The Definitive MADhouse Quote Page.

[_bcspace]

Maybe you could speak to her? She would be a great addition to MDB. :-)

I may throw out another recommendation where she can see it. I doubt she specifically would come at my behest. We have crossed swords before.

[_Yoda]

Maybe you could speak to her? She would be a great addition to MDB. :-)

I may throw out another recommendation where she can see it. I doubt she specifically would come at my behest. We have crossed swords before.

Really? I can't imagine how that is possible! LOL

Tell her you are passing on an invitation from me. :-)

[_Themis]

Would be nice to have more TBM LDS post here. I keep recommending it. This is where it's at if you want some action in terms of opposition.

Perhaps reading your posts and how bad they are compared to the critics position is keeping them from posting.

[_bcspace]

Perhaps reading your posts and how bad they are compared to the critics position is keeping them from posting.

Or maybe they know I've got it all taken care of and there is no need to add weight to what I've accomplished here. Face it, I've got you and several others on the ropes and the only thing holding you up is your denial which is stronger than that river in Egypt.

[_Themis]

Perhaps reading your posts and how bad they are compared to the critics position is keeping them from posting.

Or maybe they know I've got it all taken care of and there is no need to add weight to what I've accomplished here. Face it, I've got you and several others on the ropes and the only thing holding you up is your denial which is stronger than that river in Egypt.

Maybe in your fantasy world. People tend to like to get involved in areas they know they can be successful. This is why so many believing members avoid this place.

[_bcspace]

I may throw out another recommendation where she can see it. I doubt she specifically would come at my behest. We have crossed swords before.

Really? I can't imagine how that is possible! LOL

Tell her you are passing on an invitation from me. :-)

Done.

[_mfbukowski]

mfbukowski wrote:

One cannot believe in a correspondence theory of truth and believe that personal revelation is "true". That is the bottom line that Rob does not quite understand. Yet James' Pragmatism is compatible with any religious view, especially one which includes personal religious experience. Rob does not understand how such a theory of truth can be compatible with religion- and yet it is totally clear if you understand James view of religious experience.

It's ironic because one of the most quoted books the atheists use around here is "Fear of Knowledge" by Boghossian- which uses the exact theory of truth Rob accepts- which ultimate goes back to Aristotle. It is ironic that that entire book is essentially an attack on religion - which he also tacitly equates with what he terms "equal validity". The book opens with an argument against the rationality of religious thought- and ironically uses the same sorts of arguments Rob uses here against me! And yet Rob then says that his theory of truth is incompatible with Mormonism- unfortunately it is also incompatible with religion in general!

What Rob raises as an objection - using the correspondence theory of truth - is precisely what legacy we have from Aristotle and Plato in Neoplatonism. I am writing a fairly lengthy rebuttal right now to Boghossian, so I am particularly aware of these arguments right now.

The MAD philosopher-in-residence is now writing a paper (isn't he always?) to rebut Boghossian, and I am, for one, very interested in reading that. Mr. Bukowski, will you share that paper with us when you have finished it? Or let us know where it is to be published?

Thanking you in advance. ;)

Trust me- you will be the first to know. Boghossian has no understanding whatsoever of anti-realism and his arguments are totally irrelevant to that point of view. The entire book is essentially a straw man argument.

I am not the only one to think so either- that seems to be the general criticism of his position.

http://philreview.dukejournals.org/cont ... 5.abstract

But I am not going to debate that here. All I would get is nastiness, as has been proven in the past. It is a waste of time for me to post here.

[_mfbukowski]

The other problem with Fear of Knowledge is that even Boghossian acknowledges that as a philosophical tome, it was clearly defective

He says:

1 Abstract
Fear of Knowledge was in many ways an exercise in foolhardiness. It was to be a
short book, accessible to the general reader, that would treat some of the trickiest
issues in the foundations of the theory of knowledge, but that would nevertheless not
seriously shortchange the subtleties that they involve. Someone should have warned
me.

http://philpapers.org/rec/BOGPOF

Don't misunderstand me- I am not saying that this is some kind of "retraction" of his position- it is not, nor did he intend it to be. His point was merely that it failed to be both a philosophically important book AND a book of general interest.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Trust me- you will be the first to know. Boghossian has no understanding whatsoever of anti-realism and his arguments are totally irrelevant to that point of view.

What a match of giants! The former head of NYU Philosophy department ( Often the number one ranked department in the English speaking world, over Oxford and Cambridge) going toe to toe with a crank Mormon apologist !

The entire book is essentially a straw man argument

I am not the only one to think so either- that seems to be the general criticism of his position.

http://philreview.dukejournals.org/cont ... 5.abstract

There is nothing in that abstract that says anything about a straw man. Did you even read it?

This essay does two things. First, without questioning the truth of his conclusion, it argues that Boghossian's argument for that conclusion fails. Second, it argues that the avowed aim of Fear of Knowledge, to dislodge relativistic conviction, could not be served even if Boghossian's argument worked perfectly on its own terms. The eponymous fear, and not rational argument, is the source of much of the relativistic conviction to be found at large in the culture. And Fear of Knowledge simply does not address this fear.

Saying the conclusion is more probable than the conjunction of the premises isn't a strawman, you big stud.

But I am not going to debate that here. All I would get is nastiness, as has been proven in the past. It is a waste of time for me to post here.

I know, people holding you up to standards of your supposed graduate level education in Philosophy is vicious and nasty.

[_mfbukowski]

Trust me- you will be the first to know. Boghossian has no understanding whatsoever of anti-realism and his arguments are totally irrelevant to that point of view.

What a match of giants! The former head of NYU Philosophy department ( Often the number one ranked department in the English speaking world, over Oxford and Cambridge) going toe to toe with a crank Mormon apologist !

The entire book is essentially a straw man argument

I am not the only one to think so either- that seems to be the general criticism of his position.

http://philreview.dukejournals.org/cont ... 5.abstract

There is nothing in that abstract that says anything about a straw man. Did you even read it?

This essay does two things. First, without questioning the truth of his conclusion, it argues that Boghossian's argument for that conclusion fails. Second, it argues that the avowed aim of Fear of Knowledge, to dislodge relativistic conviction, could not be served even if Boghossian's argument worked perfectly on its own terms. The eponymous fear, and not rational argument, is the source of much of the relativistic conviction to be found at large in the culture. And Fear of Knowledge simply does not address this fear.

Saying the conclusion is more probable than the conjunction of the premises isn't a strawman, you big stud.

But I am not going to debate that here. All I would get is nastiness, as has been proven in the past. It is a waste of time for me to post here.

I know, people holding you up to standards of your supposed graduate level education in Philosophy is vicious and nasty.

I never said that the article said it was a "strawman". I said that.

Did you even read what Boghossian said about his own book?

And the tone of your post speaks for itself.

Consistency is a virtue.

First of all, I want to publicly apologize to both Facsimilie3 and MfBukowski and repent of my behavior. Second, I would like to concede all points and withdraw from this discussion.

Facsimilie3,

My behavior towards you is simply without excuse. I was unnecessarily vicious, aggressive, and conducted my self in a extremely poor manner. I want to take back all the things I accused you of, and all the insults I wrote. You did nothing to warrant my treatment of you and I am completely in the wrong.

MfBukowski,

I’ve never really treated you well, and have taken too many unnecessary shots at you now and in the past. I’ve never treated you as you should have been treated and in the process, created a hostile environment for you. I apologize and take full responsibility for any nastiness that we’ve shared.


I’ve been arrogant and cruel, and I’m ashamed of how I treated you both. If you guys harbor any negative feelings toward this board, it is largely because of me, and that’s not the type of person I want to be. I hope you both continue to post here, and I will make sure our next exchange doesn’t have any of the aggression and poison as this one (and the past) has had.

viewtopic.php?f=1&p=400667#p400667