
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155915 wrote:
Please try to remember that the issue is whether Einstein was a physicist. You seemed to deny he was. I pointed out that he won two Nobel prizes for physics, and then the conversation began to degenerate and you turned to how you stand alone against all authority. Do you feel like going back to the issue of whether Einstein was a physicist?


No as i have covered it already and his work being in no way scientific is not enough to prove to you he was not a physical scientist. that said clearly an further attempt on my to get you to agree that something has to be what it is to be what it is is futile.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 07:41 pm
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;155922 wrote:
No as i have covered it already and his work being in no way scientific is not enough to prove to you he was not a physical scientist. that said clearly an further attempt on my to get you to agree that something has to be what it is to be what it is is futile.


I did not say his work was scientific or not scientific. I just said he won two Nobel prizes in physics, and I inferred from this that he was a physicist. That is the sum of my argument. Your turn.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 08:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155927 wrote:
I did not say his work was scientific or not scientific. I just said he won two Nobel prizes in physics, and I inferred from this that he was a physicist. That is the sum of my argument. Your turn.


being a physicist is the short form of say he was a physical scientist. he won a Nobel prize in physical science which can be shorted to say he won for physics. point is if i white guy wins an award for being black he is no more black than any other white guy. calling America a democracy makes it no less a republic than any other republic. Your arguments are becoming nonsensical and i would guess you are only hanging on because of the sunk cost effect and a deep conformation bias stemming from your apparent sense that you are the smartest man in the world. you must be as you solved the mind body problem in one of the other 3 posts we are debating in.


I cant help but laugh at this. Calling someone a physical scientist is not claiming his work is scientific. that is rich. I hope you did not know that a physicist is a physical scientist because that requires far less stupidity than they alternative interpretation of your replys.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 02:52 am
@kennethamy,
I am afraid I must doubt doubt doubt.

Let's do a straw poll on who else thinks the Einstein's work isn't science.
 
StochasticBeauty
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 03:18 am
@kennethamy,
His major achievement were scientific but he was more a humanist in my opinion. A true genius and social critic that saw/experienced what man is capable of; in it's destruction and love. He was nearly a prophet. Einstein was very intouch with man and was a friend of Freud as well. In 'The World as I See It' there are letter's between him and Freud which display a greater understanding. Additionally, he was not sheltered his entire life by academia both by being Jewish living in tumultous times. He had quite a precious perspective.

Richard Feynman was great scientist who was more than a scientist in my opinion but he experienced far less than Einstein thus his contributions were less humanistic. But under the right circumstances a very sensitive perspective could have been cultivated. Theoretical physics is a very abstract visuospatial science and your likely very open-minded to begin with; unless you side with applied physics which is more classical and some QM thrown in.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 03:52 am
@Doubt doubt,
Doubt doubt;155938 wrote:
being a physicist is the short form of say he was a physical scientist. he won a Nobel prize in physical science which can be shorted to say he won for physics. point is if i white guy wins an award for being black he is no more black than any other white guy. calling America a democracy makes it no less a republic than any other republic. Your arguments are becoming nonsensical and i would guess you are only hanging on because of the sunk cost effect and a deep conformation bias stemming from your apparent sense that you are the smartest man in the world. you must be as you solved the mind body problem in one of the other 3 posts we are debating in.


I cant help but laugh at this. Calling someone a physical scientist is not claiming his work is scientific. that is rich. I hope you did not know that a physicist is a physical scientist because that requires far less stupidity than they alternative interpretation of your replys.


I didn't say he was a physical scientist. I said he was a physicist. And, that is what he worked in. Physics. It was not stamp collecting. Other physicists believed he was a physicist. Or, maybe you don't think there are physicists at all. I would not be surprised.
 
Doubt doubt
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 03:13 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155996 wrote:
I didn't say he was a physical scientist. I said he was a physicist. And, that is what he worked in. Physics. It was not stamp collecting. Other physicists believed he was a physicist. Or, maybe you don't think there are physicists at all. I would not be surprised.
http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gif-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifst)n. A scientist who specializes in physicshttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifzhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifks)

n.1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two.

physicist synonyms

physicistn.
physical scientist, natural philosopher, Natural scientist
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/23/2019 at 05:41:23