The horror, the horror...This nonentity, whoever he is, closed my discussion called Evolution Debunked — Joe0082
Yeah, too bad there are so many that insist on logic, the scientific method and that stuff instead of free-thinking...Philosophy is supposed to be a free-thinking pursuit for individualistic, intellectually-inclined people, not rigid narrow-minded morons. — Joe0082
Bye.Well I am outta here. — Joe0082
someone please put this thread out of its misery.......:vomit: — Wayfarer
Aristotle in my humble opinion missed one important type of fallacy, which is Partial Truth Taken As Full Truth. A perfect example being evolution. Nobody doubts that it is partially true but is it the Full Truth? Evolution is at best a crude and uncertain tool in Nature's hands. To believe that Nature managed to turn bacteria into human bodies consisting of 10 trillion cells, each of which is an amazing little factory, seems like a little bit of a stretch to me. And there are just too many inexplicable features in animals and humans to believe it all happened only through evolution, like the eye, and like self-aware intelligence, and many more. Why did the Neanderthals not evolve, but remained pretty much the same for two hundred thousand years, never even inventing the bow and arrow (or for that matter the throwing spear)? Why have chimps not evolved into higher organisms? There are a thousand reasons why evolution seems only a partial truth, and only really one reason to believe it is the full truth, namely scientific conformity and fear of being branded unscientific.
Fdrake, just ban the guy. Point. — Gus Lamarch
I'd be glad to discuss if Joe0082 is a sufficiently, intellectually inclined entity! — counterpunch
Indeed, but the evidence proves otherwise. — Gus Lamarch
Rabelaisian Carnivalesque — Joe0082
And what a devolved degenerate I must be for suggesting evolution is not scriptural and inviolate. I am also sorry you found my thread poorly written, I tried hard but guess am just not up to your Rabelaisian Carnivalesque especially the part about "decontexualized rhetorical questions". You are clearly a person of deep soundings. You managed to find non-meanings and non-intentions in my thread that only a completely roboticized birdbrain could find, and I am impressed by that, just as I am impressed by the ability of a slightly different kind of automated nitwit to crawl flylike up the side of the Capitol Building over some cliche he heard. However, I must tell you that being subjected to the oversite of a robot-ding-a-ling who thinks philosophy is a matter of fitting words into an algorithm and rope-walking above an abyss of cliches is not my ideal for philosophical discussion and so I must wish you and your forum adieu and will not be reading any more of it. I am sorry I stumbled on it in the first place, no wonder US philosophy is the pathetic little pet rabbit of science that is it. It is because of science-fawining literal-minded sycophants like you, sir, who should be punching adding machines or somehing, not "monitoring" philosophically-minded people. GOOD NIGHT, GO BACK TO YOUR MENTAL CASKET. — Joe0082
his subsequent behaviour - again, suggestive of a bear of very little brain, but... erm...but...
No, I got nothing to finish that sentence with! — counterpunch
Aristotle in my humble opinion missed one important type of fallacy, which is Partial Truth Taken As Full Truth. A perfect example being evolution. Nobody doubts that it is partially true but is it the Full Truth?
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.