tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post2336789317973057183..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-17914053262268637612017-07-19T13:22:33.638-07:002017-07-19T13:22:33.638-07:00The single most important lesson a philosopher cou...The single most important lesson a philosopher could learn from science:<br /><br /><i>I could be wrong.</i>im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-73985642137932561342017-07-19T12:20:24.265-07:002017-07-19T12:20:24.265-07:00Consider the following proposition:
"All rat...Consider the following proposition:<br /><br />"All rational processes emerge from fundamentally mechanistic processes."<br /><br />If we assume that the prop is true and insert it into the AFR then any supposed logical inconsistency disappears. There is no logical inconsistency within Naturalism. The truth of the proposition is question about nature, not of logic. It is a factual question, not a logical question. <br /> jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-16286261621473116712017-07-08T16:05:44.475-07:002017-07-08T16:05:44.475-07:00The amazing thing to me is that he doesn't rec...The amazing thing to me is that he doesn't recognize the possibility that his position - rationality cannot arise from the physical - might not be true, even after being informed of the error of his ways. He arrogantly insists that his armchair philosophy is right, and all the science in the world can't possibly refute it.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-76920524753378875042017-07-08T14:35:32.476-07:002017-07-08T14:35:32.476-07:00No surprise that Reppert is a science denier. Jus...No surprise that Reppert is a science denier. Just as the power of christian theism as an explanatory paradigm about us and our relationship in the environment, the world and the universe, wains, so too is Reppert's bleating voice into the wind becoming ever more tiresome, boring and nonsensical. <br /><br />There are the troglodytes that continue to persist in plying the ancient art of scientifically-uninformed philosophy and scholars that have rightly embraced scientifically-informed philosophy. Practitioners of philosophy who have a tin ear to what the sciences inform us are nothing more than cheap proselytisers, enjoining us to think they still <br />believe there is a place at the table for epistemically and ontologically-free discourse. Such belief of course is the stuff of woo-woo land. And a recent review of Reppert's site illustrates most markedly that his ''stuff' jockeys for position only with the Depak Chopras of the world. <br /> <br /><br /><br /> Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.com