Not only endearing, but very often incisive, rigorous and lucid too; I don’t necessarily agree with your every conclusion, but I cannot fault your method.
Lib, when I arrived here it was you who became my dialectic driving instructor. If my turn of phrase can lead others to enjoy the scenery and avoid road rage incidents on their journey, the responsibility is ultimately yours.
It might, just might, and I’m just spitballin’ here, have something to do with the fact that you’ve responded to fairly cogent arguments against your beliefs with comments like “Fuck You!” and “Asshole!”
That you’re surprised by the reaction of others to such verbal diarrhea says a great deal.
There aren’t enough roll-eyes in the smiley library to deal with this.
Your “participation” in these threads won’t be missed. Trust me on this one.
Such kind words from those I think so highly of.
Whoever heard of an embarrassed scouser?!
It’s OK to be a mad dog on the board.
Though, it would have been better for you to distance yourself from the frothy barking of SnakeSpirit, who gives wackos a bad name.
Disagreement based on faith is tolerated here if one is civil about it and at least able to recognize why someone holds an opposing view even if one disagrees with it.
Peace.
Fer cryin’ out loud. SM, Lib and Mange, if you’re going to have a threeway, could you at least do it over in MPSIMS? They like that sort of thing over there (or so I’ve heard), but in here it’s just wrong.
Fuck you.
That better?
If you’re trying to turn it into a four-way, I think you’re going to have to do a better job of sweet-talkin’ Princhester than that. Unless he’s into rough trade.
Yep, I was having a panic attack caused by too many positive emotions on a full stomach.
I guess I’ll go against the mainstream here and say I thought this post was way out of place. Not that I didn’t agree with it fully, mind you, but Aeschines is trying gracefully to bow out, and you’re kicking his ass while doing so. As an analogy, consider this exchange:
A: I guess we’ll never see eye-to-eye on politics, will we? Let’s just agree to disagree, and let bygones be bygones. Let’s not discuss politics anymore, OK? Friends?
B: That’s a great idea. Especially when you consider Bush’s poor record on the economy, civil rights issues, and the following points on the war listed hereafter: (etc.)
That’s just bad form. That’s kicking a man while he’s down. Then again, I don’t really know Aeschines’ record, so maybe I’m missing a step. Had it been Lekatt that started such a thread, I might not be so charitable.
This was not my intention, and I hope that Aeschines knows me well enough not to have taken it as such. My list was meant to serve as a bookmark for future discussion between us, since a lot of the progress that had been made in those threads was subsequently rather drowned out by some unsavoury noise. It was not by any means meant as an “ass kicking” - indeed, I’m pretty sure Aeschines already appreciated much of it already, despite what some here attribute to him (IMO unfairly).
I was not congratulating him on the wisdom of avoiding all such discussions in future, but in avoiding those emotionally charged current trainwrecks which, to their detriment, employ something of a ‘scattergun’ approach to all kinds of different phenomena. My intended advice was to wait for a focussed, level-headed debate on a very specific subject and acquaint himself with some of the well-established neuropsychological research from the last 30 years. It really has come a long way and we should all at least try and accomodate its often surprising conclusions.
Thank you, SentientMeat and others, for your thoughts.
In reality, the paranormal was never what I wanted to discuss on SDMB the most. I just felt a strange kind of obligation, especially in recent months, to tell the other side of the story when a guest asked a question or whatnot.
As I said in the ghosts thread, I simply don’t have enough research experience in any of the areas to argue “my” side with any kind of convincing power. In that sense, my efforts were akin to taking a few antibiotic pills during an infection: more likely to do harm than good. To wit, a guest who is truly naive about psi, ghosts, and the afterlife, having seen me trounced in these arguments, is more likely to think the claims have even less merit than they actually do.
At any rate, I thank you again for your comments.
Possibly. It could also be the case that some guests recognize, as I do, that demands for scientific evidence for your metaphysical claims were stupid and Neanderthal in their conception. The dumbest people on earth are those who consider empiricism to be the only valid epistemology. Arguing with them is like arguing with brick-headed fundamentalists who believe that all truth is found in the Bible. Ask them to prove with science that 1+1=2 and their protests will be so shrill as to cause a ringing in the ear. They don’t even know what they are talking about, much less what you are talking about. So don’t sweat it.
Meanwhile, study Sentient’s list carefully. It takes the right approach, interpreting the data as objectively as possible within his subjective reference frame. And understand that you, too, may hold to Ockham’s Razor while asserting that, in your experience, in your subjective reference frame, the paranormal has proved to be an entity that is necessary.
I appreciate your philosophical approach. I was a philosophy major myself. The thing is, I have often tried to make philosophical points in the paranormal threads, as this is where I thought I could argue strongest. But I have been in abject failure in going meta on the issues under discussion; there is always a reversion to calls for “cites.” But all I have to offer are the standard links on the Web–not good enough for the style of argument that prevails on this board.
Thanks.
It is. My convictions are stronger than when I first started posting here, because I have gone back and done additional research on the topics. But I have said all I have to say on these issues. And I agree: Sentient is a great debater and a clear thinker. We just happen to disagree.
Somebody likes me! 
You mean not bad enough. With notable exceptions, this is a place where people think you can’t prove a negative, that Peano’s fifth axiom is an empirical observation, and that logic is useful when it serves their purposes but suspicious when it contradicts their own conclusions. They think all possibilities are epistemic. They don’t know a synthetic judgment from an analytic one. And they don’t know that science is merely a branch of philosophy, just like logic, math, and religion. They aren’t demanding cites because they are interested in your sources; they are demanding cites because they are debating cowards. They cannot argue the points from their own academic skills, and so they employ a stall tactic — sending you off to dig up corroborative material while already poised to declare it unfit before you even produce it. If someone of Sentient’s calibre asks you for a cite, it is because you have made an epistemic claim. But then, that is your own error, given the context of your argument. Use the philosophy you have learned. Don’t give in to their rope-a-dope debating strategies. Call them on their logical fallacies, and admit when you fuck up. Those who matter will know the difference.
Actually, provided that we agree on what “1”, “+”, “=” and “2” mean, this is incredibly easy. I’m sure you can construct a suitable experiment in the safety of your own home.
I’m afraid that no experiment will do. You need an analytic — not an empirical — epistemology. And you need five axioms in addition to the undefined terms you’ve stated. Here is one approach, using the Peano axioms.
If we agree that the epistemology called “science” deals with reality while the epistemology called “mathematics” deals with metaphysical entities, I’d offer this quote on whether proving 1+1=2 scientifically was “easy”:
I disagree. Until a few weeks ago, if someone had gone into CS and started a Showgirls thread, regular posters would have all been saying, “Where’s lissener?”
Not that I’m picking on ol’ lissener, I’m just saying that certain long time posters are expected to show up in certain threads. I think this thread is a good idea, because if Aeschines’s presence is requested in a paranormal thread, all he has to do is link to this one and be done with it.