Has it never occurred to you that people who work in marketing, advertising, PR, etc. continue to earn money because their "euphemisms" are successful in pushing product and in doing so in an analytically verifiable way?
I buy books instead of borrowing them. I never understood the rationale behind buying books. I read a good amount, mostly science fiction, but a good deal of classic literature as well. Even so, I rarely reread books, and buying them seems like a tremendous waste of money and paper.
For those of you who buy books regularly, do you really read them 3+ times? Or is there some other reason you do it instead of going to the library?
The guy in the video says there are claims of it being bullet proof as well. But then he goes on to fire a crossbow at it instead. Maybe they couldn't find a gun. Or a safe way to test it in case of ricochet.
I'm glad someone said it. Inefficient bulbs do need to be taxed to help internalize the environmental costs of electricity production, but I fail to understand why we need an outright ban. This stinks of totalitarianism.
Yeah. The man had some brilliant intuitions. But if reading Ecce Homo doesn't make it clear that he also had some serious issues, I don't know what can.
Too bad any time his name comes up online, all you get are raving teenage fanboys with no understanding of Western philosophy.
Russian does have the verb "to be", just not in the present tense. Its usage varies considerably from English, but then so do most languages. A lot of languages lack the copula-verb (as it is known) in the present tense, and do very well without it. When Borat says "She niiiice" you understand what he means perfectly well without the copula.:) This is not entirely true. The Russian verb "to be" does have a present tense conjugation, and there do exist situations where it is not omitted from spoken or written speech. One example is the phrase "There is, after all, such a thing as a ______."
I never implied that "an ontology is required to determine an objective measure." In fact, I was suggesting that, to the contrary, something can be done objectively without any access to ontology whatsoever (that something being science). Though which of those two stances someone chooses to take is almost entirely a matter of semantics.
As for my flaw, consider that it is very unclear to what extent we, as human beings, have a common understanding of anything, even of our "definitions" of length, speed, etc. Everything that is done in science is invariably mediated by the human senses, and any attempt to construct a coherent body of knowledge via scientific methodology runs head-first into the "other minds problem." Thus, ultimately, principles of coherence and consensus are what rule the formation of scientific facts, much as in other disciplines. Unless they are tied to ontology, and you seem to believe they are not, there is nothing unique about objective measures in their ability to avoid the epistemological issues that plague the formation of any coherent body of knowledge. The difference between them and subjective ones is mainly one of degree.
The idea that truth, especially in matters that pertain to ethics and society, is a matter of consensus is well-respected in modern philosophy and not to be disparaged as easily as you think. Thus, liquidpele makes a valid point here, which can easily be extended to the purvey of science as well. Consider that objectivity, as it applies to the scientific method, has no bearing on the glaring potential problems with human epistemology. In fact, scientific method may perhaps serve as the best example of the formation of truth by consensus. Numerous scientists perform the same procedure, observe some sort of results, and then get together and decide that they observed the same thing, which at that point becomes a fact. Nothing in this process assures access to any sort of ontology, and in fact the only thing that differentiates it from matters which we typically deem to be subjective is the extent of the consensus on the issue (in many cases it is near universal).
Slashdot Mirror
Has it never occurred to you that people who work in marketing, advertising, PR, etc. continue to earn money because their "euphemisms" are successful in pushing product and in doing so in an analytically verifiable way?
The guy in the video says there are claims of it being bullet proof as well. But then he goes on to fire a crossbow at it instead. Maybe they couldn't find a gun. Or a safe way to test it in case of ricochet.
I'm glad someone said it. Inefficient bulbs do need to be taxed to help internalize the environmental costs of electricity production, but I fail to understand why we need an outright ban. This stinks of totalitarianism.
...and yet your write about Gundam. I find you puzzling.
Yeah. The man had some brilliant intuitions. But if reading Ecce Homo doesn't make it clear that he also had some serious issues, I don't know what can. Too bad any time his name comes up online, all you get are raving teenage fanboys with no understanding of Western philosophy.
Hahaha. Masterful rebuttal. And of course, all the fallacies in your original post still stand. Gotta love the Internets.
I never implied that "an ontology is required to determine an objective measure." In fact, I was suggesting that, to the contrary, something can be done objectively without any access to ontology whatsoever (that something being science). Though which of those two stances someone chooses to take is almost entirely a matter of semantics. As for my flaw, consider that it is very unclear to what extent we, as human beings, have a common understanding of anything, even of our "definitions" of length, speed, etc. Everything that is done in science is invariably mediated by the human senses, and any attempt to construct a coherent body of knowledge via scientific methodology runs head-first into the "other minds problem." Thus, ultimately, principles of coherence and consensus are what rule the formation of scientific facts, much as in other disciplines. Unless they are tied to ontology, and you seem to believe they are not, there is nothing unique about objective measures in their ability to avoid the epistemological issues that plague the formation of any coherent body of knowledge. The difference between them and subjective ones is mainly one of degree.
The idea that truth, especially in matters that pertain to ethics and society, is a matter of consensus is well-respected in modern philosophy and not to be disparaged as easily as you think. Thus, liquidpele makes a valid point here, which can easily be extended to the purvey of science as well. Consider that objectivity, as it applies to the scientific method, has no bearing on the glaring potential problems with human epistemology. In fact, scientific method may perhaps serve as the best example of the formation of truth by consensus. Numerous scientists perform the same procedure, observe some sort of results, and then get together and decide that they observed the same thing, which at that point becomes a fact. Nothing in this process assures access to any sort of ontology, and in fact the only thing that differentiates it from matters which we typically deem to be subjective is the extent of the consensus on the issue (in many cases it is near universal).