Search results

I've been quite explicit about that earlier in the thread, I'm not hinting at anything. More strawman bullshit. Charles Darwin never tried to state, as far as I'm aware, that his views were life affirming. Dawkins has tried to take his scientific views into the world of metaphysics in a way...

Again, Sam Harris would disagree. http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape

No, but when you talk about evolution and how it is life affirming........do I really need to join the dots? As I mentioned, Sam Harris found out that he had a whole load of objectivist nutjobs among his fans - credit to him, he basically told them to fuck off when he realised; but I'm surprised...

Arguably Zizek was a positive force for the democratisation of Slovenia, if that's worth anything. It's hard for me to answer this question concisely (obviously), but, quickly and dirtily, I suggest that the continental tradition is the only way to critique the empirical/analytical tradition in...

I understand you accept it has a meaning, that's not under dispute. Can you tell me what the basis for this acceptance is?

Sokal is interesting in that he was/is 'an unabashed Old Leftist who never quite understood how deconstruction was supposed to help the working class'. Perhaps not a million miles away from Dawkins. As was conceded earlier, a lot of science has became a bit of a money-seeking hustle - I think it...

I think another problem with the thesis is that human society is not like a lot of atoms bouncing around a petri dish. Even if you could prove that religion has had a deleterious effect on things throughout human history, that isn't enough to actually demonstrate that it would be the case in the...

I'm not sure "IT" really want to do anything but at that point we're deeply embroiled in some shit I don't think either of us fancy much right now.

Just about. Well, I'm not even pretending to understand quantums but people have certainly tried to use them to solve the problem of free will - I don't think that really works but it is done. And although a 'philosophically libertarian' world might still have no objective ethics, I think it...

Well to state 'there are no facts' is to argue against the basic assumption of empiricism, he more or less killed a sacred cow. A lot of philosophy departments are fairly monocultural and dismissive of the continental tradition, so it isn't hard to imagine that he might have rubbed people the...

I don't think I have missed the point. I don't accept either statement is "nonsensical". I think that you can understand the sense of what both statements are trying to say. I have accepted that this frame of reference is persuasive to humans who have a natural tendency towards the empirical...

I missed this. The issue is that we also accept other things, the clearest example being a belief in human autonomy which means the non-acceptance of some facts that would be accepted in the absence of this belief. Non-sociopaths tend to believe in altruism/justice. I don't think this...

But that's all language? It's not 'science', as you have conceded. All those words have meanings composed of words, which have meanings, which have meanings ad infinitum. Science does not generate or uncover these meanings with any objectivity outside of its own framework - as you concede. You...

I like the doctor myself, but that's one simplistic example and still does not get you what you need *Shrug* I will admit to a certain exasperation with your arguments at this point. As myself and vimothy have pointed out, Dawkins is trying to argue about metaphysics from the false authority...

It's not like I have too much problem with that as far as it goes, but I don't accept this thing you call 'science' can do any of that on its lonesome and am pretty sure you can't show me how it could. But you have named two examples, so maybe you can show how science generates the meaning of...

How do you test that exactly? You're making a philosophical/metaphysical claim. A fairy absurd one I think, but it's kinda nice that Mr Science is all self-actualised and shit. :cool: So you're saying it's not legitimate to philosophically critique something based on its philosophical...

If meaning has a meaning, then what is the meaning of that meaning, and what is the meaning of the meaning, and what is the meaning of that meaning etc etc ad infinitum. Can you prove any of that scientifically? Again, where is your test? Pragmatism, resemblance, induction. Metaphysics...

The critique of induction is hardly restricted to continental philosophy so you really are burning a strawman now. Either you can test that claim, or it isn't scientific and your project fails. And you can't. If you propose examples, then you're relying on the inductive method you're trying to...

So we're talking about the meaning of meaning now? And I'm the one accused of being pomo! How is it scientific to do so and how do you get away from the infinite regress problem?

I'm coming back to this because it pertains to your idea that meaning-making can be scientific. By 'observing a fossil', you're essentially drawing conclusions about that fossil, i.e. facts. By evidence you mean facts. What you've infact outlined is the problem of induction, also troubling from...