Rationalist

Topic: Rationalist (Read 9891 times)

Rationalist

2014-06-02, 10:36:23

"the true rationalist, never wants to talk anyone into anything. No, he does not even want to convince; all the time he is aware that he may be wrong"

is this argument valid and legit if in real ?

Re: Rationalist

Reply #1 – 2014-06-02, 14:23:00

Yes.
A little bit further: a true rationalist wishes anyone to convince him that he's actually wrong.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #2 – 2014-06-02, 16:15:50

If "in real" means logic, it's not even an argument, so the question about its legitimacy is moot.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #3 – 2014-06-02, 21:02:08

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-02, 16:15:50

moot

That pseudo word goes way further what anyone has the obligation to know about english.
moot... bah

Re: Rationalist

Reply #4 – 2014-06-05, 05:48:44

One needn't know much of English — to appear to be conversing in it. I'll grant that. But denigrating a fine old word like 'moot' (see here) is beyond the pale!

However, I remember the bridge over the River Charles, between Cambridge and Boston, at Massachusetts Avenue being marked off in Smoots… The story I'd heard most often was that an MIT freshman named Smoot was laid end-to-end across its span; somewhat similar to the French meter he was, then. Except that the original Smoot wasn't encased and secured, should a dispute occur later.
Hence my contribution to this topic:

Until and unless the original Smoot can be produced, such measurements are iffy. Even can he be such measurements will remain arguable, since Smoot may have grown or shrunk.
Indeed, the bridge may have grown or shrunk.

A rationalist -measured by what standard? For some reason (?), nobody mentioned any…

Glad I could help!

Re: Rationalist

Reply #5 – 2014-06-05, 06:28:57

Welcome back Oakdale and thanks for the contribution.

I have never before looked up the meaning of the word "moot" but your source gives as one of the meanings "not worth considering" which is the only meaning used in IRC debates and which is how I meant it. I can live with that

Otherwise your contribution looks like, well, something about a bridge and measurements of rationality... hmm, looks pretty moot.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #6 – 2014-06-05, 11:22:29

well , IMHO something is rational if it's works in Real .

i/e ,

Guns kill people --> this argument is invalid

People , Kill people --> it makes a sense .

that Karl Popper opinion about Rationalism seems smart ,

--if it looks smart , but not works in real

it aint smart .

-- while , if it looks stupid , but Works .

it aint stupid .

Re: Rationalist

Reply #7 – 2014-06-05, 12:33:07

You make sense up to a limited point, Sparta, but I still completely and absolutely disagree with your concept of "argument". Neither "Guns kill people" or "People kill people" is an argument. By themselves without any context they are just statements, nothing more. Without an explicit standard to measure the truth value, neither of the statements can be said to have any truth value.

A proper argument has premises and a conclusion. The shortest kind of argument is enthymeme. When there are no discernible premises and a conclusion, when there's no concept system to hold up the statement, it's not an argument at all.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #8 – 2014-06-05, 13:12:27

some one argue about that , so isnt that an argument ?

what i did just say that as argument , before someone argue about that

rather than something like -- makes a sense , or non sense

Re: Rationalist

Reply #9 – 2014-06-05, 13:48:11

Sure there's sense and non, if that's what you are saying. But additionally there's a way to tell these two apart, and this is a third thing altogether. That's the argument I am making.

Edit: It goes like this:

Cold is one thing. Warm is another. Temperature is a third thing. However, temperature is not the same kind of thing as cold or warm, but a whole different perspective to what cold and warm are about.

The same way, a sensible statement is one thing. A nonsensical statement is another. Logic or rationality is the perspective that enables to distinguish a sensible statement from a nonsensical statement. Logic or rationality is not just another sensible statement opposed to some nonsensical statement, but a whole different level of discussion that puts all nonsense perfectly into perspective.

Logic or rationality is transcendent to both sense and non-sense. It's the meta level the same way as temperature is meta or transcendent to warm and cold.

Makes sense?

Re: Rationalist

Reply #10 – 2014-06-05, 19:12:18

Quote from: ersi on 2014-06-05, 13:48:11

Makes sense?

You'll drive him crazy. Even more, I mean.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #11 – 2014-06-06, 04:34:48

that Hot and Cold Logics is pretty makes sense , that's something like Meta-awareness / Meta-cognition

afaik people just trapped in something like -- Make sense or Non sense .

--not the right or Wrong.

well, allow me to ilustrate probably some Red Herring n/or some straw man .

something that sensefull for some people , probably is nonsense for another people .

Something that Right for another people , not always right for another people .

perhaps bc they have Different minds , have Hormonals and Chemicals imbalance so they have Diffulty with Perception , etc .

for comparison ---> The earth is Flat is makes a sense long time ago , and many people believe if that was true .
it have Logics , Reasons , facts , etc

that's how sometimes the Facts can blurred the truth .

and that's how the Science Started .

Quote

Science is started with BS , and Criticism about the BS

Re: Rationalist

Reply #12 – 2014-06-10, 20:27:08

Quote from: Sparta on 2014-06-06, 04:34:48

Science is started with BS , and Criticism about the BS

Most people who can't grasp the concepts of science claim that it must be BS simply because they don't understand it. It is easier for some people to mindlessly try to discredit physics and math and all sciences than it is to admit they don't have the brain capacity to understand it. The implications of physics are also quite scary to some people. so the ignorant dismiss it out of hand without any investigation whatsoever.

People use all the convenient inventions of science, but when that exact same science with all its marvelous concepts describes how the universe came into being--they call it BS. The universe is all physics and since we are a by-product of the ingredients in the universe--we are all just physics as well. The fact that we are alive and top dog on this rock doesn't make us any less a slave to the laws of physics than the atom. There was no breath of life blown into us, we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today and it was all physics. Thought, consciousness and even our 'perceived' free will are all simply a matter of physics as well...nothing special there.

Science has meticulously put together the entire story of this universe from the Big Bang to Man and we are the first ones ever to have all of this information at our disposal in one place. Even those who think science is BS, owe it to themselves to watch a video on all this. Here is one that is only 43 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yOUgTaKDkM&feature=kp

Stephan Hawking's book 'The Grand Design' can be see in video at:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzm2ls_stephen-hawkings-grand-design-the-key-to-the-cosmos_school
Watch the Grand Design-The key to the Cosmos, followed by Grand Design-The meaning of Life and then Grand Design-Did God create the Universe, these are about 43 minutes each.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #13 – 2014-06-11, 23:52:42

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-05, 05:48:44

One needn't know much of English — to appear to be conversing in it. I'll grant that. But denigrating a fine old word like 'moot' (see here) is beyond the pale!

Yes, moot is one of the beautiful words in English, in history, culture, and meaning.

A modern kin to latter-day "moot" is "academic", strongly implying that if something originates in academia, it is not worth considering, merely an argument for the sake of an argument.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #14 – 2014-06-13, 05:36:29

Sadly true, jax… As much as I tend to -nowadays- think great swaths (swathes?

) of academics (subjects and practitioners both!) are undeserving of perusal or even preservation, let alone praise, I'd like to keep the term's original meanings.
(The ridiculing of Scholastics, arguing over "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin," often shows that the scoffer merely denigrates rational thought and critical reasoning: He must know, first, who is with him; second, what's in it for him; and, third, why he should have to think… Which perforce leads him back to the beginning!)

jseaton2311 said

People use all the convenient inventions of science, but when that exact same science with all its marvelous concepts describes how the universe came into being--they call it BS. The universe is all physics and since we are a by-product of the ingredients in the universe--we are all just physics as well. The fact that we are alive and top dog on this rock doesn't make us any less a slave to the laws of physics than the atom. There was no breath of life blown into us, we evolved from single cell organisms to what we are today and it was all physics. Thought, consciousness and even our 'perceived' free will are all simply a matter of physics as well...nothing special there.

Please, James, tell me -purely in terms of physics- how you came to such a conclusion? (I can parse partial differential equations, if need be; and might be willing to apply various modes of renormalization — if you get stuck in mathematical nonsense…) But know that I may have to let you go, if you prefer your rabbit hole…

Which is to say, since you seem not to know it, that your "just physics" is un-just, neither fair nor reasonable — merely scientism, yet another Mystery Cult.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #15 – 2014-06-13, 11:20:17

not sure if my enggrish is that bad .

or someone have difficulty understanding enggrish .

i thought , i have ask some permission to ilustrate some intentional red herring and straw man .

well,

probably this one is another red herring n/or straw man

Quote

Science is started with BS ---> i/e ---> earth is Flat

and criticism about the BS --> i/e ---> dafuq ? earth is flat ?

Re: Rationalist

Reply #16 – 2014-06-13, 11:37:23

Quote

Science is started with BS ---> i/e ---> earth is Flat

and criticism about the BS --> i/e ---> dafuq ? earth is flat ?

So by BS you mean hypothesis? You don't know it's BS in advance.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #17 – 2014-06-13, 19:13:21

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-13, 05:36:29

Please, James, tell me -purely in terms of physics- how you came to such a conclusion? (I can parse partial differential equations, if need be; and might be willing to apply various modes of renormalization — if you get stuck in mathematical nonsense…) But know that I may have to let you go, if you prefer your rabbit hole…

As a former Engineering major at UCLA, I took PDE when I was a sophomore, I am certainly in no need of your assistance sir.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-13, 05:36:29

Which is to say, since you seem not to know it, that your "just physics" is un-just, neither fair nor reasonable — merely scientism, yet another Mystery Cult.

Talk about your rabbit holes and cults--what insane asylum did you escape from? I don't believe your mathematical boasting for one second. No one with that caliber of mathematical skill would ever call physics (with all of it's mathematical beauty), an unjust, unfair, unreasonable mystery cult (you are a redundant son of a bitch too). You can go now--you've been exposed.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #18 – 2014-06-13, 20:58:31

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-10, 15:27:08

Even those who think science is BS, owe it to themselves to watch a video on all this. Here is one that is only 43 minutes long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yOUgTaKDkM&feature=kp

I have trouble watching documentaries. I end up arguing with the screen too much. There are plenty of holes left in that simplistic view of one theory. I really do think you're missing the point of a debate. So sensitive.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #19 – 2014-06-14, 03:34:32

James, your "No one […] would ever call physics (with all of its mathematical beauty), an unjust, unfair, unreasonable mystery cult" comment leaves out the bit to be justified: That physics is all there is…

You yourself don't believe it. Why are you so insistent that others do so?

———————————————————————————
@ersi, who said: "Otherwise your contribution looks like, well, something about a bridge and measurements of rationality... hmm, looks pretty moot."

It may be "a bridge too far"… But I believe Wm. S. Porter ("O. Henry") knew a Smoot in North Carolina. That was, of course, before his troubles, travels and travails. I, however, knew the day-glo green painted gradations on the pedestrian walks of the bridge itself, marking its length in Smoots, a curious thing. No?

Measurement is perforce the sine qua non of science! Unfortunately, it is also the refuge of the pseudo-scientist… Slap a number on it, and you've convinced half the hapless mendacities that it may be true! And, if so, why not them?

If rationality is to be discussed, shouldn't it be defined in agreed-upon terms and measured in agreed-upon units?
Or can reasonableness wend its own way?
———————————————————
Back to James: Cook-book mathematics doesn't interest me much.
Neither does metaphysics, much. But reductionist empiricism is vain — in both senses…

Re: Rationalist

Reply #20 – 2014-06-14, 14:07:03

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-14, 03:34:32

That physics is all there is…

You yourself don't believe it. Why are you so insistent that others do so?

I don't know about you, but I am fascinated by science and new discoveries. I get excited about things and want to share what excites me with others so that perhaps they too can share in the excitement...or (as in your case), not.

Since time began no particle or bit of energy in this universe has acted independently on its own. The laws of physics orchestrate everything that goes on in this universe. It’s not a far reach to then say that every particle today is exactly where it has to be due to physics—what would make it be somewhere else? Extrapolate that a bit further to living humans and people get upset because we like to think that we are slaves to no one and no thing—we cherish our independence. However, you will have to tell me how humans can make particles be where humans want them to be. It would seem as though picking up a pen and moving it to another place in the room is an independent act that breaks the laws of physics because YOU moved it and not the forces of physics.

That is an illusion, of course, because, underneath it all, humans are simply a collection of particles and energy unwittingly following the laws of physics. Simply having a brain changes nothing. A brain is also a collection of particles and energy that act according to the information gathered through our senses from our environment. Any decision made by us has to come through the network of billions of connections that add up pertinent stored information to the one and only action, reaction or decision that is possible due to the position of particles in the brain at that time. Free will is an illusion—although a good one.

I’m sure you've heard the expression that 'if you move a single grain of sand on a beach, you can change the course of history' and one can logically follow that through to see how that is true. Break it down just a bit further and you can say that changing one particle in the universe will lead to a different outcome for our universe and that is equally true and logical to see. Therefore, from the instant that things started moving there was only one possible outcome for the universe. We are in the middle of it and aware of it as well, but there is absolutely nothing we can do to change it.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #21 – 2014-06-14, 22:22:46

"If you move a single grain of sand on a beach, you can change the course of history" and one can logically follow that through to see how that is true. Break it down just a bit further and you can say that changing one particle in the universe will lead to a different outcome for our universe and that is equally true and logical to see. Therefore, from the instant that things started moving there was only one possible outcome for the universe. We are in the middle of it and aware of it as well, but there is absolutely nothing we can do to change it.

Could you start first by justifying induction? No, of course, not!

I find in your quaint determinism neither solace nor awe... (For which, I'm sure you'll rebuke me; but it can't be helped, since I am actually fascinated by science, both its practice and its results.) Nor does it strike me as more than the naive musings of a manic, undisciplined intellect, the gee-gaw misapprehended among the midden's detritus.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #22 – 2014-06-14, 23:07:40

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-14, 22:22:46

Could you start first by justifying induction? No, of course, not!

I can start with the ABCs, if you need to.

Re: Rationalist

Reply #23 – 2014-06-15, 00:43:30

if everything is about physics .

so i guess poisoning the well aka argumentum ad hominem is also physics phenomenon .

no matter how much you understand science .

but when you do that .

it mean your physics experience is not complete yet .

n/or probably there are physical Hormonal chemical imbalance in Brain .

Re: Rationalist

Reply #24 – 2014-06-15, 01:54:08

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-06-14, 23:07:40

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-14, 22:22:46
Could you start first by justifying induction? No, of course, not!

I can start with the ABCs, if you need to.

By all means, do!
———————————————————
@Sparta: You're beginning to make sense… Er, I mean, you've seemed to recognize the non-sense of others. (

I look forward to your debunking my theories!)

There are, of course and indubitably, physical processes underlying thought, thinkers and a Universe that accommodates such.
There may well be constraints upon systemizations of our recent and provisional understanding of "it all" and how It came to be. (Note: The capitalization rightly becomes a confusing and confounding factor… Th. Aquinas knew more than you or I, and you'd think him a dolt, James?) But you, James, don't seem to recognize the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, the prospective expansion of its ambit, and the primeval urge that contenances it. You are but a voyeur of science!
Take your hand out of your pocket and open a book… Any one you happen upon, for this point: One letter, misconstrued because of lack of pressure from the press or ink from the pot, would –necessarily!– have changed the world? Or perhaps you'd include poor eyesight? (Remember: There is nothing but Physics!) Or a mere diminution of ambient light?
But you claim more: The world is often presumed to be our little Earth. You'd have the entirety of creation (…there's no better word for it) be re-cast, by this slight alteration.

Did I call it a "slight" alteration? Forgive me! Since Physics is all there is, this -to you and me- mere fudge factor is, on your view, such a mountainous cavalcade of "real" events that its momentous repercussions re-convene the Big Bang constituents for reconsideration…!
But how would you know?

I admit, your confusion of epistemology with ontology is common enough. As is your "understanding" of science. As is your smug attitude. But commonality -like "science by consensus"- is not an argument.
At least, not one that would be acceptable to a rational auditor.

So, by any means you can muster, James: Give me A and B. Then C… Presumably, you have X, Y and Z up your sleeve! So, don't be surprised or act coy if I call you for dealing from the bottom of the deck.
(I'm an old hand at this game.)