Page 1 of 58
Posted on February 21 at 7:21 p.m.
Scientist? What about Jung the schizoid antisemite?
On The Art and Transformative Psychology of C.G. Jung's <em>Red Book</em>
Posted on January 11 at 2:27 p.m.
In using the word "holy" to sum up Serra, who had a "goal of creating a Catholic utopia" among people who would have been better off if he and his companions had stayed home, does Orfalea mean to say that if someone's intentions to "save" people are sincere, it doesn't matter how ill founded they are or whether they might contradict the will and interests of the people supposedly being "saved"?
On Que Serra, Serra
Posted on January 8 at 8:59 p.m.
Botany. If all that Diana T intended to say is what you wrote -- that researchers who went "to add to the scientific body of evidence" on global warming got stuck in the ice -- her letter would have been even more pointless than usual. In fact, what she said is that they went "to prove global warming," with the rather clear sense that she thought she was making a clever point against these "global warming" scientists. What's false is her clear (and incorrect) implication that getting stuck in the ice disproved what they supposedly set out to prove, that global warming is real.
In addition, your comments on DD are completely nonsensical. Here’s the total of what he wrote: “ahh, America, gotta luv th'land th't brings us participation in First Amendment press rights like the thorns supply!” and “if you can't see it, you never will, Botz, it's generational-myopia, I guess.”
Not much there. But here’s what you made of it: “DD's response indicates that he views global warming as more of a religion than a science.” You’re clearly more interested in finding ways to disparage and argue with people than in making sense.
On Global Freezing?
Posted on January 8 at 8:05 a.m.
In case anyone is interested in how this is in fact being reported outside the Limbaugh-Trump axis of ignorance, http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather...
Posted on October 27 at 10:55 a.m.
Clinton was simply lying about his behavior. Who else was he supposedly blaming ? And I suppose it's factually wrong to point out that the recession began when Bush was President.
Warping reality in order to concoct an absurd charge against your political opponents and dragging it into a discussion in which it has no relevance is a pretty good definition of Priceless.
On Graham Pressley Sounds Off on Jesse Rugge's Release
Posted on October 21 at 9:15 a.m.
A child is not a possession. And anyone who follows a dream or a voice in his head telling him to kill his child is a delusional homicidal lunatic.
On Remembering Abraham's Sacrifice — Eid-ul-Adha
Posted on September 7 at 9:20 a.m.
If philosophy of science were really a “science” of science, then, if one were to be a follower of Popper, one would have to show how its claims could be empirically falsifiable. This conversation is too muddled to give any sense of how this would be done.
Fuller’s response to Rupert Read being a critic of his work is ridiculously useless: “while he is a professional philosopher, he is also a prominent politician in the UK Green Party — perhaps the most sceptical of the established parties when it comes to science.” So?
Anyone further interested in a broader view should of course read his work but also check his Wikipedia article, which cites, in addition to Read's criticism, one reviewer as saying that one of his books is "a truly miserable piece of work, crammed with errors scientific, historical, and even theological,” of presenting an "analysis of the intellectual disputes over contemporary ID creationism [that] is almost vacuous," based on “an idiosyncratic interpretation of the history of philosophy” and “a limited grasp of the history of science”; and reviewers of another of his books as finding it to be “an epoch-hopping parade of straw men, incompetent reasoning and outright gibberish… intellectual quackery … that gives philosophy of science a bad name," as "completely wrong and … backed by no sound scholarship whatsoever,” and as showing a “mark of ignorance and historical short-sightedness.” Etc.
On Unusual Method
Posted on August 25 at 7:04 a.m.
TamI find it odd, to put it mildly, that you think I would knowingly misstate your positions. It would be a nonsensical waste of my time to distort them simply for the supposed pleasure of describing as inadequate or poorly posed things that you didn't in fact claim.
On A Mini-Discourse on Spiritual Method
Posted on August 24 at 3:46 p.m.
The only way in which I see you addressing the additional part of Russell's claim is by saying that it doesn't pass your personal "laugh test" and that the truth of your contrasting view is "incontrovertible and undeniable," on the grounds that his view doesn't pass the laugh test and yours is incontrovertible and undeniable.
On Something from Nothing?
Posted on August 24 at 3:09 p.m.
TamCiting the supposed charms of pantheism and its proponents isn't enough, nor is simply repeating, as you have in the past, that quarks must have consciousness because you can't fathom a world in which humans do but quarks don't. Words like "self," "subjectivity," "will," "choice," and the like have meanings developed over many centuries by a variety of thinkers from Augustine to Locke, Hume, Kant, and beyond, including more modern and contemporary work on personhood from psychological, anthropological, and other perspectives. That's the literature you've ignored and need to address when you claim that such carefully elaborated terms can be applied to quarks.
We know more than the Buddha about how the brain works. Do we really know more than he did about how the mind works? What have we learned about the latter that you believe would cause him to change his views in any substantial way?
Your initial comments were not about the relative humility of a generality of earlier seekers compared to that of the "best" among the moderns (where by "best" you of course mean the ones you've chosen because their statements can support your thesis, as opposed to those among the moderns who might not). You were speaking of one ancient seeker in particular, the Buddha. To establish your point, you need to refer to statements where he claims to have certainty in worldly knowledge, in areas relevant to his teachings, where the moderns you cite are willing to admit they do not. His simply saying, in essence, "I think you should try doing this if you want to find comfort in life" doesn't strike me as throwing the humbleness meter all that much out of whack. Besides, the Buddha wasn't trying to elaborate a falsifiable scientific/philosophical worldview; he was offering a possible therapeutics for people to apply to their lives.
One of Hawaii’s most popular artists, Keali‘i (kay-ah-LEE-ee) Reichel performs ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month