Philosophy Now Forum

Terrapin Station wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:I responded from your previous post to relate to this interpretation of yours in this one.

It's not an interpretation (of mine). It's the received view. Logicism failed.

It is your 'interpretation' about the interpretation of others. That you default to trust them by faith just makes me discredit you off hand. I've read and continue to study in this area and it is clear that you haven't. If you want to debate me on this I welcome you. But if you just dismiss me for you own belief in what you've cursorily read ABOUT the problems associated with this subject (including science), you doubly earn my distrust of you.

"Logicism" is not even a word that the original logicians used. But if you base it on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logicism, this is fine for the purposes of the discussion. So in your 'wisdom' on this, if you think you know better, explain in your own terms what you see is the problem with logic that the wikipedia entry summarizes. If you cannot, then you simply resort to blindly trusting what you think has been proven by others and just don't actually care to know 'why' or whether it is or is not valid.

Scott Mayers wrote:It is your 'interpretation' about the interpretation of others.

No, it isn't. I'm reporting the received view.

Aside from that--hey look, it's a condescending, arrogant-yet-ignorant jackass on the Internet. This is the first time I've run into one of those.

(Actually I wish. Sometimes it rather seems that that describes about 95% of the regulars on any arbitrary message board or in any chat room.)

Terrapin Station wrote:No, it isn't. I'm reporting the received view. ...

But whose received view was his point I thought, so what sources are you using?

Aside from that--hey look, it's a condescending, arrogant-yet-ignorant jackass on the Internet. This is the first time I've run into one of those.

He seems fairly rational in his points. Why do you think being told that your opinon might be wrong is arrogant and condescending?

(Actually I wish. Sometimes it rather seems that that describes about 95% of the regulars on any arbitrary message board or in any chat room.)

Except this is a philosophy forum and as such you may well run into those who know what they are talking about rather than the regular yahoos on an arbitrary message board.
p.s.
Not saying you're not one of those who knows.

Arising_uk wrote:But whose received view was his point I thought, so what sources are you using?

The term "received view" refers to a consensus view in a field, and not just a simple consensus, but where the view is held by a vast majority, where the minority view is considered highly controversial within that field.

He seems fairly rational in his points.

I'll charitably refrain from giving an opinion on one coming to that opinion. Of course, I tried to be charitable with him at first, too.

Why do you think being told that your opinon might be wrong is arrogant and condescending?

Why would you think that my comment has something to do with someone having a different view rather than with someone being a condescending, arrogant-yet-ignorant jackass?

Except this is a philosophy forum . . .

Where we should expect people to be condescending, arrogant-yet-ignorant jackasses?

Terrapin Station wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:It is your 'interpretation' about the interpretation of others.

No, it isn't. I'm reporting the received view.

Aside from that--hey look, it's a condescending, arrogant-yet-ignorant jackass on the Internet. This is the first time I've run into one of those.

(Actually I wish. Sometimes it rather seems that that describes about 95% of the regulars on any arbitrary message board or in any chat room.)

Huh?

Argue the "received view" then. I am already aware of what is available on the topic and so it serves no use to bother discussing anything if we already agree universally to some common view.

Scott Mayers wrote:Argue the "received view" then. I am already aware of what is available on the topic and so it serves no use to bother discussing anything if we already agree universally to some common view.

Because you're looking for the Argument Clinic?

I was merely informing people who might not know what the received view is. A large part of being educated in a field consists of knowing what the received views are.

Terrapin Station wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Argue the "received view" then. I am already aware of what is available on the topic and so it serves no use to bother discussing anything if we already agree universally to some common view.

Because you're looking for the Argument Clinic?

I was merely informing people who might not know what the received view is. A large part of being educated in a field consists of knowing what the received views are.

This IS a philosophy forum. And philosophy is about discussion and debating.

Scott Mayers wrote:

Terrapin Station wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote:Argue the "received view" then. I am already aware of what is available on the topic and so it serves no use to bother discussing anything if we already agree universally to some common view.

Because you're looking for the Argument Clinic?

I was merely informing people who might not know what the received view is. A large part of being educated in a field consists of knowing what the received views are.

This IS a philosophy forum. And philosophy is about discussion and debating.

It's not just (ostensibly) about philosophy?

not every claim on logic is logical. It must be true to actuality and exact and complete to be considered logic. Logic testable is the sole means of knowledge about actuality. Someday it will be a complete science logic will.