Philosophy is a hobby. No. It is a way of life.

Page 8 of 8 [ 123 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 4:12 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Quote:
Yes your right. I unintentionally employed a fallacy. I should have read it again before pressing submit. Thanks for catching my error. :)

Employed a fallacy? You mean you misused logic?



Employing (or committing) a logical fallacy is an abuse or misuse of logic.

Picky, picky.

ruveyn



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

17 Dec 2011, 5:26 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
Looks like we should have defined the parameters for considering what is more important. So lets do that. By important, I mean how much a method can help you.

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.

Can the Socratic Method help you in your day-to-day life? Yes. It helps with every single human to human communication and with internal thinking.

Therefore, according to the parameters for considering what is more important, the Socratic Method is more important to you than the Scientific Method.

HUNH???? Here's the issue, "how much a method can help you" always goes back to comparisons between it and other things. You can't use the socratic method for breathing, it takes too long. We HAVE heuristics already. The socratic method doesn't do better than heuristic-feedback methods, and those methods ALREADY EXIST. We ALREADY USE THEM. Scientific method is the add-on. So, here's the issue, does science add more to heuristic-feedback method than Socratic method? And scientific method DOES.

This means that scientific method helps you MORE. I might not explicitly do science, but I at minimum rely on scientific claims at multiple junctures, which means that I, indirectly, rely on the scientific method.


Hi Awesomelyglorious,

Even after William Lane Craig's pseudo-preaching a return to "The Ptolemaic System", "The Aether", and "Aristotelian Physics", with polished and verbose revamped long-dead models, the declaration of "Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No," seems very strange.

The ancient joining of "The Socratic Method" to "Aristotelian Physics" stymied progress for nearly a couple thousand years. I was taught (and I thought) that the disputes between Galileo and the adherents of the dis-proven and rejected Systems, Methods, and ancient Physics where over and done with, except for history lessons of how long held wrong doctrines inculcated by strong hierarchies prevented advancement. If everybody philosophizes about how a heavy rock falling back to its beloved ground is an explanation for its greater speed, than the speed of the reluctant light feather wishing to remain airborne, instead of multiple and different experiments like Galileo's, I guess Aristotelian Nonsense would have remained protected from facts and the modern Scientific Method . (It now seems very possible that WLC's remark was actually serious in his remarking that when a passenger on a train drops a rock to the floor, the train's floor will have traveled out from under the dropping rock before the rock hits the floor!! !).

Polishing and rewording the Socratic Method in order to play word games for distractions from unpleasant facts might be the next vogue in happiness of the bliss of ignorance. The immaterial and spiritual aspects of the physic started to lose out in the middle of the 19th century in academics, with books starting in 1865 to overwhelm the Socratic Method with the Scientific Method, but now hard science is declining again back down to 1910 levels, with the Socratic Method making a weak return back to 1740 levels:
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?co ... moothing=3

I cited Lawrence Krader's "Noetics" for the canonical stance of "The Socratic Method" compared to "The Scientific Method" in the 20th Century, and I receive the response:
"What you are quoting is somebodies "opinion" of what he thinks the Socratic Method is for. He is mistaken. He obviously doesn't realize that the Socratic Method is used to teach children, and in consulting. Are these "seeking truths within"? No. Its possible the author was saying something poetic. But it is absolutely false. "
So, it definitely looks like Humanity might be headed back to the Dark Ages (The "Age of Faith" sounds nicer, but that doesn't stop the boat of scientific knowledge from sinking after colliding with Neo-Old-Faith in nonsense, and taking most of humanity with it).

Who's to blame? I'm going to place bets that it is Ayn Rand's fault on the vague neo-Conservative side, and Noam Chomsky on the vague New-Ager Liberal side. I still like one comedian's remark that she studied the works of Deepak Chopra , and then took a university course in Quantum Physics to better understand him, and she said that she only discovered that he was so full of sh*t, and like Rand, too selfish to take a dump without receiving prior payment and promise of future royalties. The Great Religions are madly riding off in every direction, with the Cathars' fate only one exemplifying previous paradigm for New Domestic & International Crusades. Billy Graham "knows" the 2nd Law is Wrong and not true, but Satan is going to win against that nonsensical stance too.

Tadzio



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 5:31 am

rombomb2 wrote:

Mill was known for induction. I use induction when I'm trying to learn how my car works. And I ask Socratic questions to my mechanic in order to confirm my guesses. The mechanic gives his criticisms of my guesses, and that hows I'm able to learn how my car works. And this helps me understand why my car won't start.


The best way to understand it to directly check the repair and see if the engine starts. You don't need to ask any questions that way. The most eloquent spokes-thing for reality, is reality itself.

That was Aristotle's problem. He tried to talk Nature to death. Actually most of the Athenian crowd did that.

ruveyn



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:18 am

ruveyn wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:

Mill was known for induction. I use induction when I'm trying to learn how my car works. And I ask Socratic questions to my mechanic in order to confirm my guesses. The mechanic gives his criticisms of my guesses, and that hows I'm able to learn how my car works. And this helps me understand why my car won't start.


The best way to understand it to directly check the repair and see if the engine starts. You don't need to ask any questions that way. The most eloquent spokes-thing for reality, is reality itself.

That was Aristotle's problem. He tried to talk Nature to death. Actually most of the Athenian crowd did that.

ruveyn


Sure but how do you know what repair to try? First you ask yourself some questions. Once you've answered those questions, you now have ideas for what repairs to do.

Yes I imagine that Aristotle asked some goofy questions. But again its because there was no background knowledge to show him how goofy his questions were. If he knew our background knowledge, he wouldn't have asked those goofy questions.



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:20 am

ruveyn wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Quote:
Yes your right. I unintentionally employed a fallacy. I should have read it again before pressing submit. Thanks for catching my error. :)

Employed a fallacy? You mean you misused logic?



Employing (or committing) a logical fallacy is an abuse or misuse of logic.

Picky, picky.

ruveyn


Abuse seems to mean that someone intentionally employs a fallacy to gain an edge; which is what politicians are very well trained in.

Misuse seems to mean that someone unintentionally employs a fallacy.



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:25 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
rombomb2 wrote:
Looks like we should have defined the parameters for considering what is more important. So lets do that. By important, I mean how much a method can help you.

Can the Scientific Method help you in your day-to-day life? No.

Can the Socratic Method help you in your day-to-day life? Yes. It helps with every single human to human communication and with internal thinking.

Therefore, according to the parameters for considering what is more important, the Socratic Method is more important to you than the Scientific Method.

HUNH???? Here's the issue, "how much a method can help you" always goes back to comparisons between it and other things. You can't use the socratic method for breathing, it takes too long. We HAVE heuristics already. The socratic method doesn't do better than heuristic-feedback methods, and those methods ALREADY EXIST. We ALREADY USE THEM. Scientific method is the add-on. So, here's the issue, does science add more to heuristic-feedback method than Socratic method? And scientific method DOES.

This means that scientific method helps you MORE. I might not explicitly do science, but I at minimum rely on scientific claims at multiple junctures, which means that I, indirectly, rely on the scientific method.


Help me understand the heuristic-feedback process, do you ask questions during the process? Are they always the same questions?



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 7:48 am

rombomb2 wrote:
Thats it. No author "infected" me with goofiness about bringing back the Socratic Method. I am making my points completely alone. Not one person has agreed me with yet. Not one professor, not one philosopher, not one scientist, not even a layperson.


This is misleading. I did get one source of inspiration, although there was no mention of 'bringing the Socratic Method back'. My inspiration came from George Washington, or rather his autobiography, or rather an excerpt from his autobiography that was included in "The Underground History of American Education," by John Taylor Gatto. This is what GW said about the Socratic Method:

George Washington wrote:
I found this method safest for myself and very embarrassing to those against whom I used it; therefore I took a delight in it, practis’d it continually, and grew very artful and expert in drawing people, even of superior knowledge, into concessions, the consequences of which they did not foresee, entangling them in difficulties out of which they could not extricate themselves, and so obtaining victories that neither myself nor my cause always deserved.


Lets be even more clear. GW is very much responsible for America's greatness. GW set the major European powers against each other while in each diplomatic relationship he made with each European power, America gained a bit and they lost a bit. This is why America wanted him as President. And how did he manipulate the European powers so effectively? He employed the Socratic Method.



Last edited by rombomb2 on 17 Dec 2011, 9:37 am, edited 3 times in total.

lunarious
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

17 Dec 2011, 8:20 am

Wow...

When I was younger, I decided that I will not use anything that I dont understand how works. Which i found out later was that I couldnt use the computer for example. .... Time passed and suffering became too much, suffering upon suffering, and then I decided that I will use the computer but I vow to learn everything about it (altough it is very hard recieving from the schools as you said). Now here I am and I know that I might not catch the train and I dont know the f*****g soctratic method yet, so I have decided that I will use the computer but I will remain in debt to the computer producers, the miners for metal, the screen glass producers. I will repay them with my service (I dont know really if they told me, that they dont want my service I would leave them alone ... maybe I should leave them if they request that)

Can you brief me about the socratic method as a scientist?

Salam



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Dec 2011, 11:05 am

lunarious wrote:
Wow...

When I was younger, I decided that I will not use anything that I dont understand how works. Which i found out later was that I couldnt use the computer for example. .... Time passed and suffering became too much, suffering upon suffering, and then I decided that I will use the computer but I vow to learn everything about it (altough it is very hard recieving from the schools as you said). Now here I am and I know that I might not catch the train and I dont know the f***ing soctratic method yet, so I have decided that I will use the computer but I will remain in debt to the computer producers, the miners for metal, the screen glass producers. I will repay them with my service (I dont know really if they told me, that they dont want my service I would leave them alone ... maybe I should leave them if they request that)

Can you brief me about the socratic method as a scientist?

Salam


In modern times scientists (aka natural philosophers) have never used the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method is a debating tactic and involved picking words apart. It has little or nothing to do with making careful observations of the physical world (which is to say, the real world). Socrates was no scientist. Aristotle was, but a very bad one.

ruveyn



rombomb2
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 197

17 Dec 2011, 11:28 am

ruveyn wrote:
Quote:
Can you brief me about the socratic method as a scientist?

Salam


In modern times scientists (aka natural philosophers) have never used the Socratic Method. The Socratic Method is a debating tactic and involved picking words apart. It has little or nothing to do with making careful observations of the physical world (which is to say, the real world). Socrates was no scientist. Aristotle was, but a very bad one.

ruveyn


No that is not the Socratic Method. What you are referring to is a derivation of the Socratic Method for the practice of debate as in Law School. A derviation just like the Scientific Method is a derivation.

The most general form of the Socratic Method is only a questioning technique. It does have qualities of a debate but only because a debate uses a method that is a derviation of the Socratic Method and so some of the child method's qualities are assumed from the parent method. The child is the Debate-version of the Socratic Method and the parent is The Socratic Method.


Are there any software guys out there that can help me with my point? This is your ball court we're in right now.



lunarious
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Aug 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 33

18 Dec 2011, 10:38 am

Ah!.... I know! But I must find out on the net first to give you a brief answer.

Inheritance in CSShttp://www.webdesignfromscratch.com/html-css/css-inheritance-cascade/#1

I wont be suprised if you dont get the technical aspect nor should it be important to you I understand, still you can understand from the first paragraph over there. But if you want we could analyze an example (Ill need one day then to freshen up). This is sure around on other computer stuff but I am really rusy in computer (once I was shiny), I am getting embarrased,