Ringo Kid's Objections to the Philosophy Forum Guidelines

[quantumdude]

In your last post to me you claim I am wrong a lot but say it is not about being right or wrong so which is it ? Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it wrong.

I understand what you've been saying just fine. I don't say that your methods are wrong because I don't understand them, I say they are wrong because I do understand them.

The two main things I have said are "wrong" are:

1. Your idea that the burden of proof is on the questioner and not the claimant.
2. Your idea that you can tell that something is worthless without having studied it.

I'll get back to these momentarily.

And again, it's not your particular viewpoint on 'karma' that is wrong here. It's your method of argumentation that is deficient.

BTW who said this "if it hasn't been proven false, then it must be true" was it this guy
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

That is not what falsification theory says. It doesn't say that a theory is held to be true until it is proven false, it says that a theory is not considered scientific unless it can be proven false.

It's not meant to demarcate the line between true and false, it's meant to demarcate the line between physics and metaphysics.

You haven't shot down anything except the standards you attempt to uphold not being applied fairly. Look at the original thread that started this discourse and tell me where in lies the substantiated evidence from others you claim to need. All I see is personal opinion even many of your posts lack evidence for your claims.

You just don't get it.

OK, let's revisit the two things I said you were doing that are wrong.

The first one is the fallacy of argument from ignorance to shift the burden of proof to the questioner. The formal reasoning behind it is "If proposition P has never been proven false, then proposition P is true." The obvious flaw in this is that this schema can be used to "prove" any two propositions "true", even contradictory propositions. Since two contradictory statements cannot both be true, there must be something wrong with the argument schema. Ergo, it is invalid.

The second thing I said was wrong is your attitude that things you have not studied can be validly written off as worthless. The reason being that a meaningful evaluation of a piece of work can only be done from a position of knowledge about that work. Since it is clear that one cannot have knowledge of work that one has not studied, it is also clear that it is not possible to validly render an assessment of a piece of work that one has not studied. And even if one has studied it, it is still expected that the reasoning for the assessment be provided.

Which is better to show an internalised understanding of the subject matter or cut and paste quotes from reputable sources as evidence, to think creatively within the bounds of a subject or regurgitate data made irrelevant by the current state of the world we live in ?

This is an obvious false dichotomy. The justification for a post can come in the form of an argument that you write, or reference to someone else's argument, or data if applicable. Of course, if the particular data is "irrelevant" to the topic at hand then we don't expect you to produce it.

In the case of the "karma" thread, it is important not to use proprietary definitions of "karma". That's why hypnagogue made the request he did.

Where is the logic and reason in instinct and intuition. Is there no room for that in physics or philosophy ?

Instinct and intuition can be good for generating ideas, but they are insufficient for making cases in justification of those ideas. If you make a claim, you have to support it. I really am getting tired of saying that, so I hope you understand and/or accept it this time.

I beg to differ. I say you cannot apply empirical means of support by way of evidence to concepts that lie outside the realm of pure physics ie philosophy/metaphysics.

There are some philosophical claims to which empirical support is appropriate, and there are others to which it is not. In the 'karma' case, Hypnagogue already told you that he doesn't expect empirical evidence.

The "truth" should always be questioned it is generally the truthsayer who refuses to be. If religious pontification is what you think I am doing and I invite questioning then bring it on by any measure. I guarantee it will stimulate discussion and exchange insight far more than reading some obsolete dead guy's rantings or posting links, footnotes and bibliographies to subjective perceptions of reputable sources.

That's what you say here, but that's not the attitude you took on in the 'karma' thread. When Hypnagogue asked you a question, you brashly declared that the onus is on him to prove you wrong, which is clearly nonsense.

Perhaps moderators should qualify their right to pass judgement on philosophical matters by showing evidence of their studies then i might give their opinions some creedence also.

Speaking for myself: I really don't care if you give my opinion any credence, especially after seeing the blatant disregard you have for logic and scholarship. The only thing any member really needs to know about the qualifications of the staff is that we were appointed to these positions by Greg Bernhardt, the owner of this site.

Perhaps Hypnagogue will send you a resume.

In any case prove me wrong

With regards to your method and attitude, I already have proven you wrong. And even if you don't accept that, I have pointed out to you repeatedly that your method and attitude are against Physics Forums guidelines and that we will not tolerate it here.

or let's just agree to disagree and move on. I'll try to change my nature but it's hard to change nature in any form.

We can agree to disagree as long as you comply with the guidelines of this site.

 

[RingoKid]

Please support any claims you have about Karma is supposed to be or do with evidence from a reputable source.

Can you also show me the question Hypno asked me in the karma thread ?

You may have satisfied you own burden of proof as to the "wrongness" of my method but not mine, especially if the point is to inspire intelligent discussion and valuable insight on this site. I'm not wrong just different.

...and yes, perhaps some qualification of moderator status is needed combined with a measure of "do as i do not do as i say" if it is your wish to conform to culturally biased academic standards with regards to substantiating any personal opinions.

I shall endeavour to do the same although in my culture we value instinct intuition and life experience over pieces of paper with lots of big words on them


peace

 

[quantumdude]

Can you also show me the question Hypno asked me in the karma thread ?

The request you quoted was what I was talking about. This thread has gone back and forth so much that I had forgotten he didn't phrase it as a question. But, it was a request nonetheless.

You may have satisfied you own burden of proof as to the "wrongness" of my method but not mine, especially if the point is to inspire intelligent discussion and valuable insight on this site. I'm not wrong just different.

If logic carries no weight with you, then you are quite simply beyond the reach of rational discourse.

...and yes, perhaps some qualification of moderator status is needed

I said it once, and I'll say it again: Greg knows our qualifications, and he's the only one who needs to. But, if you're that interested, you can read my qualifications in my Journal.

combined with a measure of "do as i do not do as i say"

As far as I know, all the Mentors lead by example. You have only to read the posts to see it. Of course, if you dismiss out of hand anything that any Mentor says, then you'll never see that.

if it is your wish to conform to culturally biased academic standards with regards to substantiating any personal opinions.

This line of yours is getting old. There's nothing culturally biased about good reasoning. I challenged you to name for me a single culture that puts out philosophy or science without good reasoning. Rather than do that, you just keep on complaining about this problem, when I suspect the real problem is that you just want your way, and are determined to have it.

I shall endeavour to do the same although in my culture we value instinct intuition and life experience over pieces of paper with lots of big words on them

This is another false dichotomy. No one is asking you to choose between intuition and reason. The fact of the matter is that one is useful for coming up with ideas, and the other is useful for putting them on a sound basis. The first type of thinking is creative thinking. The second is philosophical thinking.

 

[quantumdude]

I'm closing this thread, as I believe the points of view of all parties have been fully disclosed. RingoKid, we aren't going to require you to think a certain way or to hold a certain viewpoint. That's not what we do here. We are going to require you to adhere to the posting guidelines that you agreed to when you signed up for an account here, should you desire to continue posting at Physics Forums.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.