EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources > EVE OOC Summit
Slavery discussion
Casiella:
I'm not hating on you at all. :) I just think your apparent pride in having "refuted" an argument cannot be validated if nobody understood you - not because your reasoning was over our collective head but because we literally cannot parse your posts.
To be perfectly honest, what little I could make out seemed like it could be moderated if I understood it properly, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. I try not to be an ass all the time. :P
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Casiella on 23 Aug 2012, 12:57 ---I'm not hating on you at all. :) I just think your apparent pride in having "refuted" an argument cannot be validated if nobody understood you - not because your reasoning was over our collective head but because we literally cannot parse your posts.
To be perfectly honest, what little I could make out seemed like it could be moderated if I understood it properly, but I prefer to give the benefit of the doubt in cases like this. I try not to be an ass all the time. :P
--- End quote ---
I have try to rework it..... see post before.... your ghost edit was faster :P
Edit: If there is any question.... ask.... I have no problem, with that... and will try to show.... which are were the errors... from Gotti and and some others.... like I said... If there is any misunderstanding... or wrong use of words. Just post it. I can just get better from it, I cant get better on nothing or hot air :P . So logical criticism is always welcome.
--- Quote from: Merdaneth on 20 Aug 2012, 16:27 ---
--- Quote from: Casiella on 20 Aug 2012, 16:14 ---Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying... :P
--- End quote ---
Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.
--- End quote ---
Like I said you can falzify me any time :P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
When you have done it.... than go tru this topic.... and you will see WHY I made the old post in the first place: http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
I hadnt made it without a reason.
Merdaneth:
--- Quote from: Publius Valerius on 23 Aug 2012, 12:31 ---By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
--- End quote ---
Actually, this is a typical example to me of someone claiming a lot of pure (and falsifiable) nonsense.
A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.
The issue with morality is a lack of clearly defined goals/boundaries. If people disagree about the goals or fail to define goals properly, they will obviously disagree about the methods to reach those goals. Regardless of there are multiple ways to reach those goals (some may more optimal than others).
That is why Sam isn't a good physicist (or perhaps a chess player), it is because the problems and goals of physics and chess are clearly defined, and his answer are verifiably worse than other answers.
I think science can certainly have answers to question of morality, but Sam is a very poor scientist in that regard.
Insofar the fictional world of EVE goes, its rather simple: those who convince more people of their point of view are right. There are those that give more emphasis to authority (CCP), those who give prefer logic and internal consistency and those who prefer maximum expressive space (and perhaps other things) on a continuum.
I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
As far as slavery is concerned, I don't think we can have a 'right' answer unless we define what is right first (define a goal). But we can talk about how different definitions and perceptions of slavery affects us and our play. We are seeing certain patterns and encounter common obstacles which seem to obstruct that not yet clearly defined by somewhat visible common goal. That is what I find interesting to talk about.
by the way nice vid (Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions)
[/quote]
Publius Valerius:
--- Quote from: Merdaneth on 23 Aug 2012, 14:39 ---The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
--- End quote ---
thats why I said an example :) .... see here:
"So back to this thread: Like I mention before I start. I will try to make really ...really, really, really easy example with a discussion which I had with Morwen Lagann."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
And as I see in your post.... It had work. You have learned something... or at least try to think outside of the methotic of the how this discussion had work before my hate rant :P .
Now..... the next step my friend.
--- Quote from: Merdaneth on 23 Aug 2012, 14:39 ---As far as slavery is concerned, I don't think we can have a 'right' answer unless we define what is right first (define a goal). But we can talk about how different definitions and perceptions of slavery affects us and our play. We are seeing certain patterns and encounter common obstacles which seem to obstruct that not yet clearly defined by somewhat visible common goal. That is what I find interesting to talk about.
--- End quote ---
See.... that what I have said here:
"My problem is that people..... forget how that shit works.... first you have a topic... than you define Slavery and other improtant subjects..... than you make your theory which you like to test*....than you look for errors in the theory.... than you look in the RL..... I know I know.... "This Publius and his nazi Popper stuff."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922
And have try to split even the topic see here:
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55923#msg55923
See If you read my comments.... you arent losing something.... we all get something
"So for know... we have two options:
1.) I come ones a week .... laugh my ass of... like on a scripted realiyt TV series.... where you feel always superior as the people which are in. And I can Roast one or two..... Option one would be great for me.
2.) Start to think logical deductiv about this topic. Come up with an theory and in the end (last step), test this thoery white the information we have in the CCP lore. Option Two would be great for me and you."
--- Quote from: Merdaneth on 23 Aug 2012, 14:39 ---Insofar the fictional world of EVE goes, its rather simple: those who convince more people of their point of view are right. There are those that give more emphasis to authority (CCP), those who give prefer logic and internal consistency and those who prefer maximum expressive space (and perhaps other things) on a continuum.
I don't care much about authority for example, and my claim is that you can play this game perfectly without reading much PF. In fact, it is my claim that the majority of the players (90%+) read less than 1% of the available prime fiction and they have no problem at all playing. The content of the debate your example is largely meaningless to me as a result.
--- End quote ---
And when you can re-write it in a law (If -> than. the larger -> the more, some sort of correlation). I jizzle my pants.... Thats the way I like/love..... If you are in a run. I will give 300 Mio Isk again.... for everyone. Which goes to this topic.... and find any illogical inductiv arguments.
--- Quote from: Merdaneth on 23 Aug 2012, 14:39 ---A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions.
--- End quote ---
You have understand..... My work is done :).... You will find now his topic as I have. And maybe even some day you are the guy.... which slaps with Popper around.
As for others ... ehm... to see the errors of some posts in this topic... could be for some hard.... so If someone needs it... or will.... I can step to next level, and explain my Seriphyn example. About "false/overstreach" premises and which impact it can have in conclusions of theorys. Baby steps as I call it :P
Nicoletta Mithra:
Publius,
the problem with Popper is, though, that he didn't get it right either. His naive falsificationism has been overhauled at least since Lakatos and Kuhn. Also, we're not really engaging in science here, which Popper tried to describe normatively.
Instead we're engaging in debate, something that follows quite distinct processes from scientific research. Sure, you've a valid point if you ask for clearly structured arguments that are logically sound. But, well, it's something you can't expect from people who haven't had a course in logic (preferrably philosophical logic, I think as mathematical logic rarely teaches how to do logic in your mother tongue as it focuses on the formal aspects).
The important point in a debate - outside of the philosophical institutes of academia - is that every opinion has to be taken seriously. The principle of charity should be applied.
Slapping people with Popperian positivistic falsificationism - which, as I pointed out above has been, ironically, falsified in philosophy of science in it's naive form at least - doesn't help either way. Insisting on using his model of scientific research for structuring a debate is comitting a category error.
That said:
Merdaneth is right in regard to Sam Harris' vid. He defines the ethical values in purely materialistic, scientific terms and then starts to argue that the questions about ethical values are answerable by science. This, clearly, is a petitio principii. I think it also shows that he is missing something that is quite important about ethical values.
So, though I agree with him that science can provide knowledge that is needed to answer some ethical questions and is therefore an important factor in ethics, I don't see him showing in the least that science is sufficient to answer those questions. And then, Confucius already said "all knowledge is ethical knowledge". Aristotle had it in his Nicomachean Ethics, too.
It's really nothing new and Sam Harris emotional talk and advertisement for the supremacy of science isn't what I'd recommend to people if they'd want to learn about what science can contribute to ethics.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version