Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Desiderya]

This is surreal.
edit: No, Publius, you are actually surreal.

[Publius Valerius]

This is surreal.
edit: No, Publius, you are actually surreal.

And that is a normativ statement. 



By the way... nice post Chell Charon, nice to see that this topic gets better now. After it was in the sink. I really have thing about it. I will not just post something here (taht something with an opposite opinion stands here). I think your well thought post deservse a post of the same quality... So I will come up with an idea, to add something or critque something tonight or this weekend (are in holidays soon). As Im not an expert on all faction, I will focus than on the Amarrians than (Amarrian practice of slavery is by internal logic a morally good deed.).

+1 Thumbs up for the post

[Jev North]

This is surreal.

Yeah, I'm confused, too.

So, general question, in the interests of understanding:

Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.

Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.

Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?

[Morwen Lagann]

Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?

Seems so.

[Publius Valerius]

This is surreal.

Yeah, I'm confused, too.

So, general question, in the interests of understanding:

Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.

Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.

Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?

I agree... and I have start to go in left field; because to have a exactly not this discussion:
 "debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea."

We can than come to some points which we are agree... and acoid a discussion which goes on about those points for 100 of pages. Thats why I love some comments in this topic, and others which ran exactly in the direction as you discribe can be counted, as those I dont like. But I cant just come here and say "you are doing it wrong". What I can is show pepole if they make an error, and that they understand; what my point is. The last point, the understanding, is very important.

I had made an error; which I had made on a discussion earlier with Gotti (that one about exports etc); I have just explain my stuff (not giving a benefit for learning)... and he had clearly not care, so that I ended the discussion with an poor joke. He had learned nothing and my comments where therefore nothing of value.

If I come here. And say, "come on dudes you can do this... so lets look at comment x or y of this person and tell me what he had done wrong?".... is a way in which I try to get away from the point as you discribe (sterotype, IGS discussions). We get to an new/next level.

It is even better, if I give 300 mio do the person himself. So if person X had made a comment on page 8 what is totally... ehm... be nice I would say in my new LA style... it isnt totally optimal. If this person even sees his errors... and I give him the money it is something which had an impact and had change things (more than my other discussions, where I just leave a comment).

You'd have to argue why cultural relativism is wrong, not hammering Popper around and calling "U r doin' it rong!"

As he said...   people have to argue why (And I hope he will do it, and show me this "navie" falsification which he talks about is overhauled.... "). I hope that people try to do it now.

Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?

Seems so.
[/quote]

Sorry if I pick you. But it was an easy example for me to show. If people not really look deeper in their comments; they come to wrong conclussions or make an error or talk about a topic which isnt the topic etc..... (this vandalism depatte, where wyke had go to another topic, where he posted this pic about philophers on a hill...... It was his way, of saying that you people dont understand him (made an error on the analysation on his comment); and that he trys to talk about a whole other topic, that whole problem had to be avoided if people had read more carefuly and comment their thoughts more carefuly).

[Publius Valerius]

...

I havent forget you.... If you believe: Im still thinking.... Give me a day or two... ehm... I havent clearly something to add (I have something in mind). But Im not sure if its works.

Edit: As you can see I like to tool around with the homo oeconomicus or RREEMM models....as can be seen here. So Im still tooling around on the first line: "The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God." I think about it to make some sort of RREEMM model, which has many lopols for rational actions. Ehmm..... still in the air, I see it as some weird form of asian disease problem Where "moral obligation" change our behavier (but like I said WIP).

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

This is surreal.

Yeah, I'm confused, too.

So, general question, in the interests of understanding:

Some people seem to have a deep-seated need for the Caldari to be greedy space nazis, while others seem to want them to be a Randian meritocratic paradise. In much similar vein, it seems to me this debate is about some people wanting the Amarr to be pig-eyed, whip-wielding slavers, while others want them to be basically okay people with a strange quirk in their moral system that they're otherwise very nice about, now there's a good slave, have a cup of tea.

Oh, and then there's some people way out in left field discussing empiricism, Popper, strict logic, and proof structure, as if we're debating philosophy of science, instead of imaginary space people.

Would that be an accurate caricature of the debate, at this point?

That seems like a decent summary.

As the extremes of opinion about the Amarr. It is possible for them to be moral and good people, by their own terms, and yet horrible to an outside observer. It seems to me that before running into the Gallente and Caldari (and then eventually the Jove) the Empire had not yet met anyone who could disagree with it's worldview and be able to force them to live with that.

Evidently the Empire as a whole has not yet come to terms with this. It's an Outside Context Problem of sorts (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession for a decent explanation of this phrase). Once it has it won't be the same society. Question is, what would it become and will this happen while the game is still live?

As to the notion that pirate slavery is arguably worse. That's valid. My character would even agree. However pirates don't make quite as much noise about why enslaving people is a good and respectable thing to do, or so it seems to me. Oh, with the possible exception of the Sansha.

[Publius Valerius]

...

I havent forget you.... If you believe: Im still thinking.... Give me a day or two... ehm... I havent clearly something to add (I have something in mind). But Im not sure if its works.

Edit: As you can see I like to tool around with the homo oeconomicus or RREEMM models....as can be seen here. So Im still tooling around on the first line: "The moral case for enslavement, is internally consistent for the Amarrian view. If you accept the presuppositions of the Amarrian faith, you have a moral obligation to limit the amount of souls lost due to their state of rebellion to God." I think about it to make some sort of RREEMM model, which has many lopols for rational actions. Ehmm..... still in the air, I see it as some weird form of asian disease problem Where "moral obligation" change our behavier (but like I said WIP).

Im still thinking about the "intro".
I will come uo with my idea after my vacation . As so far I really like your post and your argumention line, I love: "There is however no way in I can argue that all farmers abuse their animals beyond the terms of animal husbandry. It is not a consistent argument and nobody would accept this logic in anything else."





_____________
As general:

As we are on the topic "intro" and "vacation" (tomorrow I can still answer some questions).... I will now drop my poor joke like always gallente joke, brit joke 1.0, brit joke 2.0: As for this poor joke; I need an intro. As we all know "Hot Problems" from Double Take and "Friday" form Rebecca Black. And as most people after they saw "Hot Problems", my first thought was also: That I have done Rebecca Black unjustice, all the stuff which I had said or thought. As for this topic.... I have to forgive Tony G... I have done unjustice to him; as I rant how he had describes amarrian slavery (he isnt so aweful after all ).


So Tony G; please forgive me, I miss you

[Nicoletta Mithra]

@Publius:

Why is it true that:

[...] Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)

It's quite simple:

Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here.
-therefore-
Neither Popperian falsificationsim nor positivism pertain to what we are doing here: debating.
qed.

[Publius Valerius]

@Publius:

Why is it true that:

[...] Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)

It's quite simple:

Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here.
-therefore-
Neither Popperian falsificationsim nor positivism pertain to what we are doing here: debating.
qed.

Really...on my vacation... I have to come.... and expalin again.....


As I said before..... see here and here.

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56380#msg56380
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55922#msg55922

I quote: "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. [...]*this theory which you like to test.... We all know, that all theorys should be logical and deductiv (not like FOX-News like). It means you have a global "law"... the same like in a the deductive-nomological theory (with your explanandum and explans)...."

See.... Popper is just the start.... that people understand where I come from. The next point when we all agree that we make Postivistic science. That we define the words. We make our theory logical and deductiv (and falsifiable)."





By the way, my "fat amercian" friend I found It intressting, that I had show respect to you by answering your questions.... but you dont

* Plz show some "debate".... and answer my questions. Second...also show some debate in showing that you read my stuff and try to falcify it..... not just brainfart something down.

And plz do not a Nicoletta again:
* I quote: "You see someone like Nicoletta Mithra post.... which just had "read Popper" and not the whole package, and has instate of falzify an argument post just some lines."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56406#msg56406

* For a debate.... next time quote the opposite side.... not yourself.... We are not here on FOX News.... I dont like to discuss about your truthiness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness


So now back to your comment: Now...Lets imagen a world...
A world in there I had said, that what you have wrote (and It would be therfore be a debate and not a monolog by your fat ass )...

So lets see what you have write as answer to Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.:

"Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here."


So lets go throw it fast...:

I could go just go with your second axoim, because with it all stay or falls:

* Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate
(which I still ask why?.... but lets say its is true... even if you are to lazy to explain why). And add:

* Philosophy of science does pertain logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments.
So your argument would be: Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does not pertain to debate.
http://s1.directupload.net/images/120828/2rgpkkah.png

Okay... now you have to options:
*Yes Publius thats what I meant. Or Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does not pertain to debate.
*No Publius that what I dont meant. Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does pertain to debate.

If the second is the case.... You have a problem.... you have to explain why "Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments" is part of both, but meanwhile philosophy of science isnt. And not forget in a logical and deductiv (and falseable) way to explain (as you doing this, I hope you will understand why Popper is importent). See: Your argument falls and stands with the second axiom "Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate." What if I wrote:
"Philosophy of science does pertain to debate."? Ehm.... Can I write this?.... Yes I can (in a postivistic word, as you can write the opposite in a positivistic world.... Isnt that awesome :O ) so back.. Yes I can..... Why? As it (Philosophy of science) is a elment of any debate, tru the fact that is the foundation of an logical deductiv falseable argument.










Now back to your point:
Philosophy of science does pertain logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments. So your argument would be: Logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments does not pertain to debate.
http://s1.directupload.net/images/120828/2rgpkkah.png

As you can see.... It wasnt my argument. My argument is/and was the whole package with logical and deductiv (and falseable) arguments etc...; without the full package we have just truethiness. And that is what I think you dont understand.... as you dont care, about what kind of argument, but I will say it isnt then a debate.... it is just brainfart-discussion also known as just talking.... if you love to talk... do it, but dont sell it as discussion or even discussion points.....



Most of all Im shocked that you - as constructivist - work with a "law" (or wanna be law "Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate." )..... totally shocked.... Than.... I think the positivisms... Has it part here? Or? As with Popper.... can you think by yourself.... and answer me at least one question... see it as form as respect my friend..... Why had I wrote him to the package? What you think is the reason.. that I took him? Why my good friend?

[Merdaneth]

Publius,

1. This is probably not the right thread to debate about how to debate. The topic is supposed to be 'slavery'. Let's get back to that.
2. I think it would really help your case if structure your thoughts (and sentences) in a way that more resembles how most people here do so. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a native language issue.

[Publius Valerius]

Publius,

1. This is probably not the right thread to debate about how to debate. The topic is supposed to be 'slavery'. Let's get back to that.
2. I think it would really help your case if structure your thoughts (and sentences) in a way that more resembles how most people here do so. From what I've seen, it doesn't seem like a native language issue.

To Point one: But I cant just come here and say "you are doing it wrong". What I can is show pepole if they make an error, and that they understand; what my point is. The last point, the understanding, is very important."
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56418#msg56418

As you say...It isnt the right place "to debate about how to debate". And I cant even say you doing it wrong or do it that way or this way. But I can say to people X or Y, that he/she has made a huge error. I can say guy X had on page 8 an error or you have done two bewteen 7-12. And I can try that you go back, and re-read some of our thoughts and arguments. How I can make this? Tru greed?

In the end, I hope one or two will understand, why so many people are writing that the topic was in the sink. And when one of the people which understand, is even one those which had made a of those brainfarts, even better. I could than say even "full win".

About two.... Like I always say, if there is any question, ask me. Dont just post something. Just ask, "Dude, Publius what you mean with x or y. etc..." and about: "if structure your thoughts (and sentences) in a way that more resembles how most people here do so." Can I ask... you mean people in this topic. like you? or Gotti? or Mithra?

(It is a joke, with some true in it. The question which on my site comes is, sould I structure my thoughts like Mithra inductiv, like he had done on some comments or deductiv which he had also done in some comments Or even deeper should I "structure my thoughts" in "laws" as it done in the postivism or should I say there isnt any real "knowledge" and "laws" etc.... , the constructivist way.)





Give me an example how I should do it. Generally I try to "structure my thoughts" But if there is any error, I will of course rework it. Like I always say...you can ask and point out wére I had made an error or had made a missunderstanding.

Yes, but nobody understands what the hell Publius is saying...

Publius seemed to be making a literal brain dump, and words where irritatingly in his way.

As you see. I had try to rework, some stuff see earlier post). If there is any question, just ask.

By the way great vid: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html

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.

[/quote]

As I see, you can find errors in an arguments in this topic (without saying that the opposit is pro-slavery, racist, or cut the opponent argument in half). Now use those skill which you had use oin Sam for this topic (It could you make even rich bitch ). But back to the topic. I really hope you can find errors in some arguments in this topic (to show me that people can learn).

I really hope, I really do, that if you go tru this topic, you will found it as I have: "A lot of emotional argumentation, lots of false conclusions." By the way if you like, I can show at least 4 really hard examples of comments which had an error (I speak of errors in the argumention, not about "U are doing it wrong"); but only if you like (maybe you still reading tru this topic and want the isk by yourself?) ?. See my point is to teach. I could just comment on this topic, how it is on a lower level.

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56416#msg56416
http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg55982#msg55982

There were a few more, Im to lazy to search right now. But I havent, I hope Gotti and the others will learn something out of it. So I hope, that you understand that I could like those people just trop a comment like: "Omg IGS discussion 2.0." and go away. But as I explain in my Gotti example. It wouldnt work, nobody would learn a thing.

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56418#msg56418

"I had made an error; which I had made on a discussion earlier with Gotti (that one about exports etc); I have just explain my stuff (not giving a benefit for learning)... and he had clearly not care, so that I ended the discussion with an poor joke. He had learned nothing and my comments where therefore nothing of value.

If I come here. And say, "come on dudes you can do this... so lets look at comment x or y of this person and tell me what he had done wrong?".... is a way in which I try to get away from the point as you discribe (sterotype, IGS discussions). We get to an new/next level."

Publius,

The topic is supposed to be 'slavery'. Let's get back to that.

I agree and Chell Charon had made a great comment lets talk with him.

http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3484.msg56410#msg56410

[Publius Valerius]

@Publius:

Why is it true that:

[...] Sure, I agree that structuring ones arguments and sound logic are a great boon in any debate. (Popper and positivism aren't, in my book, a necessary and not even particularly helpful area of knowledge for that, though.)

It's quite simple:

Philosophy of science pertains to science.
Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate.
Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science.
Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science.
We do debate here.
-therefore-
Neither Popperian falsificationsim nor positivism pertain to what we are doing here: debating.
qed.

As I see ...My example was to hard ... So lets go tru Mithras post again. First we shorten it.... Does he need: "Philosophy of science pertains to science" to make his argumnent? No... Why? Because it can stand alone without it.

His syllogism is:
* Philosophy of science does not pertain to debate. (Mayor Premise)
* Popperian falsificationism is a theroy of philosophy of science. Positivism is a stance within philosophy of science. thats makes both part of Philosophy of science. (Minor Premise)

-therefore-
Popperian falsificationism and Positivism does not pertain to debate.(Conclusion)


As I say, my post before. First. He has tho explain why is axoim/law is true. As I had show I can say the opposite. And he had an internal error by useing a law/axoim, this is clearly postivistic my contructivistic friend. As constructivist I wouldnt formulate a law or search after ones (because they cant be discovered from the world, a world without welt sehen/"world seeing"). So.... Afther using a axiom/law/mayor premise in his argument against postivism; makes me a little tickling again

As I already said.... When he startd to try to explain to me: Why his mayor premise is true, he will most likely use Popper (this overhaulted naive guy ).



If there is any questions people, just ask.

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.

See would be that a deductiv reasoning or inductiv reasoning? For me it look like a inductive probability.... but.... what would you say? And as I said "Morwen discussion", it was an example. Now we have another example, or?

Would You say it was inductiv reasoning or deductiv reasoning?






About "structure your thoughts"

What would a you like?....


So form this two: logical or illogical?
Answer: logical

deductiv or inductiv?
Anwser: Inductiv.

postivistic or constructivistic?
Answer: Postivistic (like I already said... It helps also with the culturell relativism debate and/or we can make statements about the world around us.).

Thats is what I have try..... I write "try", because I know there can be a missunderstanding. So If there is any question or error, post it. Like Stitcher and me had a missunderstanding. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1072548#post1072548 But after some post we fix it. So just ask.






About "Chell Charon". Sorry .... I will come to you after my Vacation, but I will hopefull them come up with something good

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Now, Publius, let me be german battleship clear about this: This isn't the place for your 'brainfarts'. If you want to debate Popper and Positivism and how people debate in here (and for God's sake if Philosophy of science pertains to debating or no) then open another thread, really. Nor is it the place to get into a online-forum-olecture on philosophy of science. (And I think I'll flag this one with a petition to get that stuff into it's own thread as it's all off topic in here.)

Quite frankly, nobody cares in here for your lengthy posts on popperianism and you got a lot of fallacies in your arguments, too many to point them out especially as all of them have nothing to do with the debate on slavery here.

Also, I don't need to get back to Popper at all to uphold any of my premises: It's per definitionem that philosophy of science is about science and not debate, and that the field pertaining to debate is argumentation theory. Both use logics, but that doesn't mean that logics is part of philosophy of science. Logics is a field independent of philosophy of science. Philosophy of science is (among other things) about how logics is applied to the process of science, argumentation theory is (again, among other things) about how logics is applied to debate.

Oh, also, I never said I'm a constructivist. I'm neither a positivist, though.

After having said this, again, this isn't the place for this kind of debate, though.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Holy shit, Publius.