unapologetic

I hear that Spain is good.  It’s doing well economically and weed is legal.  They’re still in the European Union.  They’re recovering from a fascist past, like the Germans, so maybe they’re super-laid back now with a vibrant culture, like the Germans.  I don’t know too much about it.  I hear it’s pretty happening.

PopeBeanie wrote:
I pretty much believe a matriarchal world would be a better place.

I don’t think a world where women rule over men would be any better than a world where men rule over women.  I think egalitarianism is the way to go.

The consumer tends to get blamed for not being green.  But what is the consumer to consume?  What the consumer is given has to be green in the first place.

I suppose an essence of conservatism is that it doesn’t like change or threat to the status quo.  So it’s not surprising if conservatives are more resistant to the idea of going green.

Unseen wrote:
everyone espouses scientism because, after all we use the scientific method of gathering evidence with our senses all day long during our waking hours.

The scientific method, of gathering evidence, is a good thing.  Scientism is an abuse of the scientific method that says, if no evidence is forthcoming, there’s nothing there.

In…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
Would it be too much trouble to give us an example of an argument made by proponents of scientism that leads to a contradiction?

The statement itself is self-contradictory: “I know the unknowable”.

If you know everyday facts about the world, then you’re using the scientific method of gathering evidence with your senses.

Belle Rose wrote:
How do you figure he’s a whiner?

I’m not saying he’s a whiner.  I’m saying a lot of the British public think he is.  I try not to have opinions about it, I reserve judgement.  One side is making a lot of noise, the other isn’t.  I don’t blame Harry for being messed up.

This could be Harry’s dad?  But apparently there is red ha…[Read more]

Belle Rose wrote:
Who is more masculine? Prince William or Prince Harry?

Prince Harry is a whiner.  Real men don’t whine.  That’s how the logic goes.  I’m not saying I agree with the first two statements.

I’m not sure Harry typifies the type of masculinity known as the whiner.  I think it’s more a case that he’s a man dealing with being dam…[Read more]

If an argument (X) leads to the contradiction ((A) and (not A)) – then (X) is a fallacy.

The existence of something cannot be both unknown and known at the same time.  If I say that all I know is all there is – then I am making a claim about the potential existence or non-existence of items in a domain I know nothing about, by definition.

Unseen wrote:
For example, I’m thinking of something. I know what it is. You don’t. No science involved.

You may also have experienced something I haven’t.  In this case, personal experience is the only admissable evidence for many people.

Simon Paynton wrote:
if we don’t know whether something exists

In other words, we can’t both not know, and know, something at the same time.   The two are opposite and mutually exclusive.  This is, what, the law of the excluded middle?  You can’t be (X) and (not X) at the same time.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
It is a burden of proof fallacy to claim Scientism is a fallacy.

Scientism is a fallacy because it states that if we don’t know whether something exists, it definitely doesn’t.  That’s a fallacy.