Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dan Vogel

Pious Fraud

Recommended Posts

It's kind of funny how Wade talks about "paradigms" as if they are an objective part of the world that those who take graduate courses in philosophy would study in the same way a graduate chemist would study an electron shell.

It is even funnier that you would think this is what I have done, when I clearly haven't. Straw men can be funny some times.

Nowhere, in anything I have written on this thread, will you find me advocating paradigms as an "objective part of the world."

The idea of a "paradigm" is contraversial in the philosophy of science, and I think we're all still waiting for a single clear cut example of a paradigm, or a paradigm shift.

Whether it is controversial or not, does not disallow one from rationally favoring one side of the controversy over others, and making arguments based on that point of view, as I have done here.

Kuhn doesn't appear to have succeeded in revolutionizing the philosophy of science with his idea, and one could pursue many interesting problems in the philosophy of science without having to spend much time if any, thinking about "paradigms."

So? Do you have a relevant and significant point hidden somewhere in there?

And even if Kuhn were right, a paradigm wouldn't be nearly as trivial as Wade presents.

This is odd. You open your post by accusing me of equating "paradigms" with the exacting, graduate chemist study of an electron shell, and now you accuse me of trivializing. Someone apparently needs to do a bit of quality control on your straw man production so that you don't end up contradicting yourself as you have done here.

You know, you have your paradigm, i have mine, they have their own self-contained internal logic that defies comparison so we should just all go home now nothing to see here folks.

If this is you suggesting that people should just "go home," then you are certainly entitled to that opinion, and I would submit that the chances for the discussion become more productive may be greartly iomporoved were you, personally, to follow that suggestion.

But, I certainly have suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I iterated, and reiterarted (and apperantly, will need to reiterate yet again) to Dan Vogel, quite the contrary.

When the word "paradigm" gets brought up in apologetics, you can be sure you're not in for a serious discussion and best to just smile and move on.

Certainly, you have demonstrated a lack of seriousness, either in terms of comprehension or contribution. Apologist can't be held responsible for your failings.

I have not seen a meaningful comment about "paradigms" yet from an apologist.

You have yet to demonstrate (at least here or anywhere else that I know of) nough compitence and authority on this subject for apologist to even care or have cause for concern about what you may or may not see on the matter.

A serious discussion about paradigms would be contraversial at best. But when it's tied to apologetics, it merely becomes the psuedo-scholarly way of covering ones ears and screaming.

I can understand it being a bit too controversial for your taste, and given your pseudo-scholarly comments on this thread and others (contributing little more than a scream and covering your ears), I can see why you might project the same onto apologist. It is not uncommon for critics like you to poison the well like this since that seems to be as much as you have to offer. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
At the end of my previous post I clearly indicated that I wasn't suggesting that people with differing opinions not talk to each other. In fact, I specifically said that wasn

Share this post


Link to post

Wade,

First, I will note this rather interesting juxtaposition of sentiment:

So, while I may not write with perfect clarity, I cannot be faulted

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...