Well that was a bunch of gobbledygook. — Terrapin Station

Clearly that doesn't bother him. On the contrary, he must get a kick out of it. He's enthusiastically adopted creativesoul's gobbledygook, and he doesn't even seem embarrassed about it.

Where have they been the last dozen pages? — Merkwurdichliebe

I abandoned the discussion when it began to be filled with gibberish. I am of the opinion that all of the gibberish you've been indulging for pages, which is currently permitted over various topics, should be confined to a single discussion. The title should be something like, "Creativesoul's Gibberish About Thought/Belief, Existential Dependency, And All The Rest".

Although clearly I am not a fan. Far from it. You, on the other hand...

Sure people my say we learn it from a deity but some of them (if they were really) don't seem to care about human life.
— hachit

...and maybe some deities care about all life. Their purpose is to nurture life, not to nurture humans at the expense of all other life. Wouldn't that make more sense? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

That's just speculation.

This discussion sharply went downhill when it began to be filled with insanely repetitive gibberish about "thought/belief" and the like. Stuff like this:

Language allows us to acquire knowledge of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our naming it. Some of those things are themselves existentially dependent upon language use.

Hume said that it was possible for events to not have causes. — Dusty of Sky

Did he? I thought he was famed for his scepticism.

You're going to hate me for saying this; but, if it comes down to a decision between Biden or Trump, I would pick Trump. As others have said Biden is Hillary with a penis. — Wallows

Well that's just stupid, because Hillary was a better candidate than Trump, so Hillary with a penis would be a better candidate than Trump. Why would you pick the worse candidate? Not voting at all would be better than that. And voting for the best candidate would be the best course of action.

Quoting out of context is a fallacy. Here is the actual context:

I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed.
— ZhouBoTong

Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one? — S

This has holes too — I like sushi

The whole thing has holes.

Hume skirted around an important aspect of thought/belief. Expectation. — creativesoul

Have you ever read Hume? Or any secondary literature about his philosophy?

So I am saying that morality is relative, relative to communities, not to individuals, which is what I have arguing all along. — Janus

You don't get to decide what morality is and is not relative to. That's out of your hands. You only have the power to dictate your own morality.

Your words don't mean a thing. It's like if I were to say that citizenship of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland applies to people named David, Peter, and Sue, but not to those named Arthur, Christopher, and Mary. That's how silly you sound, in spite of the intellectual guise. No amount of "argumentation" from you can validate what you're saying.

A common criticism of the Jews is that they killed Jesus. — Ilya B Shambat

An idiotic, antisemitic, and condemnable way to put it. And don't you dare point out that you're Jewish, as though that's a get out of jail free card. You've just done a massive Kanye, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The point is that it is the fact that no one wants to live in a lawless society that commits them to moral respect for law as such. Tim is right about this; but he is wrong to conclude that it is always morally wrong to disobey any law. — Janus

So, Tim turns up, makes a boring, uncontroversial point, but makes it in ambiguous, problematic language, and then draws an obviously wrong conclusion from it that virtually no one else agrees with. That's my blunt and toxic assessment of the situation, anyway.

Why? We have laws and we have law, and the latter does not consist in any particular law or even any particular set of laws. Do you want to live in a lawless society? If your answer is 'No', then to be intellectually honest you should respect law; but that does not require you to respect any particular law or set of laws. Why would you not respect a particular law or set of laws? I believe it would be because you didn't believe those laws were just or rationally justified. — Janus

What's the point of talking about "law"? No one here wants to live in a lawless society. Everyone here has the bare minimum of respect for law such that they're in favour of having laws. There's nothing controversial there to discuss.

And yes, you're right about why I wouldn't respect a particular law or set of laws.

It seems obvious to me that only those laws worthy of respect deserve respect, and that not all laws are worthy of respect. I haven't even any use for the phrase "law as law", and I find it a little peculiar that you've picked it up. It seems that people use this phrase to make unwarranted generalisations about the law, like that it should be respected and that it's bad to break it.

Whew! That's a relief.

You are just repeating the same contradictory stuff over and over. You want to claim science is inherently inadequate, but somehow also claim that it supports your view. Any time someone here refutes your position on the former, you flee to the latter and vice versa. That's called being a moving target and it's bad philosophy. — NKBJ

Blunt. Beautifully blunt. I like it. :grin:

Then it's our own understanding which necessitates the use of empiricism as crutches when we are unable to walk the path of logic without such assistance... right? — BrianW

Right.

Or on this kind of online forum. I ask a question. And immediately three or four people get into a heated argument with each other about something else entirely. — tinman917

Then you bite their head off for straying from the topic. Your discussion, you act as chair.

Yes, as a general surgeon I try and ease everyone's pain. — Wallows

Hey, you stole my gimmick. "I'm the doctor"™, is my catchphrase.

Bloody pig-chimp.

Sounds like you're overthinking it. Just get stuck in. What's the worst that can happen?

Is logic solely dependent on empiricism. — BrianW

Not solely, no. But it is dependent on it in the sense that you won't get very far at all without it. You'll inevitably encounter a premise which requires empiricism in order to be true, or to be known to be true.

The point is, were he reporting asthma, or moles, nobody would think twice about it, but as the claims are regarded as extraordinary, then much higher standards are demanded. — Wayfarer

Of course they are, and rightly so. We've been over this. If you claim otherwise, then as I've said multiple times now, you have a burden of justification. And you just won't be able to reasonably meet that burden. The logical consequences would work against you. When confronted with the logical consequences of applying the same standard as ordinary claims across the board, it seems you'd go for special pleading in order to exclude those logical consequences which you'd find objectionable, given how you've reacted to my earlier mentioning of flying pigs, ghosts, and the like. You don't want to include them. They aren't your cup of tea, like past lives are. But that's not being reasonable. Special pleading is an informal logical fallacy.

Compliance to the law is condemnable in some cases, and certainly not worthy of respect.
— S

In this you set "the law" equal to particular law. Seems like clear category confusion to me. — tim wood

I was clearly talking about particular cases, which implies particular laws. I said "in some cases". There's no category error, and I'm not confused at all. I know exactly what I'm saying, and I don't think that it's difficult to understand. The problem is coming from you. What I said makes sense. Following the law necessarily consists in following particular laws. I was referring to an unspecified set of particular laws. I told you why I was talking about particular cases rather than talking about the law "abstractly and removed from particular cases": the reason being that that would make no sense. Any reasonable person who has given the topic careful consideration would respond to the question of the morality of breaking the law by asking which laws. There's a world of difference between two seperate cases on either extreme of the moral scale which would otherwise be erroneously glossed over. There's no 'one answer fits all'. You're pretty much on your own with that approach, and with your problematic semantics.

Of course with this you allow yourself to do anything you want because for you there is no such thing as law until and unless you decide it is a law, after you decide if you feel like complying with it - for the moment at least. Obviously with this no issue of morality, because there is nothing to be moral about. — tim wood

Absolute nonsense that you've pulled out of thin air. It does not reflect my position at all.

Any accuracy in this? — tim wood

No.

Compliance to the law is condemnable in some cases, and certainly not worthy of respect. It's meaningless to talk about this abstractly and removed from particular cases. It's not something which can be discussed sensibly through hasty generalisations or by talking in dogmatic absolutes.

As I said from the outset, my aim was to draw attention to these cases, so as to demonstrate the falsehood of the claim that 'there is not a shred of evidence', when in fact, there's quite a bit. — Wayfarer

It's shocking that you're continuing to address that straw man of my claim, in spite of your doing so having been exposed as fallacious, and in spite of this discussion being a public record of what has been said, meaning that anyone here can go back and check for themselves. Page 1, near the top of the page, third reply to the opening post, first sentence.

I've acknowledged that the possibility of past-life memories doesn't conflict with my philosophy. If that amounts to 'bias' then so be it. — Wayfarer

You keep going back to this, but that's missing the point. I'm not taking issue with the possibility. I'm taking issue, as have others, with claims of yours like that the evidence is suggestive of past lives. I'm taking issue whenever your wording is impartial, inaccurate, begging the question, or an instance of loaded language. I'm taking issue in how you've responded to my claim about the credibility of the evidence. I'm taking issue, as are others, about your faulty reasoning, like when you appeal to high numbers. You claim you know about the scientific method, yet you make a very basic error like that. Did you not know about this:

Philosophically, Bacon is particularly interesting for two reasons: In part II of the Novum Organum he tried to improve on existing conception of scientific method by expounding a method of induction which was not simply induction by simple enumeration.

But even that is more in line with the scientific method than what you're talking about. At least an example of induction by simple enumeration could consist in actually seeing hundreds of white swans before concluding that all swans are white. That actual seeing is a stronger form of evidence than hearing testimony about white swans.

What is the alternative explanation? Isn't it that Stevenson was wrong/misled/duped? — Wayfarer

Yes, basically. I asked you how you can reasonably rule that out. You evaded that question. And bear in mind that reason isn't the same as faith. Having faith in Stevenson or those he interviewed is not a valid response.

If for example, it was being claimed that children knew things they could not possibly have known by "normal" means, then those purported facts that purportedly could not be known by normal means would need to be established as well-documented facts and not merely hearsay. And then it would need to be established that the parents and children could not possibly have had any "normal" access to those facts. All of that is nothing more nor less than what scientific rigour demands. I doubt it would be possible to establish all that, which means that this could not count as a scientifically rigorous study, for the simple reason that it relies too much on hearsay and anecdote. — Janus

Exactly. With this in mind, the question is why Wayfarer is trying to sell this as something that it's not, and why he is giving special treatment to one farfetched possibility over others, and why he is coming up with this bullshit rationalisation about it being a taboo subject. And the best explanation for that seems to be that he is biased.

Actually, he has mentioned the conflict with "mainstream" science a few times, which is basically an admission that it's not proper science. (It fails the high standards).

It means you don't want to acknowledge what you've said. When I read it back to you, you sidestep it. — Wayfarer

I've acknowledged what I've said. I haven't acknowledged your uncharitable characterisation of it, for obvious reasons. And besides, what's wrong with sidestepping a sidestep? You've completely sidetracked the discussion we were having about the alternative explanation you don't like. You know, the one you don't like because it isn't as magical. But then you don't like explanations which are too obviously magical, either. You're picky. It has to be magical, but subtle enough to be bullshitted into appearing more credible than things like flying pigs and ghosts.

So if there's some way that 'memories can be transmitted between generations', then at least there's an analogy or metaphor for the possibility of this past-life memory phenomenon. — Wayfarer

And why is it that you give this one farfetched possibility special treatment? Also, you really should put the word "memories" in scare quotes, like BBC News did when they reported on this. That article was written by a professional, who goes by professional standards. A health and science reporter working for BBC News has to abide by high journalistic standards to do with accuracy and impartiality, whereas you don't seem to care a great deal about that sort of thing. You seem more like a Fox News type, given your style of writing here in this discussion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25156510

I must have jumped over that part. I get bored watching you try and explain the same shit over and over with little results so I confess I skipped pages here and there. — DingoJones

:lol:

I didnt realise you had already layed it out in this thread. Like with Janus, I imagine we agree anyway.
Why didnt the people who actually think its immoral answer? — DingoJones

I don't even know if they're all online right now. But people like Tim answered the question earlier, it's just that it's a rubbish answer that has been picked apart. That's why I asked whether there was anything that hadn't already been dealt with.

Nobody asked for a short answer, thankfully. Why did you opt to offer one? — DingoJones

A number of reasons. One reason is that I've already given the longer version, and I'm not over the moon at the prospect of repeating myself just because you appear to want to start up the merry-go-round again. Another reason would be that it is such a big and complicated issue that the wording of the question doesn't do it justice. I would hardly know where to begin. There are so many factors which would require careful consideration, and no details whatsoever of any particular case have been set. It is a very unstructured set up for a serious discussion about the issues surrounding illegal drugs.

It's more like this: that either there is no evidence at all for the possibility of a genuine past-life memory, or there is at least one genuine case. And if there is any genuine case, then you can't rule out the possibility - which is what you're trying to do, right? You want to be able to say, impossible, it can't happen, and draw a line under it, as a matter of principle. But I'm taking issue with the principle, as I really don't believe that in all of these research data, there is not a genuine case. — Wayfarer

That just goes to show that you've hardly been paying any attention to what I've been saying. Do you have any recollection of what I've actually said? I have made clear my acceptance of the possibility a number of times. You even quoted my response to that. Remember, "pigs might fly"? The obvious hint being that mere possibility is woefully insufficient, and that the possibility of extraordinary events you're biased towards can be met with the possibility of extraordinary events which you react to with irrational disdain, even though they're roughly on par. It's an effective tactic for bringing out double standards. No one likes their precious trash being compared to flying pigs, ghosts, the flying spaghetti monster, and so on. But what's brilliant is that it doesn't matter whether they like it or not, because it ain't about that. It's about logic.

And strength of belief counts for nothing. Come on, Wayfarer. You should know that. Emphasising that you "really do believe" doesn't mean jack.

Spoken like a true believer. We must accept the pile of trash as gold, or else we're succumbing to a taboo. Accept Jesus into your life, or you're going to hell. You must have faith, and only then you will see.

And don't think that I'm just going to stop pointing out that your last several replies to me have been blatant red herrings.

The size of a pile of trash doesn't magically turn the trash into gold. — NKBJ

Well said. :grin:

What do you mean? I have no agenda . . . and I have I attacked what you say? I had no intention of that. — Merkwurdichliebe

Alright, fine. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I scored a point? Yay!!!

But, extraordinary claims are made in court too. So, if such ridiculous unscientific testimony is permitted there, where people are sentenced to life, and sometimes to death, why is it inappropriate to permit it here? — Merkwurdichliebe

And, out of those small number of cases where it has been admitted, how has it fared?

Also, I've already accepted that it is evidence, the issue is one of strength or credibility of evidence. I shouldn't have to keep clarifying this.

You haven't ruled that out. I don't need an alternative to the alternative.
— S

You're dissembling, S. All you've said from the very beginning of this thread is, 'I don't care what "evidence" this Stevenson says he's got, we know that this reincarnation stuff is bullshit. And we know it, because science says it couldn't be true, so it's not scientific to believe such things'. Is that a fair paraphrase? — Wayfarer

Funnily enough, no. That was an amusingly ridiculous twist on what I said. But, as amusing as that was, it is an evasion nevertheless. To remain on point, you must explain why I would need an alternative to the alternative I've already given. If I have to, I'll answer it for you. Here goes. I don't need an alternative to the alternative I've already given. That you just don't like the alternative I've given and have responded with red herrings is not a valid response.

Oh, and by the bye, his Wiki page alone suggests that a number of scientists took him seriously as an academic, but ultimately rejected his conclusions. So, your absurd claim that scientists and philosophers are unable to understand or open their minds to such phenomena is just that: absurd. — NKBJ

That comes as no surprise. That's why what he says can't be trusted, and that's why we'd have to look into the matter ourselves. Well, not all of what he says can't be trusted, but the certainly the spin.

But what ‘alternative explanations’ could there be, other than Stevenson being wrong and the witnesses lying? — Wayfarer

Why would you do that? You haven't ruled that out. I don't need an alternative to the alternative.

If someone says he remembers something that he could not have known by any means other than actually remembering it, then what ‘alternative explanation’ would cover it? — Wayfarer

You haven't given any examples of that. If you disagree, then explain how you reasonably ruled out the possibility that it was known simply through being told.

Stevenson, again, held a privately endowed chair at a University. He was by no means a sideshow psychic. — Wayfarer

Ooooh, impressive! :roll:

Ayn Rand was a philosopher, and the author of a best selling book! William Lane Craig is a professor, and has a PhD!

If it was actually about breaking the law there are many many other issues that could have been proffered but this one was chosen because Tim does not approve of drug use. — DingoJones

I agree. That's where it begins. It begins with his disapproval. Although it doesn't surprise me in the least that Tim would come out with something like, "Breaking the law is bad". One could probably guess his stance on a whole range of issues by thinking of the most simplistic, unsophisticated, unoriginal, status quo thing to say.

What Im suggesting is we ask and answer the question Tim and I think others are actually asking “is it immoral to do drugs?”. How about it gentlemen? — DingoJones

That's already been done, hasn't it? Anyway, my shortest answer would be, "Depends".