No. :rofl: I'm far from the only one calling "bullshit" on almost everything you write, which is why you cannot answer any direct questions about your smug gibberish. News flash, kid: YOU AIN'T THE ONE-EYED KING IN THE PHILOSOPHY FORUM OF THE BLIND.

Address my previous reply. In English.

I replied (once more because you're fuckin' slow) with "No". Again, you prove my point. Good job! :clap:

Explain.

Asfm for your first, it doesn't make sense to draw those distinctions and you saying otherwise is question begging in this context. Argue a case. That is, address the OP, rather than just insist it is false. — Bartricks

More than it being false, it's unhelpful.

Call it whatever you like.

There is not a single definition of philosophy and if you insist that Eastern philosophy isn't really philosophy, well that's your problem.

Why do you think I am manifesting the Dunning Kruger effect? — Bartricks

Because of the way you deal with criticism.

Was Socrates a physicist?

what makes you think you're a good judge of replies to criticisms? Do you have any expertise? For again, that's crucial to determining who is most likely manifesting the effect.

what makes you think you're a good judge of replies to criticisms? — Bartricks

But it it not just I who think your replies inadequate.

Go back and reflect on the replies you have received. What agreement have you garner? And what have you said to those who disagree with you?

Why have you been subject to such animosity?

Ah, your refusal to answer confirms what I already knew - you have no expertise at all.

You think the numbers count? You think that if 10 people with no expertise whatsoever think a highly qualified person is talking shite, then it is the highly qualified person who is most likely manifesting the effect and not the 10 thickies?!? That doesn't sound very clever. Sounds thick.

Anyway, go away Banno, you've nothing philosophical to contribute, just bile.

Illiterate too, huh?

I'm far from the only one calling "bullshit" on almost everything you write, which is why you cannot answer any direct questions about your smug gibberish. — 180 Proof

See answer to Banno above. The numbers don't count. It's the actual level of expertise that matters. Do you have any? (Why am I asking - we both know the answer).

Your doctor: hmm, I think your arm is fractured in 3 places.

You: But 10 of my workmates down at domino's pizza say it isn't broken, it's just gone a bit wobbly. So there, you gobshite!!! In your face!! You're wrong. It's wobbly, not broken. You ought to be struck off! If my arm wasn't so wobbly I'd strike you myself.

Yep. That's the sort of response that indicates overconfidence and lack of ability.

Go back and reflect on the replies you have received. Have you learned anything?

It's the actual level of expertise — Bartricks

No, it's about whether we have any cause to believe your expertise. Everything about the way you've acted since you started posting has indicated that you're not an expert. The very fact that you're trolling an internet forum with your messianic drivel rather than publishing it has indicated that you're not an expert.

So we're at a place where we've good cause to disbelieve your claims.

You're expertise to judge that please? What level of ability do you think I have?

No, not playing. This is about you, not me.


What agreement did you garner from your posts here? What did you learn? Which criticisms do you accept?

What makes you qualified to make that judgement, Isaac?

You are the topic here, not Isaac, who has demonstrated an extensive knowledge in his areas of expertise.

What have you done here?

Why have you been subject to such animosity?

You played, matey. You don't have any expertise. We both know it. Yet you've been confidently telling an expert - me - that his arguments - all of them - are shite. A text book case of the phenomenon known as.....the Dumning-Kruger effect!

The topic is not 'me'. You are the one obsessed with me. The topic is expressed in the OP. Address it or go away.

Do you have any expertise? — Bartricks

You keep blabbering about this but have provided no proof of your own expertise.

And you said that no experts have ever looked at your argument. I'd assume if you were an expert you would be discussing these things with colleagues.

And you said that you "don't need to learn teaching to teach at a university" which is plain false.

And your posts are trash.

So all we have is 3 pieces of evidence pointing at you not knowing what you're talking about. Having no expertise.

What exactly have you done? What have you published? What have you taught? Where have you taught?

I would bet money the answer is: Nothing, Nothing, Nothing, Nowhere. If you could easily dismiss these claims, you would. But you won't. Because you can't.

You think that if 10 people with no expertise whatsoever think a highly qualified person is talking shite, then it is the highly qualified person who is most likely manifesting the effect and not the 10 thickies?!? — Bartricks

No but if literally everyone on the site (way more than 10) disagrees with you then you're likely talking shite yes.

:100:

Again, that reply demonstrates exactly what one would expect from someone without the capacity to deal with criticism in a way that shows knowledge of the subject.

And again, it is not only I who thinks you demonstrate no clear ability in rational thinking.

Go back and reflect on the replies you have received. What agreement have you garner? And what have you said to those who disagree with you?

Why have you been subject to such animosity? — Banno

Your assumptions are wrong. Academics have loads of arguments that they don't send out for publication or take on the road to conferences or discuss with colleagues. It takes a long time to turn an argument into a publishable paper, and often the more innovative the argument, the less likely it is to get published. Thus one focuses on more banal nit-picky stuff that will get past peer review and one puts the better, more original and daring stuff on the back burner.

As for what I said about teacher training - no, it's not 'plain false', it's 'true'. (You teach in a university do you? Or were you being confidently wrong about a matter you know nothing about? Hmmm). University lecturers learn to teach on the job. Ask one. They do not have to have a formal teaching qualification (they might be made to attend some tedious and pointless lecture about teaching - as I was at my first appointment - but that's it). I am one. I do not have a teaching qualification. None of my colleagues do either. So again, stop being confident about matters you know nothing about.

And as for your charming comment "all of your posts are trash", all I can say is: Dunning and Kruger. I feel the same way about yours. The difference is that's an expert's judgement of a fool, not a fool's judgement of an expert .

Anyway, all this is by the by. I mean, you're not going to believe that you are the one demonstrating the Dunning kruger effect. And it doesn't matter - if you just stuck to trying to argue something I wouldn't mention it.

But you don't have any expertise. You're not really getting this are you? You have no expertise when it comes to philosophy. I do. You are confident that everything I say is philosophically crap, yes? But that's the judgement - the alarmingly confident, self serving judgement - of an ignoramus about about an expert's arguments. That's exactly what Dunning and Kruger's research predicts. What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? What would Dunning and Kruger predict, Banno? Would they predict that all the ignorant people would recognize the philosopher for the expert they were? Or would they predict that the philosopher would quickly be judged a total idiot by virtually everyone?

You're starting to write in block paragraphs.

I have my competence. It involves years of study, teaching at universities and schools, reading and writing, and discussion. I can recognise the learning in those here who use analytic skills, who cite other works in support of their contentions, who expound and expand their understanding, who enjoy being shown were they may have gone astray, who build a case, make a stand, demonstrate competence.

Such things are painfully absent in your writing.

What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? — Bartricks

What counts as a professional philosopher?

I suspect that no matter one's credentials, disagreeing with you would automatically disqualify them in your eyes. But let's take it one step at a time. What counts as a professional philosopher?

Not that I know. But then again, not much is known about him. Back then it was common for intellectuals or "cultured" people to know about everything. So he could've been familiar with the physics of his day.

Back then there wasn't a distinction between science and philosophy. That only began in the mid-19th century...

It's worth pointing out that the fact that we are discussing levels of competence is indicative of it's absence in the author of this thread.

When people know there topic, the conversation will remain on the topic, the exposition will carry itself to new and interesting places.

Otherwise the conversation will inevitably come back to personalities. As Batricks threads inevitably do.

or discuss with colleagues. — Bartricks

If they don’t have any friends I can see that but all my University teachers discussed their work all the time. Especially the daring and crazy ideas.

they might be made to attend some tedious and pointless lecture — Bartricks

That’s called “requiring a teaching qualification”. Or else they wouldn’t be made to take the lecture.

And as for your charming comment "all of your posts are trash", all I can say is: Dunning and Kruger. I feel the same way about yours. The difference is that's an expert's judgement of a fool, not a fool's judgement of an expert . — Bartricks

Prove you’re an expert. You’ve given us no reason to believe you are and plenty to believe you aren’t. Where and what do you teach exactly?

What would happen if a professional philosopher came on this site without anyone knowing that they were an expert? What would Dunning and Kruger predict, Banno? Would they predict that all the ignorant people would recognize the philosopher for the expert they were? Or would they predict that the philosopher would quickly be judged a total idiot by virtually everyone? — Bartricks

Neither. That’s not what dunning Kruger is.

Dunning Kruger is people being very confident in their knowledge when they don’t have much of it. That does not mean that they can’t recognize experts. It means that they will be very confident in their judgements of experts despite not being qualified to make the judgement (they will be very confident in what they think be it that the “expert” is an idiot or genius). Dunning and Kruger does not predict that people think experts are idiots. It predicts that everyone calls themselves an expert even when their not (such as your case).

If an actual expert came on and made an argument you’d expect some people to agree and others to disagree. What the dunning Kruger effect predicts is that everyone will be very committed to their camp. It does not predict the number of people in each camp. That depends on what the alleged expert says. And considering you’re spouting nonsense, everyone has gone to the disagreement camp.

But leave it to you not to understand the dunning Kruger effect while using it as an insult every other line.

if you just stuck to trying to argue something I wouldn't mention it. — Bartricks

Bullshit. You’re a DK connoisseur. You’re always the one that starts with the insults. The reason you’re getting so much animosity is that any time someone genuinely wants to talk to you you insult them.

And you still haven’t responded to my objection to the OP. What’s the “true view” in regards to the best ice cream flavor? You said there is a true view in regards to every subject matter no? So, provide the true view in regards to the best ice cream flavor. Or at least some way we can start to get there.

Or you can admit there isn’t one....

Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for a response to an on-topic discussion...

Perhaps the ‘expertise’ being demonstrated here is in trading insults. It’s all a pot-and-kettle affair to me. There isn’t much expertise currently being demonstrated in relation to the topic - not for at least 24hrs and a page and half of responses, anyway. An example of exercising imagination and judgement without understanding...