Skip to main content

View Diary: I am a fundamentalist (278 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So therefore you have essentialized (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joanneleon

    a formalism, and made it fundamental.

    If you present me with a single example of the failure of empirical induction as a metholody [sic]for constructing useful models of the physical world - useful in the sense of its predictive value, I will no longer consider it as a safe bet.

    The only thing that can disprove empirical induction is empirical induction: a tautology typical of all ideology.

    BTW: Here is where you are not getting the entire argument.

    Ironic that you seek to condemn rationalism using rationalist argumentation tools such as logic, yet won't go all the way and back up mere assertion with evidence.

    I actually am not arguing against empirical induction, or rationalism, I arguing that not all forms of fundamentalism or ideology are bad, false, or un-progressive.

    "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

    by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:31:51 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry, empirical induction as the ONLY (0+ / 0-)

      answer to empirical induction is not a tautology but a closed system - which allows no challenger beside itself.

      "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

      by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:35:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are employing logic to disprove logic (0+ / 0-)

        Your argument is meaningless unless one accepts the very premises you question.

        As for your final statement, if you assert that x is not y, y being the more commonly accepted interpretation, then you need to present at least one single bit of evidence that x is not y.

        Otherwise, you are merely asserting without substance, and, since you reject the methodology of rational thought, there is no basis upon which to evaluate the relative merits of your argument.

        Saying, "empirical induction is a dogma, but not all dogmas are bad" s a circular argument without utility. You haven't established the veracity of your initial premise.

        In fact, you continually make mere assertions, do not back them up with anything, and yet attack the notion of making assertions that are subject to falsification as dogmatic.

        Your argument is faulty on its face. Of course, by neatly discrediting logic, you have made yourself immune to that charge. You have also made the conversation utterly meaningless and useless.

        Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

        by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:21:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is exactly what all ideology does, (0+ / 0-)

          even empirical induction, because only empirical induction and logic is accepted in the closed and fundamentalist system of empirical induction.

          There can be no challenge to the one and true God/Church/State/Power and only God/Chruch/State/Power can make revisions.

          Your ideology is inauthentic.

          At least I admit to my own fundamentalism.

          "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

          by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:13:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Inisting that others share your mindset (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lonely Texan

            is the manifestation of a closed mind. You have, indeed, demonstrated your own fundamentalism.

            Simply asserting that all others are fundamentalist as well is not proof of anything.

            Since you reject a priori the notion of logical proof (yet continually attempt to use it to prove your point), there is no basis for your imputation of beliefs to others.

            If your own fundamentalism does not include even the simplest principle of not presuming to speak for all others nor presuming to be the only person to know the true truth about the world, it is trivial for me to argue that it is self-contradictory, invalid by any thought system but your own, and counterproductive.

            It certainly is useless as far as making any predictions about the world.

            In fact, your use of sentences in logical constructs undermines you own premise.

            This has been fun, but useless.

            Ultimately, you have derailed the conversation into a fruitless sophist exercise, whose only purpose seem to hypocritically tell all others they have no grounds to challenge any of your assertions, while you reserve to yourself the right to challenge everyone else's assertions.

            If you actually argue this in your everyday life, it must be a lonely world indeed.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:48:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here talking to you buddy, (0+ / 0-)

              I have been trying to recommend you actually read elsewhere for the roots of this sophistry, your sophistry.

              "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

              by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:13:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Presuming that others have not read something (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lonely Texan

                because they differ with your beliefs is more manifestation of your dogmatic thinking, not evidence of the ignorance of others.

                It is also a fallacious form of argumentation.

                Since you reject the notion that logic is valid, there is no point in even having a discussion. You make a claim based on logical principles, yet when the logical flaws in your argument are revealed, you claim to reject logic.

                That is mere sophistry, and I have encountered the mentality many times in debates with Creationists. You apparently think you have discovered something new and wonderful, because a college professor assigned to it impressive sounding multi-syllabic words.

                It is a tired old philosophy that was dealt with in ancient Greece, and discarded because it is sterile, impotent and useless. It leads nowhere.

                And none of it sheds any light on the questionable values this diary promotes, nor the critiques presented to them.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:23:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I know the discussion is tiresome, (0+ / 0-)

                  its why I haven't put much effort into this discussion, made my responses short, I didn't comment in the original diary.

                  It is very very old. TINS opened it, and I was never really interested in discussing it.

                  "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

                  by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 04:04:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Simpler version: you could simply be wrong (0+ / 0-)

            your argument could be erroneous and your logic whatever it is, flawed.

            Your dogma could be incorrect. It could be you who is inauthentic.

            Yet you presume to tell all others that they are wrong.

            Your philosophy is self-defeating. If not wrong, it is at least useless.

            Since you yourself do not actually practice what you preach, your credibility is nil in any case.

            Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

            by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:52:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am not preaching it, (0+ / 0-)

              the funny thing is that you and TINS ARE.

              "What is the robbing of a Bank compared to the FOUNDING of a Bank?" Bertolt Brecht

              by thethinveil on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:11:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Preaching what? (0+ / 0-)

                I came to this diary questioning the choice of the commonly understood word "fundamentalist" and "sacred" referring to text, in the light of the real-world consequences of the real-world use of those mindsets as commonly understood in the real world, including entrenchment, hostility, and, ultimately violence and hate.

                I suggested alternatives that are less divisive and can create the foundation (note the critical distinction) for common ground.

                I asked clarifying questions which were not answered, and I challenged an absolutist position that most definitely was preaching. (It is ironic, by the way, that you don't apply the "preaching" critique to the diarist, given the contents of the diary).

                You have responded with sophistry and straw men, and efforts to entangle others in utterly irrelevant discussions that shed no light on the subject of this diary nor my critique.

                I am not the one writing a diary proudly proclaiming fundamentalism. Hard to see how I am "preaching".

                But then, you seem to use words in your own way, ignoring their common meaning, so perhaps your sympathy with the diarist is understandable.

                Always make new mistakes - Esther Dyson

                by RandomActsOfReason on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:20:15 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site