Page 5 of 9 First 123456789 Last
  1. #41
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    35,387
    Style
    xingyi
    13
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    If there was still some doubt you were the artists formerly known as W.Rabbit, they are gone now.

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I cannot tell a lie...like Washington's most famous quote made up by Sir Weems...he and I do, from time to time, collude.

    That doesn't make us the same person.

  3. #43
    hungryjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    4,847
    Style
    judo hiatus
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    I cannot tell a lie...like Washington's most famous quote made up by Sir Weems...he and I do, from time to time, collude.

    That doesn't make us the same person.
    Split personality?

  4. #44
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    13,001
    Style
    Rehab(Back Surgery)
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    If there was still some doubt you were the artists formerly known as W.Rabbit, they are gone now.
    Except PShip seems seems to be right way more often, or maybe just argue their points better?

    Quote Originally Posted by hungryjoe View Post
    Split personality?
    Oh goodness no.
    I already have one that gives me problems, I don't want any more.
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost55 View Post
    Violence is pretty uncommon in clubs in this area, and the dude didn't seem particularly hostile up until the moment he slapped me.
    “I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.”
    BILL HICKS,
    1961-1994

    Quote Originally Posted by WFMurphyPhD View Post
    Slamming the man in the bottom position from time to time keeps everybody on their toes and discourages butt scooting stupidity.

  5. #45
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,110
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    **** "knights".

    Thank you, sir.

    You can imagine that in the words of Marcie from Peanuts.
    Wow that is an intellectual and scholarly argument right there.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Sure I do, enough to know that what you and Phrost are attritubing to some smartass monk from Ockham actually belongs to at least a dozen other people.
    Wow, now we're on to ad homs. This really isn't going well for you is it. No one ever said that Ockham originated the thought, but that he popularized it. In fact I sourced the Encyclopedia Britannica
    The principle was, in fact, invoked before Ockham by Durandus of Saint-Pourçain, a French Dominican theologian and philosopher of dubious orthodoxy, who used it to explain that abstraction is the apprehension of some real entity, such as an Aristotelian cognitive species, an active intellect, or a disposition, all of which he spurned as unnecessary. Likewise, in science, Nicole d’Oresme, a 14th-century French physicist, invoked the law of economy, as did Galileo later, in defending the simplest hypothesis of the heavens. Other later scientists stated similar simplifying laws and principles.

    Ockham, however, mentioned the principle so frequently and employed it so sharply that it was called “Occam’s razor” (also spelled Ockham’s razor).
    So you can try to move the goal posts again, but as with many scientific and philosophic theories, they often are not named for the people who initially discovered or put them forth, but by those who popularize them. Eureka!!!



    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    You're talking about monks philosophizing over sacramental wine, science, and God.

    I know the writings of THOSE monks well.
    Uh... No. Ever hear of another monk named Gregor Mendel? Here's a hint, he had a not insignificant pea farm. Like it or not, monks were the primary scientists of the middle ages.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    But how about William M. Thorburn (1918)?

    No retort? Phrost's article contains at best some line citations and nothing scholarly.

    It was clearly stated in sources posted here that the Latin phrases you are clinging to belong to other, lesser known humans (particularly "the original Latin") as Phrost put it.
    Don't see what a British spinal surgeon has to do with the discussion.

    Scholarly? Really? Phrost wrote a blog post aimed at a popular audience, not a paper for a peer reviewed journal. Nowhere does it claim to attempt to meet any sort of scholarly rigor. Even if it did, referencing any pre-existing formulations of Ockham's Razor or any later misattributions would have been a footnote at best.

    Yes the original latin. As in Ockham wrote the prhase in Latin(which he did as has been demonstrated), and so it is the original Latin. For instance I can cite the original Hebrew of various psalms even though indisputably some of them were reworked pagan songs originally written in Ugaritic and Akkadian. The author of the Psalm simply replaced the names of the various pagan gods with the name of the Hebrew God... However, if I am quoting said psalm for a scholarly paper, I will say, "the original Hebrew" as that is the language of formulation of the author and work under discussion. If I'm doing a really deep dive, I would then footnote the original Akkadian or Ugaritic hymn.

    If I were writing an article for a semi-scholarly popular magazine like Bible Review, I wouldn't even bother with the footnote.

    While I don't doubt that you are a great goal post mover(which is what you are trying to do here again), I seriously doubt your proclaimed profession of editor given your inability to deal with basic English phrasings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    No, Sir. I'm merely pointing out the colloquial versus Scholastic background underlying a quotation being used in a Bullshido.net article.
    No. You are attempting to rework your initial arguments into something that doesn't leave you looking like a complete idiot.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    The intellectual hole I'm in is co-inhabited by Duns Scotus.

    Compared to Duns Scotus, you're as helpless as a worm fighting an eagle.
    Quite the paradox you are building here. Duns Scotus being the primary defender of Divine Right and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which you have claimed to reject. He also disliked William of Ockham's parsimony to the point of having him excommunicated over it.
    From Webster's Dictionary:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parsimony
    : economy in the use of means to an end; especially : economy of explanation in conformity with Occam's razor
    So if you are occupying the same philosophical ground as Duns Scotus why are you arguing over Aristocratic titles, which he posits are granted by Divine Right, and why do you care who formulated how or when a philosophic principle that he thought was erroneous?
    Oh, I get it, you are out of actual arguments of any merit so you are name dropping in some hail marry appeal to authority in the hopes that it will help you, hence Thorburn earlier.

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    354
    Style
    Judo, Nippon Kempo
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    But if I claim the divine right to call "sir" whomever I like, because I claim that God is for democracy, am I with the Scot or against him?

    I'm an atheist now, but when I was a catholic I tought there were grounds to say that God is actually pro communism (the pope clearly disagreed with me though)

    EDIT:
    What I mean is that we can't take this or that principle from a (late) middle ages logician and use it in our thinking without changing it substantially, because there are too many implicit ideas that we do not share.
    For example for many theologians Jesus was the "logos", that more or less means language or reason, and the world was a reflection of God who was the supreme reason.
    So it is obvious that when they spoke about "logic" they meant something quite different from what we mean by "logic".

    The same goes with the title "sir" that in an aristocratic society has a clear meaning, and if you believe in the divine right of aristocrats also a religious meaning, but in our current society this doesn't work anymore. What changed is not the english language, but the world around it.

    So even Occam's razor can only be used by us in a very different way than what Occam probably intended, because the world around it changed.
    Last edited by MisterMR; 8/09/2017 4:46am at .

  7. #47
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,110
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by MisterMR View Post
    But if I claim the divine right to call "sir" whomever I like, because I claim that God is for democracy, am I with the Scot or against him?

    I'm an atheist now, but when I was a catholic I tought there were grounds to say that God is actually pro communism (the pope clearly disagreed with me though)

    EDIT:
    What I mean is that we can't take this or that principle from a (late) middle ages logician and use it in our thinking without changing it substantially, because there are too many implicit ideas that we do not share.
    For example for many theologians Jesus was the "logos", that more or less means language or reason, and the world was a reflection of God who was the supreme reason.
    So it is obvious that when they spoke about "logic" they meant something quite different from what we mean by "logic".

    The same goes with the title "sir" that in an aristocratic society has a clear meaning, and if you believe in the divine right of aristocrats also a religious meaning, but in our current society this doesn't work anymore. What changed is not the english language, but the world around it.

    So even Occam's razor can only be used by us in a very different way than what Occam probably intended, because the world around it changed.
    Well in fairness the majority of Classical Philosophy generally revolves around the idea of some sort of Cause of causes that then emanates the physical universe. The idea, unless I'm much mistaken really got it's start with Aristotle, then found it's form that most Westerners are familiar with in Plotinus with his Neoplatonism that tried to mash up Aristotle and Plato. Neoplatonism was widely accepted by Jewish, Islamic and Christian philosophers and mashed up with greater or lesser purity into their theological systems. While there were ancient Atheistic philosophers such as Diagoras of Melos and Heraclitus.
    Interestingly even the ancient Atheist philosophers believed in some "logos", i.e. not understood logic behind the Universe and the varying changes and evolutions that occur.

    So in that sense Ockham's razor, while it may not have the same application to us as it did to Ockham, would tend to have the same meaning, but application is everything. Thus have great physicists and great philosophers spanned the gamut between Atheists-Deists-Theists.

  8. #48
    BKR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Posts
    16,149
    Style
    Kodokan Judo/BJJ
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Wow that is an intellectual and scholarly argument right there.




    Wow, now we're on to ad homs. This really isn't going well for you is it. No one ever said that Ockham originated the thought, but that he popularized it. In fact I sourced the Encyclopedia Britannica

    So you can try to move the goal posts again, but as with many scientific and philosophic theories, they often are not named for the people who initially discovered or put them forth, but by those who popularize them. Eureka!!!




    Uh... No. Ever hear of another monk named Gregor Mendel? Here's a hint, he had a not insignificant pea farm. Like it or not, monks were the primary scientists of the middle ages.




    Don't see what a British spinal surgeon has to do with the discussion.

    Scholarly? Really? Phrost wrote a blog post aimed at a popular audience, not a paper for a peer reviewed journal. Nowhere does it claim to attempt to meet any sort of scholarly rigor. Even if it did, referencing any pre-existing formulations of Ockham's Razor or any later misattributions would have been a footnote at best.

    Yes the original latin. As in Ockham wrote the prhase in Latin(which he did as has been demonstrated), and so it is the original Latin. For instance I can cite the original Hebrew of various psalms even though indisputably some of them were reworked pagan songs originally written in Ugaritic and Akkadian. The author of the Psalm simply replaced the names of the various pagan gods with the name of the Hebrew God... However, if I am quoting said psalm for a scholarly paper, I will say, "the original Hebrew" as that is the language of formulation of the author and work under discussion. If I'm doing a really deep dive, I would then footnote the original Akkadian or Ugaritic hymn.

    If I were writing an article for a semi-scholarly popular magazine like Bible Review, I wouldn't even bother with the footnote.

    While I don't doubt that you are a great goal post mover(which is what you are trying to do here again), I seriously doubt your proclaimed profession of editor given your inability to deal with basic English phrasings.


    No. You are attempting to rework your initial arguments into something that doesn't leave you looking like a complete idiot.




    Quite the paradox you are building here. Duns Scotus being the primary defender of Divine Right and Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, which you have claimed to reject. He also disliked William of Ockham's parsimony to the point of having him excommunicated over it.
    From Webster's Dictionary:
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parsimony

    So if you are occupying the same philosophical ground as Duns Scotus why are you arguing over Aristocratic titles, which he posits are granted by Divine Right, and why do you care who formulated how or when a philosophic principle that he thought was erroneous?
    Oh, I get it, you are out of actual arguments of any merit so you are name dropping in some hail marry appeal to authority in the hopes that it will help you, hence Thorburn earlier.
    I'll go with the real, verified scholar for 10 on this one...
    Falling for Judo since 1980

    "You are wrong. Why? Because you move like a pregnant yak and talk like a spazzing 'I train UFC' noob." -DCS

    "The best part of getting you worked up is your backpack full of irony and lies." -It Is Fake

    "Banning BKR is like kicking a Quokka. It's foolishness of the first order." - Raycetpfl

  9. #49
    It is Fake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    35,387
    Style
    xingyi
    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BackFistMonkey View Post
    Except PShip seems seems to be right way more often, or maybe just argue their points better?
    Shiiiiiiiiittttttttt...... According to who?

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Scholarly? Really? Phrost wrote a blog post aimed at a popular audience, not a paper for a peer reviewed journal. Nowhere does it claim to attempt to meet any sort of scholarly rigor. Even if it did, referencing any pre-existing formulations of Ockham's Razor or any later misattributions would have been a footnote at best.
    This is why you fail, Mike.

    Popular audience, really? You're calling the rich history of the philosophy of science footnotes?

    What's the popular audience of Bullshido.net again?

    Unscholarly rigor?

    And to think, people accuse ME of being Rabbit.

    You're Rabbi T.

Page 5 of 9 First 123456789 Last

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Log in

Log in