Dr W please look at Des News article on Science and Religion

[_DrW]

Look, I'm not one to stand in the way of mental masturbation. Go nuts! Have fun. I just object to others getting their spew all over me and thinking they're doing me a favor.

Ain't that the truth.

[_Some Schmo]

Yet, you mentally masturbate and spew over those who don't share your own first principles. Are you pot or kettle?

LOL... It was only a matter of time before my prediction of equivocation came true.

[_Username]

Yet, you mentally masturbate and spew over those who don't share your own first principles. Are you pot or kettle?

LOL... It was only a matter of time before my prediction of equivocation came true.

You're a bit late with this assessment. You're prediction came true when I first mentioned Aristotle, a few posts back.

[_Some Schmo]

LOL... It was only a matter of time before my prediction of equivocation came true.

You're a bit late with this assessment. You're prediction came true when I first mentioned Aristotle, a few posts back.

Well, at least you understand the logical fallacy. That's a good start. Funny how it didn't stop you from repeating it, however.

[Guest]

Well, at least you understand the logical fallacy. That's a good start. Funny how it didn't stop you from repeating it, however.

No, not a logical fallacy, nor even equivocation, really. The validity of your assumption of the truth of materialist first principles is precisely the issue at hand. Your attempt at rhetorical sleight of hand, or your groundless assertion that only empirically-verifiable philosophy is valid, won't make that issue go away.

[_Some Schmo]

Well, at least you understand the logical fallacy. That's a good start. Funny how it didn't stop you from repeating it, however.

No, not a logical fallacy. The validity of your assumption of the truth of materialist first principles is precisely the issue at hand. Your attempt at rhetorical sleight of hand won't make that issue go away.

Yes, it is a logical fallacy.

And yes, I'm sure it's an issue in your mind that won't go away if you refuse to let it. Given that you'd like to equivocate between the philosophies of science and the philosophies of fantasy makes the "issue" of no concern to me. That the philosophy of science works and the others can't be verified makes this very much a false equivocation. It's your issue, not mine.

[_Username]

Yes, it is a logical fallacy.

And yes, I'm sure it's an issue in your mind that won't go away if you refuse to let it. Given that you'd like to equivocate between the philosophies of science and the philosophies of fantasy makes the "issue" of no concern to me. That the philosophy of science works and the others can't be verified makes this very much a false equivocation. It's your issue, not mine.

I could just as easily say that your attempt to redefine the meaning of the term 'philosophy' to include only your own personal definition epitomizes equivocation. I could also say that your personal definition, asserted merely by fiat, won't go away if you refuse to let it. Then you'll just assert all over again that your definition is the correct one and we'll keep going in a circle. Ok. Sorry to have wasted your time. I wish you well.

[_Some Schmo]

I could just as easily say that your attempt to redefine the meaning of the term 'philosophy' to include only your own personal definition epitomizes equivocation.

What personal definition of the term 'philosophy' would that be?

And if it's my own personal definition, with what is the equivocation? That makes no sense.

[_Username]

What personal definition of the term 'philosophy' would that be?

And if it's my own personal definition, with what is the equivocation? That makes no sense.

Assuming I understand you, you believe that only the philosophy of science is a truly philosophical philosophy and that any philosophy that does not rely on empirical verification is not philosophical by definition; a fantasy. You thus equate philosophy with propositions that are potentially empirically verifiable. That pretty much rules out every philosophy except for the philosophy of science. Is that what you were trying to say?

As I understand equivocation, it is the use of one term and applying multiple definitions to it as needed to make your case. In your initial responses, I detected reliance on a broader definition of philosophy (whatever is empirically verifiable) then heard you say more narrowly that only the philosophy of science is truly philosophical (not a fantasy). In hindsight, maybe that's what you meant all along (see above). If so, then there's no equivocation on your part. So, to clarify, am I correct in understanding that you only consider the philosophy of science to be valid or were you only calling Aristotle's metaphysics and metaphysical theorizing in general to be a fantasy?

[_Franktalk]

Some Schmo,

If indeed the boundaries of reality are as you say then where does the imagination in the brain come from to ponder these large questions?

Since the imagination is not something that fits your repeatable mold then can it exist? Or do you allow some things to exist but not others? It seems to me that there must be a gray area between masturbation and repeatable experiment.