Those Brights

By -
Watching an atheist attempting to do metaphysics is like watching someone who denies the existence of water attempting to swim.

Comments

  1. Watoosh3:25 PM

    Ok, whatever. If you continue to define theological and metaphysical concepts in a way that would leave any rank-and-file believer staring at you like a deer in headlights, then I guess you'll never understand why the "new atheists" have a chip on their shoulder about God and religion. Or worse yet, why they're right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah4:38 PM

    "If you continue to define theological and metaphysical concepts in a way that would leave any rank-and-file believer staring at you like a deer in headlights..."

    Do you have any idea how stupid this complaint is? It is though you critiqued Erdos's understanding of higher math by complaining that 7th-grade algebra students don't get what he is saying.

    "then I guess you'll never understand why the "new atheists" have a chip on their shoulder about God and religion."

    Oh, I understand fine. It is because they are massively ignorant and filled with self-love.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Avram11:03 PM

    "Do you have any idea how stupid this complaint is? It is though you critiqued Erdos's understanding of higher math by complaining that 7th-grade algebra students don't get what he is saying."

    But Gene, that is the same complaint you have of using praxeological definitions in economics.

    I agree it is a stupid one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. gcallah2:07 AM

    Avram:
    1) I have no objection to using praxeology in economics. I'm not sure what you mean by adding "definitions."
    2) If I did have such a complaint, which I don't, it would not be the same as what I am saying here anyway!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Avram3:40 AM

    1) I am refering to our exchange in a different topic on this blog here:

    "But it stands to reason that if you use the broader definition of economic activity, and not the more narrow one, that in the end you will draw very different conclusions."

    Only if you mistake your definition for reality!

    Look, Avram, when someone says "The economy is in a recession" it would be foolish to reply, "No it isn't -- people are still economizing full time!"

    And when we talk about whether or not stimulus might work, that is the kind of situation at which we are looking. The praxeological definition is not the appropriate definition to use in the case of a downturn, because the very concept of "downturn" is meaningless under that definition."

    2) Correct. I misunderstood "rank and file believer" in Watoosh's original reply to be "rank and file non-believer." The way it actually is, the situation is not equivalent. Apologies.

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah5:54 AM

    OK, Avram, there I was talking about *a* particular definition being inappropriate for *a* particular situation. It was no general objection to using praxeology.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more