Internal Validity: I do not think that it is possible to define a concept sufficiently (unless it is math and perhaps even there), where the error in the definitions (since there must be some amount of error) does not compound over the course of at least one involved and complex argument (from the set of arguments that use term x), such that the compounding errors ultimately lead to false conclusions.
External Validity: How does philosophy ever show evidence for external validity? Or does modern philosophy generally ignore issues of real world application? That is a question.
Lastly, I suppose I misspoke when I implied that philosophers used fuzzy terminology. Indeed they use an expansive field specific vocabulary which the discipline has been refining over the centuries. Yes philosophers know how to attack loose language. Ive experienced this first hand with a good philosopher friend from UCLA. And yet it reminds me of the dark days of introspection in psychology; the days before it strived to be a science: An advanced and complicated vocabulary developed to record and understand the human mind.. ANd yet, it subjective! Philosophy doesn't have fuzzy terminology, they have fuzzy concepts that they've sliced up as best they can.
Yes, the post certainly conveys upper-class, Ivy League snobbery. Furthermore, the author, I would contend, is less a scientist and more a literary scholar of classic schools of thought. That is to say, a culture of scholars who consistently misktake eloquence for sound argument, who consistently believe that truth can be discovered by coupling logic with fuzzy verbal terminologies such as utility, happiness, common good, etc. In a word: Philosophy. Can't solve a damn thing, but they feel better about themselves by having an expanded vocabulary (jargon) in an effort to appear sophisticated.
No. That is what every competing scientist does. I see it all the time. Sometimes it is a good thing because it helps refine and discuss the issue in contention...Sometimes it is bad...Deliberate denial of the evidence...
Lastly, you make a cheap shot at Christian scientists. You provide no evidence to support your claim. In fact there is a large segment of legitimate scientists who are also Christian.
OH wait... I see what you mean.. "Christian Scientists..:A religion based on the teachings of Jesus. It was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the nineteenth century. Christian Scientists believe that sickness and sin are not ordained by God and can be overcome by prayer and understanding.
# Christian Scientists are known for refusing to accept medicine or treatment by doctors. However, a Christian Scientist's decision to dispense with medical treatment is left to the individual believer and is not dictated by church policy.
I thought you were attacking Scientists who are also Christian.. But now I know who you are talking about. Yeah, I agree with you.
NO..What you'd be selecting for are those who find the first possible place to post..
Moderation(negative or positive) depends mainly on its position in the discussion. If you manage to post near the beginning of the page, you will get moderated.
Getting hurt is a valuable experience to children. While I do not support a quota system be enforced, I do believe that if a child is never allowed to discover the pain associated with life, to be over-protected ninnies, then how can we trust them to make hard decisions in the future? Kids need to play. They need to skin their knees, break their finger, because it tells them in a strong way that actions have consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
External Validity: How does philosophy ever show evidence for external validity? Or does modern philosophy generally ignore issues of real world application? That is a question.
Lastly, I suppose I misspoke when I implied that philosophers used fuzzy terminology. Indeed they use an expansive field specific vocabulary which the discipline has been refining over the centuries. Yes philosophers know how to attack loose language. Ive experienced this first hand with a good philosopher friend from UCLA. And yet it reminds me of the dark days of introspection in psychology; the days before it strived to be a science: An advanced and complicated vocabulary developed to record and understand the human mind.. ANd yet, it subjective! Philosophy doesn't have fuzzy terminology, they have fuzzy concepts that they've sliced up as best they can.
I know a very smart philosopher at UCLA.. I'm talking about the schools of thought before the 1950's..
Yeah cuz programmers definitely need more hitpoints.
I'd love to have the president wear the translator so we'd know if he believes the bull too.
arghh..you...arghhh your...
Bullshit! Complexity is everywhere, even in our chemical factories. Chaotic non-linear systems abound. Again, Bullshit.
If we truly valued the 'complexity of naturally occurring systems' in our jewelry, then we'd wear glass spheres of soil. http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_biology/fw _soilhealth.html
Is that dirt on you jacket, sir?
Yes, the post certainly conveys upper-class, Ivy League snobbery. Furthermore, the author, I would contend, is less a scientist and more a literary scholar of classic schools of thought. That is to say, a culture of scholars who consistently misktake eloquence for sound argument, who consistently believe that truth can be discovered by coupling logic with fuzzy verbal terminologies such as utility, happiness, common good, etc. In a word: Philosophy. Can't solve a damn thing, but they feel better about themselves by having an expanded vocabulary (jargon) in an effort to appear sophisticated.
Shit, that should have been put into at least 2 separate volumes..
From Ran, I believe it was.
Probably mostly pirated porn.
Lastly, you make a cheap shot at Christian scientists. You provide no evidence to support your claim. In fact there is a large segment of legitimate scientists who are also Christian.
OH wait... I see what you mean.. "Christian Scientists..:A religion based on the teachings of Jesus. It was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the nineteenth century. Christian Scientists believe that sickness and sin are not ordained by God and can be overcome by prayer and understanding. # Christian Scientists are known for refusing to accept medicine or treatment by doctors. However, a Christian Scientist's decision to dispense with medical treatment is left to the individual believer and is not dictated by church policy.
I thought you were attacking Scientists who are also Christian.. But now I know who you are talking about. Yeah, I agree with you.
SO how many of us have gotten this one in their email box?
Firefox 1.5 onslaught kills Mozilla. Firefox 2.0 side lined.
All your cores belong to us.
My Quatro shaves just fine thank you anyway.
bah humbug.
The WiiMote should have been a phone too. At least an IP phone.
Moderation(negative or positive) depends mainly on its position in the discussion. If you manage to post near the beginning of the page, you will get moderated.
well rounded.. his eye glasses i think...
yeah thank God they don't play tag over there!
Getting hurt is a valuable experience to children. While I do not support a quota system be enforced, I do believe that if a child is never allowed to discover the pain associated with life, to be over-protected ninnies, then how can we trust them to make hard decisions in the future? Kids need to play. They need to skin their knees, break their finger, because it tells them in a strong way that actions have consequences.
I prefer the "1 meter balloon buffer" method.
sure, it may be a windows user at the Ipod factory. But, it is Apples responsibility to test ipods, maintain quality etc.. No, it is Apple's fault.
ITs great. Apple blames Windows for the Virus...but who put it on th ipod?
Are you kidding.. The rich get their fashion from the poor..