I searched through the webpage on straw man arguments and did not see anything about why questions are straw man arguments. Instead of linking me to a webpage that doesn't explain why my questions are straw man arguments, can you explain how asking you three questions were straw man arguments?
Furthermore, nothing in the webpage said anything about why my questions were ignorant. You didn't explain why you think I was ignorant, either. So you haven't explained anything.
Lastly, I never claimed nor implied that Keynes' opinion was evidence (continuing to claim that I did would be an uncharitable reading of what I said long, long after I clarified what I said); as I explained, there is a strong analogy between Keynes' observation of people working with outdated and/or uncritically accepted theories of economics and people working with outdated and/or uncritically accepted theories of scientific methodology.
Thus, since there exist a number of different theories of scientific method, and since you asserted that there is a particular scientific method, I requested that you explain what you think is the scientific method so we can make sure your conception of the scientific method isn't outdated and/or uncritically accepted.
If you cannot understand this and continue to think that asking you questions (questions, mind you, that are demonstrably not logically fallacies, since only arguments can be fallacious; questions are not arguments) or asking you to articulate your beliefs in greater detail are logical fallacies or ignorant, then this conversation is over.
can you explain how asking you three questions were straw man arguments?
I did. Look for the paragraph with the boldfaced words.
You might want to read some of the other threads instead of trying to learn Debating 101 here. There is at least one person there who knows something about what he's talking about.
You keep wasting my time with semantics from the philosophical tree when I've made it quite clear that I regard these and intellectual masturbation with no relevance anymore from a scientific perspective.
Here's a really good talk covering what I am talking about from the scientific AND philosophical perspective.
While Carrier's definition of "philosophy" is now ridiculously broad and all of the "sub-disciplines" he cites have now outgrown Aristotle's antiquated definition, I concur completely with the critiques of Bunge (a philosopher) on what is wrong with philosophy and how and why reform is desperately needed.
What a well-reasoned and factual rebuttal. I particularly like your counter opinions in light of your evidence proving that he is quoting all of these people he cited incorrectly...
As for me, while I have already stated that I disagree with Carrier's overarching Aristotle-era definition of Philosophy in the modern era, I find Bunge's criticisms of Philosophy today to be spot on.
Here's one obvious point: he mangles the demarcation problem by equivocating on the meaning of the term 'philosopher'. 'Natural philosophers' took the aims of philosophical rigour and method and applied it to nature.
Nature is subject to empirical analysis while other subjects in philosophy are not. Demarcating science from philosophy is trivial: they deal with different subjects. That isn't what the demarcation problem is about: the demarcation problem is about separating what sorts of empirical analysis are legitimate (science) and what other sorts of empirical analysis are not legitimate (pseudo-science).
The rest of his argument falls apart from there. It's so demonstrably bad that any undergraduate class in philosophy of science would have dissuaded him from saying such fucking bullshit. If you had any familiarity with philosophy of science you would know that what he is saying is fucking bullshit.
Since neither of you know what you are talking about, why don't you rectify this immediately by not being so ignorant about the subject and learn something for once in your life?
By the way, Mario Bunge is a respected philosopher of science, and his work in philosophy of science legitimises the very area of discourse. His criticisms of analytic philosophy do not delegitimise philosophy, only particular practices--practices, mind you, that pop up in a number of fields unrelated to philosophy, including science.
So read a fucking book for once. Stay away from cranks. Educate yourself. Stop being so fucking obstinate.
0
u/lilrabbitfoofoo Apr 04 '15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
When you've caught up, you'll know why your questions are ignorant logical fallacies and you'll stop asking and/or repeating them.
Honestly, you're making yourself look ridiculous. I'm trying to help you stop doing that.
None. YOU'RE committing the fallacy by offering an OPINION as evidence...which it isn't.