tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post8249733061652267631..comments2023-10-17T08:19:58.196-04:00Comments on FreeThinke: FreeThinkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16682678301019952436noreply@blogger.comBlogger92125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-38453073960059028832013-01-18T22:45:49.259-05:002013-01-18T22:45:49.259-05:00MY, how far afield from Doug Giles and the content...MY, how far afield from Doug Giles and the content of his column we strayed!<br /><br />When it comes to Mathematics, please deal me out. Math is a jagged crater in the sphere of my otherwise fairly well-rounded capabilities.<br /><br />FreeThinkehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16682678301019952436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-37317219263588488272012-12-25T05:20:06.399-05:002012-12-25T05:20:06.399-05:00The Greeks didn't believe in lots of things, e...The Greeks didn't believe in lots of things, eg they refused to add a single number to a product of two, so distracted were they by the geometric interpretation of the number as length and the multiplication as area.<br />Zero's existence is only slightly more of an issue than the natural numbers', which relate to the concrete world only as the cardinality of a set; zero is the cardinality of the empty set.<br />Furthermore, zero is demanded by the addition function, which requires an identity (x+0=x forall x). Combined with the distributive law for multiplication (x.[y+z]=xy+xz), we get the result x.0=0 forall x. So we can see that there is no multiplicand for zero to produce a non-zero result, and to produce zero, any multiplicand will do. Division, being the inverse of multiplication, therefore cannot meaningfully accept zero as a divisor.<br />Addition demands not only zero, but the negatives; and division demands the fractions, and so on. The "existence" of these new types of number worries many but is of zero practical importance.<br />it is neither +ve nor -ve, another trichotomy. Mathematicians often use the ugly term "non-negative" when they want to admit zero.<br /><br />There, you just got back way more than you put in.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-90735893818363139382012-12-21T11:18:48.197-05:002012-12-21T11:18:48.197-05:00I suppose that jez has gone back to measuring zero...I suppose that jez has gone back to <a href="http://farmersletters.blogspot.com/2012/12/why-is-one-today-considered-part-of-set.html" rel="nofollow">measuring zeroes</a>. But I suppose to him it's more than a Nietzschean exercise in Democratic politics. For as Nietzsche has said, "What? You search? You would multiply yourself by ten, by a hundred? You seek followers? Seek zeros!"<br /><br />Me. I'll stick to geometry. After all, only a democrat could logically believe that there are equal things in the "real" world.-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-56782526424985049672012-12-20T23:12:50.072-05:002012-12-20T23:12:50.072-05:00Cuz I have a sneeking suspicion that your favorite...Cuz I have a sneeking suspicion that your favorite colour is likely "black"... the only colour that results from an "absence" of colour. ;)-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-54786040607661804182012-12-20T23:06:32.248-05:002012-12-20T23:06:32.248-05:00ps - Since you profess a likeness for definitions,...ps - Since you profess a likeness for definitions, perhaps you can explain whether zero is a postive or a negative number... and why its' okay to multiply by zero, but not divide. For a "number" it sure has a lot of inconsistent rules. Thanks in advance. :)-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-4886065009274897602012-12-20T21:11:48.192-05:002012-12-20T21:11:48.192-05:00...but as for the nominalist positivists, I'll......but as for the nominalist positivists, I'll leave them with this conclusion from Plato's "Cratylus"<br /><br /><i> SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.<br /><br />CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.<br /><br />SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.<br /><br />CRATYLUS: Very good, Socrates; I hope, however, that you will continue to think about these things yourself. </i>Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-48911052754223359812012-12-20T21:05:23.606-05:002012-12-20T21:05:23.606-05:00Fair? In the real world, you only get the caritas...<i>Fair?</i> In the real world, you only get the caritas you give.<br /><br />And I don't labour under any misapprehension that your definition of terms has anything to do with science. I "know" that it doesn't. <br /><br />As for zero, the Greeks didn't believe in it. It had no ouisa (essence). The concepts of Even and Odd, which they DID believe in, have been "retro-actively misapplied to it. As I described previously as related to ontology, affirmation of existence is in fact nothing but denial of the number zero. And as the existentialist philosophers have also concluded, existence precedes essence.<br /><br />So you choose your definition of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominalism" rel="nofollow">nominalism</a>, and I'll choose mine.<br /><br />For as Plato concluded, either One is not, or nothing is.<br /><br />...but now I repeat myself.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-14645857079683886182012-12-20T17:58:22.129-05:002012-12-20T17:58:22.129-05:00Being offensive is a poor way of doing it. I don&#...Being offensive is a poor way of doing it. I don't recall Plato being rude, at least not in his own voice. If you insult me, you'd better have an adequate explanation or an apology ready. Fair?<br />Meanwhile, straighten up your logic and learn to avoid the fallacies first, then maybe we can get together for a thinking party.<br /><br />You continue to labour under the misapprehension that my usage of terms has something to do with science.<br /><br />And don't worry, we really can nicely establish zero's evenness without any troublsome divisions. Trust me. Consider it a Christmas present. :)jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-73770623059951726392012-12-20T17:12:35.458-05:002012-12-20T17:12:35.458-05:00...if you seek "clarity" of argument, sp......if you seek "clarity" of argument, speak to an Aristoteleon like sf, NOT a Platonist. It's his duty to explain, it's mine to get you to think for yourself.<br /><br />Ta-TA!Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-2678804267056618282012-12-20T16:51:25.264-05:002012-12-20T16:51:25.264-05:00ps - The Parmenides dialogue is the greatest examp...ps - The Parmenides dialogue is the greatest example of dialectic ever written, a dialectic of Absolutes.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-79604069819990023732012-12-20T16:47:51.774-05:002012-12-20T16:47:51.774-05:00...and a Merry Christmas to you, as well. :)...and a Merry Christmas to you, as well. :)Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-30250252674834013682012-12-20T16:42:29.747-05:002012-12-20T16:42:29.747-05:00You can't derive the even from the odd, especi...You can't derive the even from the odd, especially if you insist upon "dividing zero".Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-21264888946307777982012-12-20T16:28:38.228-05:002012-12-20T16:28:38.228-05:00The point is that the "genus" of faith a...The point is that the "genus" of faith and belief is <i>justice</i>. It's NOT a "species" of science.<br /><br />And no, I don't expect an admitted dolt like you to understand.<br /><br />As Socrates stated in Plato's "Euthyphro" <i>SOCRATES: That was the sort of question which I meant to raise when I asked whether the just is always the pious, or the pious always the just; and whether there may not be justice where there is not piety; for justice is the more extended notion of which piety is only a part. Do you dissent?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: No, I think that you are quite right.<br /><br />SOCRATES: Then, if piety is a part of justice, I suppose that we should enquire what part? If you had pursued the enquiry in the previous cases; for instance, if you had asked me what is an even number, and what part of number the even is, I should have had no difficulty in replying, a number which represents a figure having two equal sides. Do you not agree?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Yes, I quite agree.<br /><br />SOCRATES: In like manner, I want you to tell me what part of justice is piety or holiness, that I may be able to tell Meletus not to do me injustice, or indict me for impiety, as I am now adequately instructed by you in the nature of piety or holiness, and their opposites.<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Piety or holiness, Socrates, appears to me to be that part of justice which attends to the gods, as there is the other part of justice which attends to men.<br /><br />SOCRATES: That is good, Euthyphro; yet still there is a little point about which I should like to have further information, What is the meaning of 'attention'? For attention can hardly be used in the same sense when applied to the gods as when applied to other things. For instance, horses are said to require attention, and not every person is able to attend to them, but only a person skilled in horsemanship. Is it not so?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Certainly.<br /><br />SOCRATES: I should suppose that the art of horsemanship is the art of attending to horses?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Yes.<br /><br />SOCRATES: Nor is every one qualified to attend to dogs, but only the huntsman?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: True.<br /><br />SOCRATES: And I should also conceive that the art of the huntsman is the art of attending to dogs?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Yes.<br /><br />SOCRATES: As the art of the oxherd is the art of attending to oxen?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Very true.<br /><br />SOCRATES: In like manner holiness or piety is the art of attending to the gods?—that would be your meaning, Euthyphro?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Yes.<br /><br />SOCRATES: And is not attention always designed for the good or benefit of that to which the attention is given? As in the case of horses, you may observe that when attended to by the horseman's art they are benefited and improved, are they not?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: True.<br /><br />SOCRATES: As the dogs are benefited by the huntsman's art, and the oxen by the art of the oxherd, and all other things are tended or attended for their good and not for their hurt?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Certainly, not for their hurt.<br /><br />SOCRATES: But for their good?<br /><br />EUTHYPHRO: Of course. </i><br /><br />...and therefor the language of science has NOTHING to offer the subject, despite the "piety" of its' adherents.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-37047389122919412392012-12-20T15:03:41.297-05:002012-12-20T15:03:41.297-05:00Bluff!
If anyone else where still reading (is any...Bluff!<br /><br />If anyone else where still reading (is anyone?), I'd say your cover would be thoroughly blown by now, you Charlatan! :P<br /><br />- Justice is not a scientific term. Do you object to that? If you mean it as an example of how science is not universally applicable, I concur.<br /><br />- No-one ever defined "agnostic" in terms of gnosticism, but if they had would you call the classicists who preferred it liars for using it that way?<br /><br />- The parity of zero is even.<br /><br />- Trichotomy is often vital mathematically (eg. less than, equals, more than). Therefore I do not recognise any value in dialectic as you describe it, but in any case it is a trivial exercise to describe my usages in dualistic terms. This objection is pointless.<br /><br />As a side note, though I admit I am unfamiliar with the term "dialectic," I am not convinced that you are using it correctly -- I do not know in what sense it demands dualism.<br /><br />- There does not appear to be any information contained in your remark about vowels and consonants.<br /><br />- In simple terms, evolution is two things: 1) gradual change in phenotype and diversification of species over several generations, and 2) the theory that this process is fully explained by the natural selection of inherited traits.<br />Both aspects are suitable for scientific consideration, 1) being an observation, 2) a valid theory.<br /><br />- The ID proponents have more trouble defining "kind" than biologists have defining "species"; but there is nothing about evolution which excludes creationism from scientific consideration, it rules itself out without any outside assistance. In other words, if evolution had not been discovered, creationism would still not be a scientific hypothesis.<br /><br />- I don't understand Plato's "Parmenides," was I supposed to? Perhaps you intended to remind me of Plato's own fondness for a fallacious argument, to which I reply: it's not OK when he does it either.<br /><br /><br />So, up to what does all this add? Anything? You pebble-dash the blog with disparate points whose purposes I so often have to guess (sometimes giving up), all the time evading the point in hand. Why? If you have a point, make it! Abstruseness is a bigger error than positivism or any of Nietzsche's four, which are frankly of more instructive value to the mystics among us than the scientists -- the latter being professionally committed to the systematic avoidance of the first three at least.<br /><br />Merry Christmas anyway!jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-77932956720772451542012-12-20T11:17:44.940-05:002012-12-20T11:17:44.940-05:00I'll let Plato summarize the argument ("P...I'll let Plato summarize the argument ("Parmenides")<br /><br /><i>Then may we not sum up the argument in a word and say truly: If One is not, then nothing is?<br /><br />Certainly.<br /><br />Let thus much be said; and further let us affirm what seems to be the truth, that, whether One is or is not, one and the others in relation to themselves and one another, all of them, in every way, are and are not, and appear to be and appear not to be.<br /><br />Most true. </i>Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-51281641548068051792012-12-20T11:12:58.233-05:002012-12-20T11:12:58.233-05:00Secular religions based upon scientisms should be ...Secular religions based upon <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" rel="nofollow">scientisms</a> should be legally considered just as unconstitutional as those based upon Deity's... for there are no "agnostics" when it comes to the realm of "opinion".-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-24384574878113847382012-12-20T11:06:29.210-05:002012-12-20T11:06:29.210-05:00Maybe they should solve the species problem before...Maybe they should solve the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem" rel="nofollow">species problem</a> before being allowed to present their hypothetical theories that apriori preclude other theories from being taught as "theories"...-FJ the Dangerous and Extreme MAGA Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16745768408538827278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-71432313859883407512012-12-20T11:01:49.836-05:002012-12-20T11:01:49.836-05:00The "science" of evolution is ALSO a sup...The "science" of evolution is ALSO a supranatural hypothesis. So you are saying that we need to STOP teaching it as part of a "science" class?<br /><br />Okay.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-41584615666110989782012-12-20T10:52:40.357-05:002012-12-20T10:52:40.357-05:00Now language is typically divided into "vowel...Now language is typically divided into "vowels" and "consonants". You can argue a case for "semi-vowels" if you want, but the brain either processes the language as a Start-Stop header or emotional data packet. Any "admixtures" of the two are purely "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel%E2%80%93consonant_synthesis" rel="nofollow">coincidental</a>". ;)Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-48933458303447834382012-12-20T10:45:48.826-05:002012-12-20T10:45:48.826-05:00...and so the "smoke" is all yours....and so the "smoke" is all <i>yours</i>.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-42506875111488376392012-12-20T10:44:04.483-05:002012-12-20T10:44:04.483-05:00But then, one should ALWAYS attempt to divide numb...But then, one should ALWAYS attempt to divide numbers into the "odd" and "even". Zero (a third category... infinity a "fourth") are typically left OUT of this "categorization".Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-36516040582006330502012-12-20T10:40:29.489-05:002012-12-20T10:40:29.489-05:00Do you disagree that T. H. Huxley coined the term ...Do you disagree that T. H. Huxley coined the term "agnostic"?<br /><br />I would agree that Christians coined the term Gnostics or gnosticism to differentiate themselves from the Greeks.<br /><br />Dialectic represents a division into "halves" not "three's". So there are either agnostics and "others" believers of a sort (henceforth further subdivided) OR theists AND atheists (with no room for doubters on either side). Regardless, the atheists end up in the same category as the "believers" and NOT agnostic.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-47351462601748679102012-12-20T10:33:29.980-05:002012-12-20T10:33:29.980-05:00To be universal, a definition must express what is...To be universal, a definition must express what is essential about the thing defined, and be in terms of genus, species, and its differentiae.<br /><br />Science recognizes no "species" for justice.Thersiteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15751286903359745316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-37921030841250182542012-12-20T09:55:04.152-05:002012-12-20T09:55:04.152-05:00You were already equivocating and calling me a lia...You were already equivocating and calling me a liar before you introduced this "first cause" smokescreen.<br />The definitions in question are NOT a scientist's vs a philosopher's: my definitions have nothing to do with a scientific outlook, and yours are certainly nothing to do with philosophy.<br /><br />You reject my usage of "atheist" on the basis of your objections to the atheist's (your usage) epistemology. Forgive me for my bluntness, but you are in the most terrible muddle. You must treat our definitions independently, not swap them over at will. When you do that, either implicitly or (now) explicitly, that is equivocation. Plato will tell you that's a Bad Thing.<br /><br />I do not pretend that your usage and my usage boil down to the same thing. I know they are substantially different. That's what makes it possible for mine to be substantially better.<br /><br />Do you disagree that T. H. Huxley coined the term "agnostic"? Do you agree that the origin of life has nothing to do with it (except insofar as plausible materialistic explanations for aspects of biology render your arguments to incredulity less appealing)?<br /><br />Do you understand that atheism (my usage) is a superset of agnosticism (your usage)? So therefore atheists (my usage) need not be logically positivist. (Actually, even in your usage atheism does not entail positivism -- your implications are backwards.)<br /><br /><br />Now I comment, unwisely, on selected particles of smoke:<br />To paraphrase FreeThinke: why, I wonder, does Emerson prefer the fraudulent practices of astrology and alchemy to the fruitful pursuits of astronomy and chemistry? Because the latter are CHALLENGING, that's probably why. Alas! We humans always seem to prefer the comforting scam to the difficult truth.<br /><br />Evolution is taught in science classes because it is a successful and elegant theory which therefore dominates biology. There is a variety of evidence for it, both in the prehistoric record and in modern, observed populations (and I insist that the prehistoric record is a valid witness).<br />If abiogenesis appears on a science syllabus it must be as a selection of competing hypotheses, each one uncertain.<br />If supernatural alternatives appear on any syllabus, it must not be a science syllabus, because science is inappropriate for supernatural hypotheses.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145653764764266444.post-91916082355783236552012-12-20T09:15:25.267-05:002012-12-20T09:15:25.267-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.jezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14865247084509280406noreply@blogger.com