Page 7 of 9 First ... 3456789 Last
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Let's take breather and discuss some of the other "razors", because there are other...concerns I have with Phrost's article.

    We discuss why William of Ockham's "razor" and Hitchen's "razor" are diametrically opposed..

    William of Ockham sure posited a whole bunch of bullshit without any evidence. So let's role play...you be William of Ockham and I'll be Chris Hitchens.

    You try to prove God and free will exists without any evidence but Williams' philosophical razor, and I'll keep shooting down everything you say because you don't provide any evidence. :-D

    There are big philosophical clashes in the larger "razor" discussion. I brought them up just before but you didn't comment on them, let's swing around that pole a bit, shall we?

    If you are truly a man of God, you probably know I've got you by the balls here, but it'll be fun anyway to see you try to use Ockham's purely speculative philosophy against Hitchen's pragmatic, no bullshit worldview.

  2. #62
    Raycetpfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    5,522
    Style
    Gracie Jiu Jitsu
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Let's take breather and discuss some of the other "razors", because there are other...concerns I have with Phrost's article.

    We discuss why William of Ockham's "razor" and Hitchen's "razor" are diametrically opposed..

    William of Ockham sure posited a whole bunch of bullshit without any evidence. So let's role play...you be William of Ockham and I'll be Chris Hitchens.

    You try to prove God and free will exists without any evidence but Williams' philosophical razor, and I'll keep shooting down everything you say because you don't provide any evidence. :-D

    There are big philosophical clashes in the larger "razor" discussion. I brought them up just before but you didn't comment on them, let's swing around that pole a bit, shall we?

    If you are truly a man of God, you probably know I've got you by the balls here, but it'll be fun anyway to see you try to use Ockham's purely speculative philosophy against Hitchen's pragmatic, no bullshit worldview.
    You love semantics like fat kids love cake.

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Nope. Same footnote in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy. You really shouldn't make so many absurd assumptions when doubling down on your errors.
    The only assumption I've made in the whole thread was that you couldn't read Latin (mea culpa). Everything else is just me pointing out peer reviewed scholarly research that says 1) William didn't create that phrase and 2) in some cases, William didn't even write it the way people claim. At a minimum, William of Ockham never, ever wrote "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" in any language If you claim otherwise, you're saying academia and scholars of the Scholastics got it all wrong, and you need to post a screenshot of Latin that translates to this English. (Hint: you can't, I checked).

    You could prove at least that the Latin Phrost posted (claiming William coined it) is somewhere in the work you keep citing with a screenshot...but you won't because I'll again point out that 1) the phrase Phrost used is not the phrase Williiam or Iohannes used in Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. The phrase Phrost DID use ("Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.”) is practically a copy of Duns Scotus' writing (a paraphrase) and 2) the work Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi. itself was edited by a 2nd author 150 years later, implying any part of the work could have been changed from Williams' original writing by the editor (because editors and copymen do that sort of thing...the Bible is a great example of a work with diverse scriptural interpretations across languages).

    The short version is the "footnote in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy" is (allegedly...nobody's posted a screenshot) of Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate, which of course is NOT what is currently posted on the BS.net article.

    The best solution would seem to 1) screenshot the citation in the original work (Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate), replace “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.” with the correct phrase (along with evidence), and delete "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily", replacing it with the correct translation from Quaestiones et decisiones in quattuor libros Sententiarum Petri Lombardi: "Plurality is never to be posited without necessity."

    This is precisely what I would do if I was editing. So far I have ample evidence of multiple authors and weakly attributed phrases..to be accurate, it's important not to add pluralities or multiplicities of my own and stick with what is known for sure...so far, the evidence shows there might be a similar phrase buried in one extant work, but once you post a shot of it, it'll be clear the BS article's Latin AND English translation should be corrected.

    OR, BS can just be a place for "pop" articles and not evidence-based reasoning. It's your dime.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/14/2017 2:59pm at .

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Raycetpfl View Post
    You love semantics like fat kids love cake.
    Thin kids love cake too.

    Writing one short article on philosophical razors as modern day "Bullshit Defense" is fine, but by combining philosophical worldviews completely opposed to one another, Phrost has actually made a bit of a mess. I chew up articles...it's what I do. I'm trying to not inject my own opinions on the article (because we'd be here a while), so instead I'm focusing on nitpicking little editorial errors...if Phrost had handed me this article for proofing, this would all have been in red ink.

    Note: I never claimed to be any sort of expert on these subjects before I read the article, nor am I any sort of authority on them now.

    But when I fact check stuff, I go balls deep and crush puss. The fact checking on this article brought up a number of inaccuracies worthy of Bullshido.net discourse, and here we are. But I think there are more interesting side discussions to be had, if we can get past the citation errors.

    William of Ockham was practically a Creationist, and Christ Hitchens is probably one of the most devout Atheists in recent history. I think a more interesting discussion than just "are are all these razors" is how the different men might have debated the same logic if put in the same room.

    For example, Duns Scotus and William of Ockham are revered scholastic icons...but Chris Hitchens would have ripped them both apart in a modern debate over simple stuff like how the Earth and Universe were created. One could almost argue that people of William's mindset 700 years ago would be the same people who today believe in Flat Earth or Young Earth theories...because they are simpler than complex physical theories.
    Last edited by Pship Destroyer; 8/14/2017 3:08pm at .

  5. #65
    Raycetpfl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Tampa Fl
    Posts
    5,522
    Style
    Gracie Jiu Jitsu
    4
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Thin kids love cake too.

    Writing one short article on philosophical razors as modern day "Bullshit Defense" is fine, but by combining philosophical worldviews completely opposed to one another, .
    Not every construction problem can be solved with a hammer. That's why tool belts are not called hammer holders. Different tasks require different tools and some require all your tools.

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Heimat
    Posts
    4,182
    Style
    Judo
    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Raycetpfl View Post
    Not every construction problem can be solved with a hammer. That's why tool belts are not called hammer holders. Different tasks require different tools and some require all your tools.
    This part is just my opinion, but if you go all the way back to Aristotle, you'll find that the "razors" are both helpful and hurtful/misguided. It really does come down to a case-by-case basis, whether or not any of them are accurate.

    Hitchen's razor can often be proven wrong, as can Ockham's or Scotus' reasoning, simply because they aren't actually physical laws (ie, none of these razors can be empirically proven to be accurate when describing random phenomena). If they were capable of describing objective reality, they'd be true 100% of the time as opposed to being helpful "guidelines" that should be used with caution.

    They're helpful as a deductive tool, but as a theoretical instrument they're quite dangerous. For hundreds of years, the "reason" of men like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham were used to support the ecclesiastic teaching. In their time it was far more important to "Keep it Simple Stupid, because God" rather than apply the "razors" to things like scientific experiments.

    Scotus and Ockham represent a time in the history of science before science was actually popular and considered non-heretical.

    It wouldn't be until later that men like Descartes would help flip this discussion towards objective, rational, and evidence-based perspectives. Look at all the claims related to William of Ockham, yet the clear lack of evidence that "his" razor ever resulted in the discovery or discard of bullshit?

    William of Ockham was a bullshit artist of the highest order, ESPECIALLY because of his supposed love of logic and reason and God. You'd have to move forward several centuries in Europe to find people willing to actually seek empirical knowledge using the same tools.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    439
    Style
    Judo, Nippon Kempo
    5
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Rational and empirical are not the same thing.

    Rational -> does not go against logic.
    Empirical -> checks an argument against some sort of "fact".
    Facts are a complex thing, otherwhise we should admit that the sun rotates around the earth (since empirically it looks so).
    I would recommend reading Kuhn on how scientific empiricism actually works, the short story is that science needs a group of people making experiments using some accepted (by them) method, which presupposes some sort of theory.
    This means that one cannot apply scientific empiricism by sitting alone on the sofa.
    Thus a "sceptic" or "critical" mindset cannot be scientific by itself (otherwhise we would go back to the medieval idea that one can reach the truth by thinking alone).
    A sceptic or critical mindset consists mostly on questioning why guy X who says A is saying A. In this, Occam's razor is really useful (why is guy A posing an entity praeter necessitate?).

    I don't like the idea of blaming Occam for being a creationist, because people in the middle ages didn't really have the tools for being non creationists.
    Science is an historical process through wich we accumulate knowledge, not the knowledge itself.
    As science is an historical process, the pre scientific thinking that ultimately led to science is still part of the same path.

    /rant.

  8. #68
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,270
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Pship Destroyer View Post
    Let's take breather and discuss some of the other "razors", because there are other...concerns I have with Phrost's article.

    We discuss why William of Ockham's "razor" and Hitchen's "razor" are diametrically opposed..

    William of Ockham sure posited a whole bunch of bullshit without any evidence. So let's role play...you be William of Ockham and I'll be Chris Hitchens.

    You try to prove God and free will exists without any evidence but Williams' philosophical razor, and I'll keep shooting down everything you say because you don't provide any evidence. :-D

    There are big philosophical clashes in the larger "razor" discussion. I brought them up just before but you didn't comment on them, let's swing around that pole a bit, shall we?

    If you are truly a man of God, you probably know I've got you by the balls here, but it'll be fun anyway to see you try to use Ockham's purely speculative philosophy against Hitchen's pragmatic, no bullshit worldview.
    Nope. I'm not a religious apologist, and in fact I despise religious apologetics. The beauty of being a part of a religion that is anti-proselytizing is that I can say if you don't like my religion, good, we don't want you anyway.

  9. #69
    BackFistMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Sinsinnatti Oh Hi Ho
    Posts
    13,492
    Style
    all things in Moderation
    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tzadok View Post
    Nope. I'm not a religious apologist, and in fact I despise religious apologetics. The beauty of being a part of a religion that is anti-proselytizing is that I can say if you don't like my religion, good, we don't want you anyway.
    Michael has always appeared to know the difference between spirituality and reality and where they intermingle in culture. The only thing unclear to me is how much weight he gives things such as "God's Promises" and the ability of Faith to transfer land titles and rule of people who think rationally.
    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.

  10. #70
    Michael Tzadok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Posts
    1,270
    Style
    Pramek/Sambo/BJJ
    3
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by BackFistMonkey View Post
    Michael has always appeared to know the difference between spirituality and reality and where they intermingle in culture. The only thing unclear to me is how much weight he gives things such as "God's Promises" and the ability of Faith to transfer land titles and rule of people who think rationally.
    Well, a solid answer to that is Judaism's prime directive, "Choose life", all other things take a back seat. Practically meaning that any promises or anything like that should be set aside to save life. In modern ME terms that means do what is necessary to attain a meaningful and lasting peace.

Page 7 of 9 First ... 3456789 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