Translation: I forgot I repeatedly said and continue to say that. I have no evidence, just self-indulgent pot-fueled blather masquerading as random philosophical statements.
Translation: I didn’t think of the obvious before coming here. I will now pretend I’m going to do something about it while I move on to repeatedly responding with trivialities to other people’s posts. Also, I learned how to spell “tough” from garbage bag brand names.
Translation: I’m arrogant enough to think I’m as good as an actual scientist* but manipulative enough to pretend I’m not.
*I should note for the record here that I don’t think much of Chomsky as a scientist, leaving all politics aside. His thesis has serious holes both in logic and in application. Nonetheless, it was very important in his field and the topic he raised, if not his actual thesis, will no doubt prove important in the future.
Translation: I’m incapable of communicating, so I blame the person I’m talking to. I won’t actually explain in the least what I mean until post #17, where I’ve already made 9 posts right here.
[quote=coberst]
Yes you might be surprised just how you have caught the truth of the matter.
[QUOTE=coberst]
Cognitive science has much to say about this matter.
[quote]
Translation: I don’t.
Translation: While I might have a point, this is an actual argument far beyond me and I don’t actually understand it, the ideas limitations, or the fact that far wiser scholars were wrangling over this centuries ago.
I am a school teacher.
My sister is a school teacher.
My father taught at school.
My mother was a school secretary.
All of us agree, using our professional experience that the educational system does not teach this.
Also, our combined ages are 260+ years. Therefore, by your standards, we know more than you.
Welcome to the Straight Dope.
Here you will find many knowledgeable posters and a true willingness to debate and provide cites and evidence to back up claims.
When one poster makes a contentious claim, it is incumbent upon him to support it with evidence. It is pretty useless to say “my post is my cite”, or “I am very old and know lots”.
If you want to say things like “the word ‘Checkmate’ in chess probably derives from the Persian phrase ‘Shah Mat’, meaning ‘the King is dead’”, then give a source such as:
If you want to say “We are taught by our educational system and by our culture that there is thinking and there is reality and that thinking’s job is to discover reality…”, then give a cite.
At the very least you could say which subject this assertion is taught in.
Thinking is a function of the brain. The brain is part of reality. QED (or DUH)
Maybe your educational system. Why is it impossible for a member of the things that are real to investigate the greater class? No one ever told me that thought was not part of reality. If you claim your experience includes this, give a specific example of the words used. Perhaps you forgot or distorted what was actually said.
Platitudes. As mentioned already, science is a subset of human affairs. Much of science is set up to detect people spinning arguments, lying, or making honest mistakes. That’s what peer review and reproducibility are all about. We understand you have no direct experience in these things.
<Jagger>
Like a lady-in-waiting to a virgin queen
Talking about things that she’s never seen.
</Jagger>
I’ve noted that it is common for teenagers to get fixated on a book and think it solves all the worlds problems. It is depressing to think that this behavior repeats when one gets older.
You should be with the UN. I suspect your translations are not too accurate but they do identify a young person who thinks that to be negative is to be cool.
I’m no spring chicken, and I’m pretty happy with both myself and my life. But then I’ve always been an optimist. I just visited my father-in-law, who at 91 has a new girlfriend (she’s 92) plays intellectually stimulating games, composes music which gets bought, and has just been invited to a store to autograph his scores.
So, speak for yourself.
As for “bring it on” Blake’s post is there for you to respond to. I think it is quite clear and well-reasoned. The ball is in your court.
Obviously, your extensive life experiences have failed you. While young, I never made the slightest effort to be cool. I actually, y’know, learned how to do little things, such as create arguments which convey meaningful information which can be processed by other human beings in a variety of situational contexts. But you probably don’t have any experience with that.
No, but describing how a claim might theoretically be tested is a good way to help people understand what you really mean. And to show that the claim is meaningful.
You really are new to this debating lark, aren’t you?
You made a claim in the first post.
I challenged you on it, asking for evidence.
You said your experience was all you had.
A quick family poll revealed that we had 4 teaching professionals, whose combined experience was way more than yours.
(I would prefer to use cites, but apparently you don’t use them.)
You have no evidence to back up your claim that “We are taught by our educational system … that there is thinking and there is reality and that thinking’s job is to discover reality.”
Since no schools teach this, how do you expect me to produce evidence that your claim is silly?
In case you still don’t understand, I will claim that I have read every school syllabus in both the US and the UK. There was no mention of anything aobut reality and thinking.
Would you like to prove I haven’t?
Oh dear, you can’t.
