Doubt is the problem, it's no reason for taking any position. If I say: "But how to I know this is true? Give a reason to think it's true" I haven't g...
Anyone does! For the presence of fallacies is no measure of the truth claim or insight in question. One just ignores it and jumps straight to what is ...
Yes (unless your topic was the fallacies in the argument, rather than a truth claim). You should just cut the bullshit and address the claim. Put asid...
You're not really to blame for this either. The sex/gender binary more or less considers taking a gender neutral position amounts to changing the sex ...
Anyone interested in the insight? Those who want to discover what is interesting and true in the statement, as opposed to the fallacy obsessed, who ar...
Yes, absolutely. There are many ways a fallacious argument might be interesting. It's underlying truth claim might be correct, so it would be a mistak...
One does that all the time, assuming one's argument is making a truth claim. The point is the fact of someone making a case (one's argument) is a diff...
I’ve got no problem the logic. The necessary meanings of logic are how we distinguish and reason about things.There are many different logics. Fallaci...
I'd be against because fallacies are a terrible way of relating to philosophy. At best the only describe some kind of logical error in abstract. It's ...
Nature does not precede culture. Environment and culture are part of nature. Any time a body causes anything, it interacts with its environment. There...
I know what they are perfectly well. I was just ignoring them because they weren't relevant to the point I was making. And natural kinds is a terrible...
You have a strange understanding/confusion about nominalism then. The whole point of nominalism is that the singular, general or universal doesn't exi...
Indeed. Just lots of entirely different instances of marks with their own numerical identity. So lets say we have two sets of seven marks "!!!!!!!" an...
The fact there are seven "!" marks present. Now, it is also true: "!!!!!!!" is also one mark, (a singular "!!!!!!!" entity), two marks ("!!" "!!!!!" e...
I'm not sure what you are trying to talk about here. My point was just you are correct to think our thoughts are involved here, that our understanding...
Not quite, us thinking about the marks is definitely a way of us thinking about the marks. That's our thoughts after all. But it's more than that. The...
Form is an epiphenomenon. Our similarities or difference in form never explain anything. All casual events are achieved by difference of existence/bod...
Species is indeed a social construct. The act of understanding that one body belongs in one catergory is identity or another is a social state. This d...
I'm not sure what you think I'm saying here. My description here works with whatever hypothesis you want to propose. I'm talking about the social fact...
We have to be a bit careful here. David Ramier resisted Money’s attempts to socialise him as female because he expressed a male identity and reflected...
More than that, I'm saying it means they are not really sex differences. The context in which sex categorisation gets applied is the individual. Such ...
The issue isn't with a dimorphic difference in bodies or describing that. If we are dealing with a large group of bodies and their differences, we can...
Bodies, it's a difference in bodies. On average, some bodies with a certain traits (e.g. penises, testes, etc.) are taller than some instances of othe...
You have bodily difference between people, sure. They just cannot be said to be sex difference, as they are not determined by a fact of sex categorisa...
Maybe, but I'm not interested in the ad hoc "just so stories" of evo psych preachers here. You don't go to the Flat Earther for an account of Earth in...
The "social construction" of gender and sex is made all to clear in this case of David Reimer. What happened in that case? The social fact of sex and ...
It's not a question of source at all. The argument is that gender and sex are themselves social states. Here a distinction is being made between state...
Social influences or construction are actually a biological event. Our response to environment are biological, always have been. The Nature vs Nurture...
You did, in the last post before my response. This part: You are outright saying that schools (as in the examples of Sweden un was talking out) teachi...
Sounds pretty political to me: "We must ensure that our schools and community reproduces/doesn't change present understandings and expectations of gen...
From this I took that he meant gender binary expectations were stronger in the US, which puts pressure on people to either confirm against their will ...
You are mistaken because gender neutrality doesn't have a problem with anyone belonging to one gender or another. All it does is decouple necessary tr...
There aren't really any stereotypes though, just people being themselves (or not, as the case might sometimes be). Decoupling doesn't really mean anyt...
Gender neutrality has more to do with avoiding certain kinds of binary and isolation. It's not a supposition that people don't have gender or preferen...
There are grounds for believing there is more than a map: the independent of thing from experience of a thing. When we consider some sort truth or fac...
We don’t really, for I was not discussing whether there was territory or not, but rather identifying the status of a map and how it related to claims ...
I've not commented on that issue because it wasn't what I was trying to discuss. With respect to that point, I would say the map (our experience) is n...
That's more or less the very question I'm asking you to consider. You insist that empirical observation have territory, while other maps, such as idea...
I'm not sure I would describe "good" indefinable in any real sense. fdrake's many examples seems to imply people know what they are talking about. In ...
My point is about the maps. In any case, when we have an experience reporting something (a map), it is a state of our experience, a feeling, a sensati...
The problem is all our accounts we give are the way we think. When we make an observation of empirical evidence and analyse it with our descriptions a...
Which was my point. Nietzsche identifies any proposed God is just another mortal. "God is dead" doesn't refer to whether a being named "God"exists or ...
For sure, but my point was claims about what God does/if God exists are empirical cliams. If someone stands up and says: "This being of God exists and...
That should have been "causal entity". (which I have now corrected). What I meant is Nietzsche's argument about the death of God doesn't preclude the ...
I think they are the same. When a reductionist says "There is only matter" they literally mean everything is consistuted in the individuals which are ...
Probably. I've seen a lot of people use a notion of monism which tries to speak on a level of a certain kind of state, whether it be an atom or an exp...
States of consciousness themselves aren't falsifiable because they don't have a manifestation outside their immediate appearance. Human states of cons...
By "material" I'm referring to a certain metaphysical distinction between a category of existing things and a category of things beyond/regardless of ...
Comments