Archimedes: The Method

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:18am

Strate_Egg wrote:"Appeal to authority" fallacy. You seem quite fond of this one.
ad hominem, yall seem familiar with that one too i guess.

TOo bad appleal to authority works with Philosophy because A THey devised it
B. THey got the quotes, ideas, and the reasoning. I didnt make it up, so i have to go to them for remarks.

If you can't back it up with logic, little boy, it's false. Go fuck yourself. Socrates would roll in his grave if he heard this travesty you just announced.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:18am

Show how the methods of empiricism are unreliable.

I will not do this again. I really dont feel llike explaining the entire methodological view as well as Humean view of why Rationalists and Empiricsts such as Lock are retarded.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:19am

Strate_Egg wrote:Show how the methods of empiricism are unreliable.

I will not do this again. I really dont feel llike explaining the entire methodological view as well as Humean view of why Rationalists and Empiricsts such as Lock are retarded.

Then concede or fuck off.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:19am

Strate_Egg wrote:
"Appeal to authority" fallacy. You seem quite fond of this one.
ad hominem, yall seem familiar with that one too i guess.

Explain how it is an ad-hominem fallacy to point out that you just used an appeal to authority, asshole. The point remains.

TOo bad appleal to authority works with Philosophy because A THey devised it
B. THey got the quotes, ideas, and the reasoning. I didnt make it up, so i have to go to them for remarks.

Thanks for proving that you understand nothing about logic.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:20am

If you can't back it up with logic, little boy, it's false. Go fuck yourself. Socrates would roll in his grave if he heard this travesty you just announced.

OH yea, and SOcrates believed in reincarnation and that " magical innate ideas" allowed people to know reality. NO proof of them anywhere in any form. Plato just pacified im more by trying to explain the genration of the ideas in another Disney world called the metaphysical plain of forms. Please, that is the biggest assumptiion pie anyone could bite into. Compared to that Empiricism looks fucking gorgeous.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:22am

Strate_Egg wrote:If you can't back it up with logic, little boy, it's false. Go fuck yourself. Socrates would roll in his grave if he heard this travesty you just announced.

OH yea, and SOcrates believed in reincarnation and that " magical innate ideas" allowed people to know reality. NO proof of them anywhere in any form. Plato just pacified im more by trying to explain the genration of the ideas in another Disney world called the metaphysical plain of forms. Please, that is the biggest assumptiion pie anyone could bite into. Compared to that Empiricism looks fucking gorgeous.

Socrates at least used logic; you just whine and appeal to authorities who would disown you if they could. Though I myself am more Cartesian in nature, you are still just a useless Sophistic brat. Are you going to be backing up any of your shit, or should we ignore you?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:22am

Explain how it is an ad-hominem fallacy to point out that you just used an appeal to authority, asshole. The point remains.
Quote:

It doesnt. I am just saying every 3.3 seconds its dumbass, fucktard, moron, idiot,little boy. You cant go a sentence wihtout using it. Hmm i can. I am sick of people aslo distoring my words, taking them out of context, changing defintions, and NOT understanding what i am SAYING.

For some reason, people are confusing the true defintion of a solipsist, which i am not. I am not even a univeral skeptic, i am a LIMITED skeptic.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:23am

Strate_Egg wrote:Explain how it is an ad-hominem fallacy to point out that you just used an appeal to authority, asshole. The point remains.
Quote:

It doesnt. I am just saying every 3.3 seconds its dumbass, fucktard, moron, idiot,little boy. You cant go a sentence wihtout using it. Hmm i can. I am sick of people aslo distoring my words, taking them out of context, changing defintions, and NOT understanding what i am SAYING.

For some reason, people are confusing the true defintion of a solipsist, which i am not. I am not even a univeral skeptic, i am a LIMITED skeptic.

You're a Sophist whose masturbating to Skeptic nonsense. I'm sorry if this offends your poor sensibilities; maybe you should be less offensive in your postings if you want people to not insult you?

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:23am

I think a more appropriate term would be a "limited thinker".

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:24am

Notice how he continues to evade the points raised about facts and knowledge. If 2+2=4 is a fact, then "the speed of light is 3E8 m/s" is a fact. Both are facts couched in the contexts of their respective systems: mathematics and the observed universe. But only one of them is true, according to Humpty Dumpty here.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:24am

Yawn, i have backed it up in a multiplicity of ways. Quotes, ideas, diredt observation of the two greatest skeptics, Hume and Descarte. I could throw in Pyrrho. ( i know i spelled that wrong)

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:26am

I think a more appropriate term would be a "limited thinker".

NO, if i didnt think in skepticism, i wouldnt be a skeptic. NEver once have i stepped out of the definitino of skeptic. YOU are thinking of what they call usual skeptics. There are also Academic skeptics that evolved from Plato's academy.

There are two types of Skeptics, Universal and Limited.

Please, i am not understanding what you want me to explain. ILl try again. Tell me specifically waht you want me to tell you.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:26am

Strate_Egg wrote:Yawn, i have backed it up in a multiplicity of ways. Quotes, ideas, diredt observation of the two greatest skeptics, Hume and Descarte. I could throw in Pyrrho. ( i know i spelled that wrong)

Decartes was not a skeptic, you inbred cumstain. He was the first of the Cartesians. Or has your Community College Philosophy 101 class not gotten that far yet?

Let's see this great and mighty Cartesian logic at work!

Decartes: God is perfect. Perfection can't come from imperfect beings. Therefore, I can't be imagining God. Therefore, he must be real and perfect.

Ladies and gentleman, we have an idiot who thinks that's reasonable.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:26am

Strate_Egg wrote:
Explain how it is an ad-hominem fallacy to point out that you just used an appeal to authority, asshole. The point remains.
It doesnt. I am just saying every 3.3 seconds its dumbass, fucktard, moron, idiot,little boy. You cant go a sentence wihtout using it.

Doesn't change the fact that your arguments are based on illogical appeals to authority, and you have just conceded that this is true. If you wish to counter with style over substance fallacies for even more public embarassment, be my guest.

Hmm i can. I am sick of people aslo distoring my words, taking them out of context, changing defintions, and NOT understanding what i am SAYING.

For some reason, people are confusing the true defintion of a solipsist, which i am not. I am not even a univeral skeptic, i am a LIMITED skeptic.

I don't give a shit what you call yourself. The point is that by denying the validity of all facts based on data from outside your own mind, you DO subscribe to solypsism. You can call yourself a Sparktometrist for all I care; you'd still be a solypsist.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:27am

If 2+2=4 is a fact, ahhh when did i say that was a fact? WHen? That would be based on Empiricist (experience) Or rationalist reason.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 01:28am

Strate_Egg wrote:Tell me specifically waht you want me to tell you.

As follows:

"I am an assclown. I concede all points. I admit my stupidity, and shall never post at this board again."

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:29am

OK, how do YOU define SOlipsism. I will respond with my idea. I will aslo provide location of def.

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:29am

Strate_Egg wrote:Yawn, i have backed it up in a multiplicity of ways. Quotes, ideas, diredt observation of the two greatest skeptics, Hume and Descarte. I could throw in Pyrrho. ( i know i spelled that wrong)

Let me re-phrase that for you:

PS. I like the part right after your proud appeals to authority where you claim to have "direct observation" of Hume and Descartes. You must be older than I thought

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:30am

NO, not untill you PROVE that Empiricism represents reality
SORRY, you cannot do that. That is the weakness of Empiricism. The need to prove lies on those that say it DOES represent reality. Too bad they cannot do that.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:30am

Strate_Egg wrote:OK, how do YOU define SOlipsism. I will respond with my idea. I will aslo provide location of def.

Main Entry: so·lip·sism
Pronunciation: 'sO-l&p-"si-z&m, 'sä-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
Date: 1874
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing
- so·lip·sist /'sO-l&p-sist, 'sä-l&p-, s&-'lip-/ noun
- so·lip·sis·tic /"sO-l&p-'sis-tik, "sä-/ adjective
- so·lip·sis·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Merriam-Webster.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:30am

direct observation = texts, original source.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-10-20 01:31am

Strate_Egg wrote:direct observation = texts, original source.

That's not direct observation, retard. Are you going to come up with anything to the fact I showed you don't even know who in history was a Skeptic?

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:31am

OK good. a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing :

Wong said that they believe in Nothing, no evidence. That defintion directly contradicts what he says over and over that i believe in no evidence. That is what i am saying i DO NOT believe in.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 01:32am

Solipsism is what Descarte believed before he fell into the Rationalism trap

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-10-20 01:33am

Strate_Egg wrote:NO, not untill you PROVE that Empiricism represents reality

Don't need to, because empiricism gives us knowledge of the universe. If you don't believe the universe is real, that doesn't change the fact that empiricism does its job. I've already made this point several times, only to be met with deafening silence on your part.