Archimedes: The Method

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-20 09:14pm

Strate_Egg wrote:Wrong. The observational evidence has always pointed to a round Earth. lol and i can find Empiricists that say the opposite lol. amazing

Edify us with something other than this statement, then. Please.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 09:16pm

You aren't worth dealing with because you can't accept when you are in the wrong. I can. Too bad IM not wrong. YOU CAN'T prove what you say. That is 100% correct. As long as you admit you cannot, SKepticis win. Period

You can run and hide your head among your fellow wongites, but it won't change the fact that you have NO real knowedge about conecepts such as justice, beauty, perfection, god, or reality, just approximations that are not credible.

By your logic, NO scientist can you support becaues it would be appeal to authority. That is pathetic, go away. When you learn you arent right just because, then come back.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 09:17pm

Edify us with something other than this statement, then. Please.
_________________

sure, might b a day, but i will take where i got that from.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-10-20 09:18pm

Has his account been hacked?

Sriad · Post by **Sriad** » 2003-10-20 09:27pm

Anyone feel like HOSing this thing? It's kind of embarassing to have it sitting around SLAM, even though it is vaguely topical.

...Though I did enjoy reading the article about Archimedes' book.

Darth Wong wrote:I have the utmost confidence that anyone with the patience to read this entire thread will conclude that you are an idiot, no matter what measures you take from this point forward to bolster your opinion of yourself.

Personally, I wept tears of blood before I was done reading the first and last three pages, but I guess there might be someone crazy enough to sit through the whole thing.

And then there's that Egg guy, who lived it. I don't know what that says about him, but it can't be good.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 09:29pm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... ritics.asp

You might like that page on why skepticism limited is useful.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 09:35pm

The reality is that nearly all medieval scholars, contemporary and past, have concluded that the Medievals believed the world to be round. So how did we get into the situation where a widely held belief, that the Medievals thought the World was flat, is so devoid of factual support? The answer to this question is provided in a readable and authoritative historical study: "Inventing the Flat Earth" by Jeffrey Burton Russell (1991).

Russell is Professor of History at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His specialist knowledge is in the intellectual history of the medieval world. He describes what he calls the "Flat Earth Error": a modern belief about earlier generations that tells us more about ourselves than about people in the past. The "Flat Earth Error" deserves to be called scandalous, for its advocates have effectively maintained a myth to satisfy their own biases and belief systems at the expense of past generations that do not deserve the disparagement.

That is a good book too. The entire theme explains how some Empiricsts used retarded claims to try to "sense" that the idea of a round earth was stupid. Clearly they were wrong. SKepticism helps MAKE the round-earth theory by causing more and more people to look into the issue.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-20 10:35pm

Strate_Egg wrote:You aren't worth dealing with because you can't accept when you are in the wrong.

Total pot to kettle.

I can.

That's why you deny it outright right after that, eh?

Too bad IM not wrong.

See?

YOU CAN'T prove what you say.

Shut up with your fucking "100% proof or nothing" bullshit.

As long as you admit you cannot, SKepticis win. Period

Then why bother arguing with them, if you know you're just going to lose?

You can run and hide your head among your fellow wongites, but it won't change the fact that you have NO real knowedge about conecepts such as justice, beauty, perfection, god, or reality, just approximations that are not credible.

I'm sorry, where from your ass are you pulling these unfounded and rediculous accusations? Oh, that's right, that spot right next to your head.

What is your definition of "real knowledge", omnisence?

By your logic, NO scientist can you support becaues it would be appeal to authority.

Which is a blatent lie. If the person is actually QUALIFIED to be commenting on the subject at hand, then it isn't an appeal to authority. However, if you quoted, say Pamela Anderson in a debate about thermodynamics, and used it to try and support your case, that would be an appeal to authority.

That is pathetic, go away.

Holy shit, it's like you're reading my mind. You are pathetic, go away.

When you learn you arent right just because, then come back.

Your case of projection is one of the most severe I've ever seen.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 11:47pm

Sorry you are too stupid to understand that you need 100% certainty for truth, truth = justification for knowledge. If you do not like it you can stick your head in the and and pretend you are right, because that is what you are doing.

If the person is actually QUALIFIED to be commenting on the subject at hand

Oh, so a qualified source does not count as appeal to authority. OHH ok, tell WOng that. He said that Hume, Descartes, Berkely were all Idiots, therefore they cannot be believed. That is the biggest Ad Hominem. You cannot see it because you are selectively blind. They are just as qualified to discuss the object of Epistomology as Hawking is physics. YOu just pick and choose who YOU think is good as it relates to YOUR case.

However, if you quoted, say Pamela Anderson in a debate about thermodynamics, and used it to try and support your case, that would be an appeal to authority.

THAT is the biggest bunch of bullshit and totally off track and unrelated. I never quoted from Pam Anderson or ANYONE AT ANY TIME, that was NOT a respected member of the Philosophical community.

You aren't worth dealing with because you can't accept when you are in the wrong.

Go away, i am not wrong. I am not trying to PROVE you are wrong. I am trying to SHOW that by the definition commonly agreed upon (knowledge) by philosophers is not adhered to by Empiricsts.

as for the false Dichotomy, that is ridiculous, no such thing here exists. If you were talking about Atheism vs Biblical god and the belief that you can either believe one or the other, THEN you have black/white false Dichotomy.

I don't see how there can be "degrees" of justification if justification is based on a truthful claim. Truth is certain and factual. That is something you cannot gain through senses or induction. I have proven why and given support claims. If you don't like it too bad.

Shut up with your fucking "100% proof or nothing" bullshit.

That right there means you are a fucking moron. You HAVE proof, but skepticism shows that it cannot be the end all source of knowledge, especially about reality due to the ways it doesn't work. The proof you have isn't certain. Without truth you can't claim shit. Maybe in your own private reality of ignorance you can though.

I'm sorry, where from your ass are you pulling these unfounded and rediculous accusations?

Nothing more unfounded than saying all knowledge comes from senses, but then turning around and saying you need reason to compliment it. At that point, it ceases to be empiricism. But you can go ahead and change meanings again if it makes you happy. Accordingly, it is unfounded to say that the knowledge represents reality, since you cannot leave your experiences behind (which can be easily fooled in many ways) and see if the senses corroborate with "a" reality outside your senses. Even with multiple accounts of the same thing, all it is is a groupe of senses experiencing the same thing.

Strate_Egg · Post by **Strate_Egg** » 2003-10-20 11:48pm

I'm sorry, where from your ass are you pulling these unfounded and rediculous accusations? Oh, that's right, that spot right next to your head.

What is your definition of "real knowledge", omnisence?

I will not repeat what the definition of real knowledge is. All induction can provide is probability, and that isnt certain. I will not reiterate what REAL knowledge is because you will just ignore it and then rejoin the ranks of Wongites.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-10-21 12:45am

Strate_Egg wrote:Sorry you are too stupid to understand that you need 100% certainty for truth, truth = justification for knowledge.

Considering that this site is devoted to the exposure of truths...

I

Oh, so a qualified source does not count as appeal to authority. OHH ok, tell WOng that. He said that Hume, Descartes, Berkely were all Idiots, therefore they cannot be believed. That is the biggest Ad Hominem. You cannot see it because you are selectively blind. They are just as qualified to discuss the object of Epistomology as Hawking is physics.

Kent Hovind has a degree in "science". So I can't call him an idiot if someone quotes him? Again, if it is justified.

YOu just pick and choose who YOU think is good as it relates to YOUR case.

You do, obviously, since you don't notice the flaws about the people you like to refer to.

However, if you quoted, say Pamela Anderson in a debate about thermodynamics, and used it to try and support your case, that would be an appeal to authority.
THAT is the biggest bunch of bullshit and totally off track and unrelated. I never quoted from Pam Anderson or ANYONE AT ANY TIME, that was NOT a respected member of the Philosophical community.

Notice how it was an EXAMPLE, YOU DIPSHIT.

How you think you are able to call me an idiot when you can't see an obvious example of an appeal to authority, STATED AS SUCH... you're blacker than the pot and kettle combined.

Go away, i am not wrong.

WoI.

You HAVE proof, but skepticism shows that it cannot be the end all source of knowledge, especially about reality due to the ways it doesn't work. The proof you have isn't certain. Without truth you can't claim shit.

Sure you can. Don't you understand the scientific theory? No, wait, you don't.

Maybe in your own private reality of ignorance you can though.

Speaking of private realities...

[quote[But you can go ahead and change meanings again if it makes you happy. [/quote]

I'm not the whose one doing that.

Accordingly, it is unfounded to say that the knowledge represents reality, since you cannot leave your experiences behind (which can be easily fooled in many ways) and see if the senses corroborate with "a" reality outside your senses. Even with multiple accounts of the same thing, all it is is a groupe of senses experiencing the same thing.

...

Is all I have to say about that.