Jeremiah: You need to learn how to think straight before claiming I need to learn how to read.

Unenlightened: You are the first person I've run across on line who knows who Raymond Smullyan was. It was a sad day when he passed away. I was hoping he'd live past a hundred.

This is a well-known climate-science-denier tactic. It involves confusing weather with climate. Weather changes and can even snow, while climate deals with the longer term averages. There is nothing about climate change that states it can't snow. So, it's a categorical error.

You didn't mention the subject(s) you want to be "well-read" in. People who may be "well-read" in literature, may know nothing about mathematics, physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. If you want to learn a specific subject like mathematics or physics, then you'll need to read actual textbooks and go through the problem sets.
If you want to learn to reason well in general, then you should study math, including non-computational areas like mathematical logic, real analysis, etc. where you can engage in proofs, which are simply logical arguments.
If you want a great book on general philosophical issues that is off the beaten path a bit, but a real life changer for those who go through the book, and actually think about it, the best book I can recommend is "The Tao is Silent" by the late, great, Raymond Smullyan.

Devans99: That's not true at all. If the universe always existed, then it always existed. What you are claiming is that if something always existed, then nothing could exist, which is a contradictory position to make. Moreover, you ignore a very simple resolution, which is consistent with the Big Bang itself -- while the universe may have always existed, time may not have always existed, and may be a much more recent development.

Jeremiah: I just read through the very first part of your comment because the error was so glaring, there was no point in reading further. You claim I don't know science because I was insisting you prove a God does not exist. The thing you have completely forgotten is that Hawking was the one who claimed no God exists, not me. So, if you agree that science cannot prove the non-existence of a God, then you have conceded my point against Hawking.
QED, Check mate, etc., etc.

Rank Amateur: Hawking's books are largely not science. He merely puts out some speculative theory that he thinks may some day turn out to be valid. But, where did Hawkings state that the universe had a beginning? He may have referenced that we consider time starting from the Big Bang, but that is not a statement that nothing existed before the Big Bang. There is zero science to support such an assertion.

This is the problem with the new-atheist movement, rather than encourage people to learn real science by reading actual textbooks, they write some pop-fiction and pass it off as real science.

Rank Amateur: There is no science that states the universe had a beginning. There is a Big Bang theory, but that just tells us when an expansion occurred, not what existed before that expansion. In fact, the prevailing assumption is that the energy that existed immediately after the Big Bang also existed immediately before the Big Bang, consistent with our conservation laws.

In fact, science can never establish a "beginning" to the universe. It's not a science question, but a philosophical one. No matter what science comes up with, like the Big Bang, one can always ask the question, and what existed before that? And on and on it goes, so whether the universe had a beginning is a philosophical issue, and the best argument I know of is that since out of nothing, nothing comes, something must have always existed.

Michael: There you go. You looked at a study to try to assess the effects of one of Trump's policies as opposed to simply assuming that if something good happened afterwards it must have been caused by Trump. Why people can't see that jumping to conclusions and merely assuming that something must have been caused by a prior event, is beyond me. It's as if millions upon millions of Americans lack the most basic thinking skills or else they don't give a darn about what they state about Trump.

Since out of nothing, nothing comes, it's more rational to consider the universe as having always existed.

Blue Lux: Where did Arendt state that philosophy was dead? She didn't as far as I could tell from that quoted passage. She was merely commenting that how questions are framed has changed, which is why there is progress in philosophy.

As far as your statement God is Dead, while some people no doubt agree with you on the nature of theistic beliefs today, it's also true that many disagree with you, as there are millions of believers in God across the globe, and some take a very literalist view of God based on such things as Christian Scripture. I'm an atheist myself, and did was merely focusing on the scope of science when it comes to addressing supernatural questions. We can say that people who believe in God, as a supernatural being, are irrational in the sense that there is no good scientific reason to hold such a belief, but we cannot say that they are wrong, which is somewhat ironic, but definitely true.

People should also keep in mind that Hawking made statements throughout his career that were irrational and illogical. His claim that the universe created itself? That's illogical. In order for the universe to do anything, it must first exist. But if it exists, then it's too late for the universe to create itself. Or, his statement that philosophy is dead? That is itself a philosophical statement, and so is self-refuting. And it's not just Hawking who made such foolish statements, but the new-atheist movement in general has been promoting such idiocy for decades. Like how many new-atheist leaders, among them scientists, claim that science is the only source of knowledge? That's also a self-refuting statement, because science cannot establish the truth of this statement.


Too bad that so many have turned their backs on philosophy and basic logic to promote whacked out claims about science. Science is great and wonderful and our best way of knowing about the physical world, but it does not address any supernatural claims, it does not tell us what is moral or immoral, it does not provide our only source of knowledge, etc., etc.

Sir2U: As I stated previously, you know virtually zero about science. I earned a degree in physics, and I'm getting bored of your ludicrous claims regarding science. Name the experiment that any scientist has come up with to disprove the existence of any and all Gods? Name it. Please explain how any scientist has any special knowledge, compared to a lay person, on the issue of a God, in general existing, when science does not use any supernatural claim as an explanation.

You claim that scientists study supernatural claims? Bull. They may study such things as the psychology for why people hold such beliefs, but they most definitely do not study such claims directly. If I tell you that there is at least one angel in your home right now, then we know the answer is either yes there is an angel, or yes, there is more than one angel, or no, there is less than one angel in your home right now. How can any scientist investigate such a claim? They can't. They can state, as any layperson can, that there is no reason to hold such a belief, but that is far different from stating that science can answer the question of whether an angel is in your home right now. Savvy? I doubt it.

It's really disappointing that so many of my fellow atheists know nothing about even the most basic science that they still cling to the unscientific notion that a scientist has some special authority on the issue of whether a God exists in general. Truly disappointing that our educational system can't get even the simplest ideas regarding science across to adults.

Sir2U: I noticed you failed to cite to any science textbook that supports your position, nor were you able to state any experiment that could falsify the existence of any and all Gods. You also have no proof that no God of any kind exists, so you are simply an irrational person. You believe no God exists, without having any reasonable basis for your claim. I, on the other hand, am rational in my position. I don't believe in any God because I find the evidence insufficient, but am not claiming that I know no God of any kind exists. I also am rational in recognizing the scope and limits of science, and do not let my religious views, atheism, distort science so it coincides with my beliefs.

Sir2u: You keep claiming that science can study God, which makes you at odds with pretty much all of science. A basic introductory science textbook will typically explain to beginning students that science does not address the God issue, or issues regarding alleged angels, demons, ghosts, any supernatural claim. Why? Because science sticks with the material world, period, and assumes that any scientific explanation will only reference a material explanation. Therefore, by definition, science does not deal with any supernatural claim.

Certainly. no scientist to date has ever devised an experiment to falsify God existing. What would that experiment even consist of? It's nonsense that you are advocating, and it's certainly not science. When I was studying for my physics degree in college, I never once dealt with the issue of God or anything supernatural. It simply falls outside the scope of science. The only people who suggest otherwise are following a religious dogma -- typically new atheist scientism -- to distort science to promote their dogma. I'm an atheist who is perfectly fine with real science, and I see no need to twist and distort science, like creationists do, in order to promote atheism. The creationists and new atheists are two groups who are closer to each other than they imagine --- they both distort science to promote their religious views. Both groups are full of junk-thinking as far as I'm concerned, as well as every science textbook writer used at every major western university's science departments.

Jeremiah: Name a single experiment that science can do to disprove the existence of God? I won't hold my breath. You claim that scientists have a better grasp of the existence of God than others? That tells me you know squat about actual science. Identify a single textbook in science used at any major western university that states science can even answer the question of whether a God exists? I won't hold my breath because you won't find such a book. A scientist is no more qualified than a non-scientist on the issue of whether God exists. It's irrational to think otherwise.

Jeremiah: You claim there is no God. I don't believe in any God; however, I am unaware of any proof for the non-existence of any and all Gods. What is your proof? You'll be the first one in all of history to prove such a thing, so I can hardly wait to see your proof.

Sir2u: Sorry there, but you do not understand the scope of science. Physics does not address the existence of everything. Does it address the existence of numbers? Or morality? Of the supernatural? Of God? No. Show me a single textbook used by any major western university that states physics addresses any supernatural claim? It doesn't exist. Physics only addresses material claims and makes no claims outside of the material. Period.

In fact, it's even worse for you. Science is essentially concerned with epistemology --- what we can know, more so than about what is.

Creativesoul: I never stated that Trump was the USA. However, Trump is president of the USA and he does act a lot like the leader of North Korea --- who also has an ego a mild wide and constantly lies his ass off. The fact the American people elected this liar, who even lied about his height, and who claimed that it stopped raining when he gave his speech when he was sworn in as president, two factual claims that are easily verified as false, tells me that America is accepting conduct from our president that three years ago I never thought possible, that such conduct would only be tolerated in places like North Korea. For a large percentage of Americans, although I am hopeful it is not the majority of us, the truth about the most basic facts no longer matters. For them, what matters is how they feel about the "facts" and what their leader wants them to believe about the "facts."

In that 60 Minutes interview, Trump came across as deranged. He lied constantly, without any hesitation, and could not answer the simplest of questions put to him. His entire interview basically consisted of one lie after another, as if the USA has turned into something like North Korea.

Frank: You are simply wrong. You claim that lowering taxes causes the economy to grow. You saying it always does, no matter the circumstances? You are aware there is absolutely no support for your claim in economics?

Frank: Your proof that taxes always reduce economic activity? If a person is making $8.00 an hour and barely getting by, and has to take home less than $8.00 an hour, due to payroll taxes, as an example, why would that person work less as opposed to more, to get by? Also, since when did Reagan ever originate any economic policy? He never did. And why would lowering taxes necessarily heat up an economy? If I now get to take home more money as a result of reduced taxes, why would that cause me to work longer hours as opposed to fewer hours?

Typically, the high tax rates on the wealthy occur during periods of war. This is because lower-income people are risking their lives while the wealthy don't. So, to be "fair," it is felt that they could pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes.

I'm not so sure it is fair to tax the wealthy simply because they are wealthy. After all, some of the richest people started off poor and earned their wealth lawfully, and fairly. I do think when it comes to inheritance that the taxes should be high, as a person inheriting their wealth did not earn it and with too much inequality, we end up with a handful of rich people using their wealth to set political policy in their favor and against the vast majority of people in the country.

I don't see how his argument refutes mathematical Platonism at all. It's not even historically accurate for one thing, and his conclusion does not follow from his premises. There has been a lot of cases where seemingly useless mathematics was developed, only for us to discover later on it was quite useful. But, mathematicians, at least pure mathematicians, don't just focus on what is useful and ignore mathematical topics as a result. Applied mathematicians may, but not the purists.

Even if we assume a lot of math is useless, or, let's even assume the vast majority of it is, so what? How does it then follow from this claim that Platonism does not exist? It doesn't.

I agree with DingoJones.

I find most of the commentators specifically mentioned to be hypocrites in any case. Like Jordan Peterson claiming he's all for freedom of speech; yet, he threatens lawsuits against those who criticize him. David Pakman claims he's against pseudoscience; yet, he brought on an economist on his show just last week who engaged in pure strawman fallacies against mainstream economics to promote his pseudoscience.

I think what it comes down to is the following two points: 1. A "public intellectual" is historically a person who merely says what a lot of people already believe; it's just that the person articulates the view better than the average person. If they weren't saying what a lot of people already wanted to hear, it would be very difficult to gain an audience. In other words, a public intellectual is not an intellectual at all, but someone just giving voice to a viewpoint held by many, and is basically an icon around which a tribe of people can gather around and express their solidarity. 2. An intellectual, a real one, specializes in a very specific topic and would never go around speaking about numerous topics that he or she knows next t nothing about. So, to be a real public intellectual, one would have to have a small audience, focused on a single topic, and people who are into politics are not sticking with single topics, so political commentators could never be true intellectuals as they cannot focus on isolated topics and leave it at that.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Is your first statement, P implied Q, and P implies something unknown as well? Is your second statement, P implies Q, and not P implies something unknown? And then the third statement is simply Q?

I'm just curious. The Arabs are a large group and it is my understanding that there are various Arab groups with their own cultural norms and histories. Are you saying that all Arab groups had this custom regarding guests or just one such group or a small number of them?

I agree with BitterCrank's position, and don't see how the science is being distorted in the case of abortions by those who are concerned about climate change, or vice versa.

Now, a possible connection between the two issues is that abortion can keep the population down, which can also ease the effects of climate change due to human activity. Yet, that is not a connection made in the opening post.

The assertion that other countries besides the USA are adhering to the Paris climate agreement is false. Not a single country has met its obligations under that agreement. I think Germany is something like 24% off missing its goals, and that means that Germany has walked away from the agreement. Furthermore, the agreement itself was insufficient. The agreement called for countries to exceed the safe level of carbon emissions with the "understanding" that before the world goes to crap as a result, the countries would later adopt programs to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Like this is going to happen any time soon? We are already in a very dangerous situation with existing carbon levels, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing, not decreasing.

BB100: You are interpreting the Constitution. What else do you think you'd be doing when you claim the courts are not adhering to the Constitution? You are simply wrong, and are commenting on a topic you know little about and are not even qualified to comment on. Have you studied Constitutional law? Are you familiar with the different amendments, and which ones are supposed to have broad versus narrow interpretations? Are you familiar with the key decisions that have been authored by the Supreme Court through the years? Are you an attorney? I am an attorney and while I do not specialize in Constitutional law, as only a small handful of attorneys do so, I am familiar enough with the Constitutional law to know you are flat-out wrong.

Who cares about the alleged "utility-maximization"? What's a util and how can one objectively measure it? And even if one could objectively measure it, how would that be meaningful from an ethical standpoint?

Utilitarianism has a lot of problems, and has been exposed as an inadequate moral theory, despite attempts from people like Singer to make it the be-all and end-all of morality, and one of its failures is the very straightforward notion that it is impossible to compute it. So, even if hypothetically it was the entire basis of morality, we would still not be able to rely on it to answer moral issues.

Apokrisis: You are simply talking nonsense. I'll stick with real physics, and leave you to your absurdities.

Apokrisis: Have you studied physics? Where you had to solve actual quantitative problems in mechanics? I'm just not sure what you are trying to argue here, and decades ago I earned a degree in physics.

Apokrisis: If it's an inertial frame, then how would that alone cause the point object to move? I don't see how it would.

I see these comments a lot from non-attorneys, who seem to think that their interpretation of the Constitution is superior to the Supreme Court's. It isn't. The reality is that every single statute and regulation and rule that exists is subject to interpretation, and it's seldom the case that everyone agrees on the interpretation voiced by a controlling court. This is simply the nature of the beast when it comes to the practice of law. The law is not physics, and will never be so.

I have, however, noticed that the people who raise these arguments typically claim that the US Constitution is only legit if it is interpreted as the founder's intended. As if we can ever figure that out? Even a single founder, like Madison, changed his opinion at least twice, on the issue of central banking. So, it's Impossible to figure out what any single founder would have thought of a modern application of the Constitution, much less what they all thought --- they often agreed to compromises. Furthermore, very, very, very few Americans would want to live in a country that the founders created. The founders were against women voting, colored people voting, and poor white men voting. They also did not even trust rich white men with the power to elect the US president, which is why the electoral college was invented. They also cared little for freedom of religion and freedom of speech, as the First Amendment did not limit the states from enacting state churches and sending people to prison for blasphemy laws. The First Amendment was finally applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, in the late 1940s.

Many of the rights and freedoms we take for granted today, especially minority rights, would have been against the beliefs of the founders. I'm glad the US Supreme Court does interpret the US Constitution to keep up with the times and not to promote ancient fallacies, borrowing some language from Justice Black.

While I agree that this published hoax does not necessarily mean that the entire field is questionable, it certainly calls into question the legitimacy of the publication.

Devans99: It's you who doesn't get it. By taking the position that it is strange that there is something as opposed to nothing, you are claiming, without any rational argument in support, that there should be nothing as opposed to something; otherwise, there would be nothing "strange" about us existing.

Apokrisis: But, who's claiming that the point object is absolutely at rest? Who could say such a thing? All we can say is that the point object is at rest, with respect tp the dome below it. If the point object and dome were in your kitchen, for example, then we know they are moving, because the Earth is spinning through space and orbiting the Sun. So, you are claiming that the particle can move relative to the dome without any forces being applied to either the dome or the particle? Wouldn't that violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Devans99: You aren't following the argument. You are simply claiming "I assert that there should be nothing as opposed to something; therefore, this must be true." That's not an argument of any kind. And Occam's Razor does not help you because the fact we exist now has to be used when trying to come up with the simplest explanation, and that means since out of nothing, nothing comes, Occam's Razor tells us, if anything, it is simpler to take the position that something always existed as opposed to the far more complicated one that somehow something came from absolute nothingness.