I happened to stumble upon this book recently and ended up diving into one of its chapters. It’s quite fascinating, really—the author touches on this pervasive human tendency, this almost compulsive need we have to look at every single occurrence through the lens of causality, desperately trying to stitch together some grand theory to make sense of it all. Take the stock market, for instance; you see analysts spinning these elaborate webs of reasoning to justify every little fluctuation in price, when in reality, much of it is just pure, unadulterated stochastic noise. That’s precisely why you see so many mathematicians dominating the halls of Wall Street 🙂. It’s the same pattern we see with history, too—people grasping at straws to provide deep explanations for historical turning points that, if you look closely enough, probably don't require an explanation at all.
That is simply not true. It isn't that people are barred from presenting arguments within a topic; quite the opposite. Rather, it is the specific manner in which certain individuals attempt to "argue" with their interlocutors that is prohibited. By definition, providing an argument does not involve insulting other members. Unless, of course, the subject being discussed is a specific user, which, by the very rules of this platform, is also forbidden.
And what's the purpose of a forum where access is being restricted?
That isn't quite right. It isn't about barring anyone who tries to make an actual argument regarding the topics at hand; rather, it's the specific way certain individuals attempt to "argue" with their peers that gets them shut out.
No, there is a clear double standard happening here. It seems perfectly fine when pilence starts throwing insults around, but the moment someone dares to fire back at those insults, they get banned from the subforum.
By its very definition, argumentation shouldn't involve insulting other members. Unless, of course, the topic itself is centered on a member, which—by the rules of this forum—isn't allowed anyway.
Like I said: we are looking at a double standard. From your perspective (the paranormal crowd), "argumentation" only counts if it happens to validate your own existing beliefs.
Lisa Rodriguez84 said:The more this forum drifts toward 3 PM, the higher it climbs on the list of most visited sites in the US. Just when I was starting to think we were circling the drain, Anderlon drops that we’re actually ranked 4th. 🙏
It seems perfectly obvious that this forum is pivoting toward commercial success. That’s precisely why they shut down anyone actually trying to make a reasoned argument. It reminds me of how, if I were running a major radio station, my primary goal would be spinning whatever top-40 hits are trending rather than playing something sophisticated like classical music. The logic is quite simple: you cater to the broad, often unrefined masses. In that regard, the way things are run here is a perfect prototype for what Anderlon is aiming for: a flock of young, hotheaded kids who just want to show off and don't bother using their own heads.
Sophia Castillo35 said:Look, this isn't some fundamental flaw within the forum itself; it’s more likely a hiccup between you and your web browser. It’s much like when a cluttered garage prevents you from finding your car keys—you just need to clear out the junk. Try clearing your cache and cookies, then give it another shot.
Yeah, that did the trick on the second attempt. Thanks.😉
How exactly does one sign out of here? I follow the whole process, clicking through all the prompts to log off, yet when I come back to the forum, it’s as if I never left—I'm still logged in.
coastalseal87 said:Look, it's interesting how the forum keeps getting worse while the degenerates keep increasing. By that logic, Anderlon is king, and I’d gladly take his place. About two years ago, when there were half the people and the forum was three times more intense, people were saying the exact same thing—that the forum would be twice as big by today.
I honestly don't see why they don't apply that exact same logic to clear out the people who are just dragging the reputation of the "natural science" subforum through the mud. Seriously, why not just turn every single subforum into some sort of exclusive little elite club or a gated society?
Donna Campbell6 said:Yeah, honestly? Nietzsche would probably get a red card within the first ten minutes... you’d have to toss him out immediately just so we aren't playing shorthanded by the end of the first half... instead, maybe pull Aristotle off the bench to bring some much-needed balance to the middle ground... 😍
In that classic Monty Python sketch, Nietzsche ends up getting a red card because he tries to convince the judge—who is playing Confucius—that free will simply doesn't exist. 😁
So, really, bringing Nietzsche into the mix is a bad idea, even if there are a few merits to his perspective. 👍
Emily Thomas3 said:Honestly, my team would be a total disaster in the locker room, I'll give you that. But on the field? Their disagreements actually make them unstoppable. 😬 I feel like Popper and Feyerabend would be at each other's throats before the game even started.
And what about Heidegger and Wittgenstein? Honestly, Wittgenstein would probably take him out just for his absolute misuse of language. 🙂
I'm honestly struggling to see how Nietzsche and Mill could possibly be considered allies in this particular offensive. 🙂
In the interest of maintaining some semblance of intellectual variety, I decided to throw in Empedocles, Camus, and Nietzsche. As for everyone else, they’re leaning much more toward that analytical vibe. 🙂
Inspired by that classic sketch from Saturday Night Live—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8—I found myself wondering if we could actually assemble the ultimate philosophical soccer squad. 😲
Here’s my starting lineup:
1. Bertrand Russell 2. Ludwig Wittgenstein 3. David Hume 4. Karl Popper 5. Empedocles 6. Daniel Dennett 7. W.V.O. Quine 8. Friedrich Nietzsche 9. Rudolf Carnap 10. John Dewey 11. Albert Camus
Well, it’s right there in the very passage you just pulled, which is precisely what caught my eye and prompted me to bring up that specific point in the first place. 😉 To put it plainly: ...e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005...
I don't see any evidence here suggesting that the letters A, O, or S possess some inherent, essential nature; rather, it serves as proof that people simply associate certain characters with specific colors. The underlying reasons for this could stem from all sorts of places—neurological wiring, cultural conditioning, and so on.
Quine:
Look, if you don't consider something intelligent, then by definition, you're calling it foolish. It's much like how I view positivism—as I mentioned before, I find it quite absurd. And if you're wondering why, I'll dive into that over in another thread. I never suggested that *you* personally had to view it that way.
Fine then, I suppose Hegel is just as absurd as Carnap is. 👍
The notion that a specific letter possesses some sort of inherent color strikes me as deeply essentialist—which is really just a fancy way of saying it’s metaphysical. It implies there’s this immutable "essence" to the letter A that somehow differs from the essence of B, and that this essence manifests itself through these various, involuntary colors.
But honestly, there isn't any rigorous argument to support the idea that letters A and B have an underlying "being." It all boils down to nothing more than following established rules for how we use them.
Quincy:
Simply because I find it foolish.
And why should that be the case? Personally, I believe positivism played a massive role in shaping the trajectory of analytic philosophy. Take Carnap, for instance; his work on the verifiability principle actually pushed scientific inquiry forward quite a bit. Even if I don't personally think the verifiability principle is correct, it acted as the necessary catalyst for Popper's principle of falsifiability to emerge. It holds historical weight, much like how nobody today fully adheres to Hegel's philosophy. Positivism is in the same boat. Should I claim Hegel's philosophy is foolish just because I don't find it particularly brilliant, if anything?
So, there's this thing called synesthesia, where people actually experience a literal blending of senses. Like, some folks don't just think a sound "feels" rough or white—they literally perceive it that way. And get this: it’s not totally random. Usually, one synesthete describes their experience almost exactly like another one does. Like, two different people might hear the same sound and both see red or blue. It's wild. This whole area of study is relatively new*, so I'm not sure if there are differences in how various ethnic groups describe these things.
It was once assumed that synaesthetic experiences were entirely different from synaesthete to synaesthete, but recent research has shown that there are underlying similarities that can be observed when large numbers of synaesthetes are examined together. For example, sound-colour synaesthetes, as a group, tend to see lighter colours for higher sounds (Ward et al, 2006) and grapheme-colour synaesthetes, as a group, share significant preferences for the colour of each letter (e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005).
* obviously, it's been known for ages, but for traditional Western science, the whole concept probably sounded way too metaphysical, so they didn't really dive into researching it until recently.
I'm not quite following—what part of that strikes you as metaphysical? And why use the term "positivism" in such a derogatory way?
It’s a bit like trying to explain the concept of different musical pitches to someone who has never heard a single note. You tell them that light consists of electromagnetic waves, and that the human eye is tuned to pick up a specific spectrum—roughly somewhere between 400 nm and 700 nm. Within that narrow little window, our brains slice things up into what we call colors, like red, orange, and so on. But even if you lay out the entire physics of the wavelength, there is a massive, gaping hole in that explanation. What exactly is missing from that description of color?