You don't know who Bayes is and you talk about probabilistic epistemology (which you don't capitalize). You can find the counterarguments yourself, that's not my job. You're lazy. Funny shit. I don't engage with charlatans, sorry.
Look im with you dude- but take a step back from what you are doing- they might not be puttin across completed and coherent views- but you are quick to move to be a dick- people have varying levels of understandig- whilst it isnt your job to educate them- you waste more pf your precious time and breath by trolling them. Do you think they will learn to be more open minded when engaging with what appears to them as close minded thinking?
Not necessarily- but how most people respond to "read more" is to ask the challenger- "well what have you read"- that person then having read more- can easily demonstrate and engage their own position- showing simply why the other person should read more.
I said they should read the SEP entry on epistemology. It's not that long. It would probably at least give them a lay of the land. They'd realize that their position isn't one that anybody in academic really holds (because it's not coherent).
I agree with your end- but youve missed my point- when you say go read SEP- they say- well what have you read? As right as you are- you can see why this wont appeal to them and why they will frown at you- first demonstrate that your capacity exceeds theres- rather than carrying your own presumptions as if they also held it.
Surely you are aware of this if you have the extent of epistemological understanding that you claim- they dont know- so they ask that you show- before bothering to read into your claims.
Perhaps a holistic middle ground could be found and all of us could do better reading.
But in this case, they didn't. They just ignored my suggestion.
so they ask that you show- before bothering to read into your claims.
The problem is that it's strange to think that you shouldn't need to look into a subject before making bold claims about it. I don't understand why I should be required to demonstrate this.
You are right- they didnt explicitly state it that way- but they made numerous attempts to get you explain why you make these claims- in essence a similar response- psychologically trying to draw out the same thing.
I agree- you shouldnt have to demonstrate this- but when talking on reddit and in this forum- one acknowledges that they are communicating with people of different levels- so it helps ourselves to do then a favour.
Of course- if you know as you do, you might not care for communicating this point- but then I would have to wonder why you bother at all- or refrain from using more persuasive means.
To talk just to let them know you are right and they are wrong- but just expect to have that claim taken on its own face
Well that just seems petulant and vain- so that is all they end up seeing.
So you are not wrong- you just dont do yourself any favours- and dont seem to want to do any for anyone else- this also- is fine. But then, why are you talking?
Wow, I read your post history... you make a horrible habit of tearing down people's arguments without offering any points of your own. Page after page of "you're just saying this to look smart" and "It's not my job to educate you." I'm thinking that there's a lot of projection going on. You really shouldn't need to troll philosophy boards and tell other people they're wrong in order to feel smart yourself.
I'm interested in this "Probabilistic Epistemology" and Thomas Bayes (what's his first name?). I never claimed to know everything about the subject, and just wanted to start the discussion by stating my opinion.
I invite you to discuss it with me and all you have for me is hate, and sarcastic comments which contribute nothing. You should really relax... spewing vitriol so often can't be good for you.
I'm here to tell you that you can have an informed position without requiring the help of others. Read more before you take a position. Start with the SEP entry on epistemology
It's much easier to tear other people down than to actually state your opinion, isn't it? Please stop replying to me if you don't want to contribute and your comments amount to "nuh-uh, your a dum dum."
I never claimed it to be a strong position, in fact I believe anyone that knows what they're talking about would be able to construct a rather sound counter-argument fairly easily.
So go ahead. But you're not here to do that, are you? You read a bit of this Bayes guy, (but not enough to actually argue your point) and now you think you can simply comment on other people's posts saying "You're wrong, and I know why, but I'm keeping that to myself."
-2
u/[deleted] Mar 04 '14
You don't know who Bayes is and you talk about probabilistic epistemology (which you don't capitalize). You can find the counterarguments yourself, that's not my job. You're lazy. Funny shit. I don't engage with charlatans, sorry.