Workin' on it.Right. So, if you managed to write an article in an afternoon this should be easy-peasy.
Just make it so :cool: — Amity
They seemed to create more excitement and work better at the old site. The commentary discussion was where posters commented on how the debate was going. We could have that and a poll on who's winning maybe to create more interest.1. I had a look at the Debate section. There's probably a reason why formal debate doesn't work so well online. However, it would hold a fascination - depending on the who and what.
2. What is a 'commentary discussion' ? — Amity
I've officially started the ball rolling on that now. Provided it's agreed, I'll go ahead an organize one for the end of this year.3. I remember talking about that before - about a year ago ? — Amity
Two big names were Searle and Chalmers. We picked people to start discussions based on questions and the idea was they would answer those questions and maybe some follow-ups. It usually worked fairly well as far as I remember though we didn't always get as much participation as we would have liked.4. Who did you have as a guest speaker? How did that work - like an interview ? — Amity
I tend to laziness...
The thought of writing an article in an afternoon...it would take me months, even if.
However, I guess if you've already done the research and have the sources and information ready, then it's a walk in the park.
Thanks again for all hard work — Amity
It's impossible to get people to say something coherent and substantive when they have free rein. — Snakes Alive
The idea that, for example, some notion is incoherent, or nonsense, or just plain wrong in an objective sense seems pretty much limited to forums like this, and further, to people with some basic knowledge on a subject annoyed that their 'superior grasp' of it is not being given what they consider to be due respect. — Isaac
If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all?I've found debate among professional philosophers to be mostly open, accepting of the fact that no concrete or substantive things can really be said, and that most alternatives have their merits to at least some extent — Isaac
The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't. — Harry Hindu
The rules of logic are the same for everyone, and everyone should be expected to follow them, not just some people, when they feel like it, or when it supports their position and abandon it when it doesn't. — Harry Hindu
If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all? — Harry Hindu
Because if you didn't you wouldn't be coherent. No one would understand what you're saying, and you'd get a lot of questions asking you to clarify.Well. Firstly, why should everyone be expected to follow the rules of logic? That seems prima facae to be an unsubstantiated claim. To what end? — Isaac
"Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies" would be one.Secondly, what exactly are the 'rules of logic', and how would they have been derived if only logic can derive true models? — Isaac
Which one has more evidence to support their claims?Thirdly, how would you adjudicate in situations where two opposing positions claim to have been following the rules of logic? — Isaac
People think the same way about gods. Where has that gotten us? Absolutely nowhere.But notwithstanding, the above is a distraction because I never said anything about logic at all, I was just saying that what SA identifies as incoherent and not substantive is exactly the sort of thing other people may consider coherent and substantive and that people (in my experience) actually seem more likely to resort to those accusations as a means to reject some discourse here than they do in professional circles. — Isaac
If nothing concrete or substantive can be said then why say anything at all? — Harry Hindu
Poems don't have anything concrete or substantive to be said?Have you never read a poem? — Isaac
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.