Srap Tasmaner

Okay, it's clear now we've misunderstood each other in a couple ways, mostly my fault. Apologies. I never intended "common sense" to be something like...

The one that leapt to mind for me was Kant!

What I thought. Good to have clarification though. Much appreciated.

Appreciate it.

Talking about it, fine. Living it out in front of me, no thanks. There's a whole big internet out there.

Then you would agree the word "atheism" should be added to the guidelines, right next to religion.

I know what @"Dfpolis" is. I don't care. So long as he's talking philosophy, we're good. Maybe he does have some nefarious scheme. I don't care. I'm a...

I don't know how much more clearly you could make my case for me.

None of this has anything to do with philosophy. Reddit and Twitter are right next-door.

No idea what you're saying about my proposal. So what? As long as they're talking philosophy I don't care. 7 out of 10 Americans self-identify as Chri...

Yeah? Look at the quote you're responding to. If you step outside your house on a nice day and suddenly a tree limb cracks and crashes to the ground, ...

Good for you! Truth and knowledge are also normative concepts. You should believe what is true, and should believe it because it is true. To do so is ...

@"Banno" was arguing for the forced move of religious threads to the Philosophy of Religion category. That would -- since you can just exclude that ca...

There might be a different argument in these sorts of advertisements -- still not valid, but different. Something like You know what kind of guy wears...

Agreed pretty much all around, and congenial to my usually Gricean way of looking at things. We can, for purposes of theory, or in difficult cases, di...

Some ad-related thoughts: (1) perfume is mostly purchased by men, for women, so the target is definitely men, one reason for the male voice-over; (2) ...

I don't need the United States to be an atheist nation; I just need Christians not to turn it into a Theocracy. Here's something I do worry about: bec...

It also appears you only clicked on one of the links.

He's going to take a shot, here it comes -- it's in the net! Goal for Ciceronianus!

There is actual research. From the first citation: You were saying?

But why must it be exhaustive? If a state-of-affairs includes aspects A, B, C, D, E, and F, and we only describe it as having A, B, and D -- is that n...

I don't see a plausible alternative either.

Here's still more stuff for your armchair time, and this brings us back to the sorts of stuff @"Pfhorrest" was talking about: from our point of view a...

We've all been saying things at least a little like this in this thread. I'm not sure there's much alternative, but it also makes me a little uncomfor...

Hold that thought, if you would. -- I don't think we've at all given intersubjectivity its due and it's not immediately in the offing. I will say your...

Oddly enough I think I can! Maybe. (And I do think empiricism is fine with there being some inborn capacities, often reason, psychological mechanisms ...

I didn't even watch the talk. I don't care about Hoffman -- just an example. I brought him up because there's a lot of "Bayesian brain" talk these day...

I was thinking we have competing theories. Turns out you're talking about one theory and competing hypotheses, and the whole Quine-Duhem holism underd...

But that lack of transparency doesn't sound much like science either. Remember a couple years ago when Donald Hoffman was pushing that "desktop" metap...

Two for two! Yes, the sample empiricism is deliberately old school. And in the second quote I'm thinking of those types of models. But "System 1 is a ...

That implies that the competing theoretical frameworks overlap, right?

So do you see an individual, even if she's not aware of it, as essentially doing science all the time? That is, as having a working theory that produc...

Excellent! Thanks for actually claiming a version of empiricism you would defend. One question -- only disputes about what is real? Or do we look to e...

There is some link between empiricism, a philosophical theory, and empirical science. What is that link? Let's define an empiricism -- not the empiric...

I didn't define "empiricism" so everyone could put their own spin on it. I can't tell what your spin is. That sounds to me like you have something to ...

Not at all. My intention was to conflate all senses of the word "empiricism". Remember empiricism? That theory that had two remaining dogmas Quine too...

My son excitedly brought me this video by Sabine Hossenfelder: (Here's a nice review with quotes.) Recently, there's also David Lindley's The Dream Un...

I have a lazy amateur's knowledge of game theory, but I do know there's a substantial literature on the tragedy of the commons -- part of the story of...

It's an inelegant phrase, guilty as charged. Historically? I might stand by it. And take a side! Empiricism: are you for it or agin it?

I like just-so-stories. I could tell a different one, but what would be the point of that? Inherited religions are just that -- inherited. Aside from ...

I thought Binmore made it pretty clear how he would feel about such a scheme. He gives several examples in the interview. I don't see Kenneth Binmore ...

Yeah, compared to us that's a Mickey Mouse operation.

Cool. I am definitely going to distinguish between, I guess, careful observation, or technology-assisted observation and the heavy-duty theoretical fr...

Oh! I missed my chance to say that this is another paradoxical result of science. The earth after all is big enough that locally it is at least awfull...

Excellent question! First there are gorgeous videos. That's probably where I would start with my kids, or anyone's kids, if they just didn't yet know ...

An interview with Kenneth Binmore.

In the sense you mean, it might be most, but it's not all, certainly not where I live: just glance at Wikipedia's summary of views on evolution. There...

Here's the classic Feynman interview I referred to above. I've seen this interview taken as evidence (!) that science is bollocks -- here's a Nobel pr...

But the difference is that in ordinary reasoning there being entirely new kinds of entities, and those invisible to boot, or entities not being what w...

Yes, I do. Or at least some purpose for which wearing clothes is necessary. What's the alternative, for wearing clothes to be "in itself" necessary? L...