[mikema63]

A scientific theory doesn't operate under argumentum ad populum. That most scientists believe them is a product of the evidence supporting them, it is not THE evidence supporting them.

[yiostheoy]

A scientific theory doesn't operate under argumentum ad populum. That most scientists believe them is a product of the evidence supporting them, it is not THE evidence supporting them.

"...most scientists believe ..." yup just more argumentum populum.

[mikema63]

Argumentum ad populum is when you argue that something is true because it's popular. I'm not justifying theories as true on the grounds of popularity, I'm claiming that theories are justified by large bodies of evidence with no contradicting evidence.

If you want to discuss some theory or another feel free to start a thread, otherwise there isn't much to do here if your just going to dishonestly misrepresent what I said.

[yiostheoy]

Argumentum ad populum is when you argue that something is true because it's popular. I'm not justifying theories as true on the grounds of popularity, I'm claiming that theories are justified by large bodies of evidence with no contradicting evidence.

If you want to discuss some theory or another feel free to start a thread, otherwise there isn't much to do here if your just going to dishonestly misrepresent what I said.

When I used to teach at the university level most of my students got it by the 2nd explanation.

I am not used to keep going on and on and on. Reminds me of another fallacy called verbosity.

[Hong Wu]

When I used to teach at the university level most of my students got it by the 2nd explanation.

I am not used to keep going on and on and on. Reminds me of another fallacy called verbosity.

Silly Yio, scientists can't be popular.

[mikema63]

Someone like pote want to drop in and tell me if I'm the one being crazy here?

I really don't get if your reading my posts or not, I'm telling you up front that I don't think theories are justified by their popularity.

[Potemkin]

Someone like pote want to drop in and tell me if I'm the one being crazy here?

I really don't get if your reading my posts or not, I'm telling you up front that I don't think theories are justified by their popularity.

Don't let it get to ya, Mike. Smoke a spliff and chillax, 'kay? It don't matter none.

[mikema63]

I'm out of spliffs.

[Potemkin]

But you at least have some coke, right?

[mikema63]

That's only for emergencies pote.

[yiostheoy]

I used to be a materialist, and I am now convinced that platonism + rationalism is the one true faith. Ask me anything.

Before somebody else farted and cleared out the entire bar, I still wanted to know more about Saeko's "Platoist rationalism".

Specifically because it has been a long time since Plato and we have covered a lot of ground in Philosophy since then.

Most significantly Aristotle came up with his Prime Mover Proof Of God.

And Aquinas added his First Cause Proof Of God with its many modern corollaries.

And Rene Descartes has vanquished skepticism with his cogito ergo sum.

And the British Empiricists have warned all fools that anyone who denies reality does so at their own peril because we know a bullet will kill you whether you seem to believe it or not.

So what is Platonic rationalism, sil vous plait?

[Paradigm]

The thing about philosophy is that the arguments advance, but the various schools of philosophy continue to avail themselves to new generations, who come up with new and better arguments against their detractors, while also modifying the original ideas or combining them with other ideas. As I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread, Platonism still influences a great deal of scientific thought, including our ideas about the universe being governed by immutable laws. Philosophy has advanced since Plato, but that hardly means that Platonism writ large has been defeated. As a self-proclaimed empiricist, I'm sure you're prepared to defend it against the critiques of Kantians and structuralists, right?

[yiostheoy]

The thing about philosophy is that the arguments advance, but the various schools of philosophy continue to avail themselves to new generations, who come up with new and better arguments against their detractors, while also modifying the original ideas or combining them with other ideas. As I believe I mentioned earlier in this thread, Platonism still influences a great deal of scientific thought, including our ideas about the universe being governed by immutable laws. Philosophy has advanced since Plato, but that hardly means that Platonism writ large has been defeated. As a self-proclaimed empiricist, I'm sure you're prepared to defend it against the critiques of Kantians and structuralists, right?

I love Immanuel Kant actually.

Almost as much as Descartes.

It's hard to take Plato seriously after all these centuries and millennia.

Universal laws? Maybe. But we are going to be hard pressed to figure them out stuck here on this planet of ours. And with all the quirks and quarks lately modern physics is making less and less sense all the time.

[yiostheoy]

I used to be a materialist, and I am now convinced that platonism + rationalism is the one true faith. Ask me anything.

Saeko, come back and tell us more please.

[Saeko]

I've been meaning to get back to this thread after doing more research but stuff came up.

What do you want to know?

[yiostheoy]

Take a look above Saeko and answer the questions asked, if you will.

[Ombrageux]

Which is closer to the truth: knowledge of the pyramids of Egypt or knowledge of the idea of a triangle?