Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Sun Sep 26, 2021 4:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am
As I have stated you are making too much noises focusing on frivolous and petty issues rather that presenting a proper argument to support your realism against anti-realism in relation to the OP.
Yes, they are frivolous and petty issues, that also just happen to be the frivolous and petty issues you brought up yourself as your central arguments against my detailed standpoint on the subject presented in the OP. So yes, I'm pounding the red herring fallacies that you insisted supported your case, which has now been reduced to ashes. In that sense:
- You're neither an absolute expert, nor a reasonable expert, nor an expert in any level in relation to the realism/antirealism issue, you're just a philosophy fan with no credentials writing opinions in an internet philosophy forum, not so different than anyone else around here.
- It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're mostly ignorant of what modern realism entails. You have not read realist literature, including Critical Realism, and your stance on the subject of realism vs. anti-realism is based almost exclusively on Kant's 18th century depiction of realism (which you treat as if it were a sacred text), supporting this dogma with the accompanying antirealist literature. That's what you call "extensive research" and it's absolutely laughable.
- While you pretend to be the judge that settles the matter, you're actually the biased attorney pleading for the anti-realist side. Your case lacks impartiality and disinterested objectivity. One can never expect that the "proof" demanded in your OP will ever satisfy the requirements that you place there supposedly to settle the matter. In fact, the whole thing is a vitiated circle from the start, as the requirements for "proof" are invalidated by anti-realist assumptions. It is like the famous depiction of Baron Munchhausen pulling himself out of a mire by his own hair.
Surely, since this has become very obvious and must sound quite unpleasing to your inflated ego (I thought you were a Buddhist or something like that, but anyway...), you must cover your ears and call it "noise".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am
I had never claimed I have read [fully] all the >9000 files [books, articles, notes, etc.] I have in my computer.
However I dare claim I am fully aware of the contents, abstracts and themes of these files, else I would not bothered to save them in my computer for future references.
Yes, you had. Either you have a short-term memory or you're simply lying. I had already argued (and provided the numbers) that it was impossible for you to read the whole 9K files you said you have in your computer. You could have conceded and answered what you're saying now, of course, but no, you replied that you could "
cover 100 to 200 of them in a week" and that you "
...also have various methodologies to do speed reading." I called all of that BS right away and exposed your lie.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Sep 24, 2021 7:45 am
I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.
You are recanting, you did claim that. You pretend to have forgotten that the issue was whether you knew both sides of the argument on realism vs. antirealism or not, and you challenged me to prove that you had missed key realist literature. And then you came up with the claim that "
[...] I have >9500 file in >600 folders in my Main Philosopher Folder and appx 50% of that would be related to those of the typical Realists." 50% of 9,500 makes it around 4,750, and so far you have only listed around 20.
If one wants to make a fool out of oneself, that's how you do it.
You are still making noises and focusing on the frivolous.
As I had stated I had never claimed to be an absolute expert on those subject but merely a reasonable expert.
Regardless of what I claimed re the above or you claimed otherwise re the above frivolous points, they have no significance to the argument re the OP and the realist vs anti-realist issue.
Btw, it is very common for those involved with philosophy [and other areas] to provide a CV.
When a person present his credentials or make various claims, that only give an impression and a clue to the other party. It is not truth until it is proven evidently, in most cases such claims do not even matter.
What counts are the arguments that one can present on the topic on hand.
As I had stated you have merely been making noises with the above frivolous matter but have not presented proper arguments to support your stance re the realist and anti-realist debate in relation to the OP.
I have opened threads on Bhaskar and Bunge, you could easily use those OP as a starting point to justify your argument in support of your realist stance from the Scientific Realism perspective, which of course from my perspectives are full of holes.
I am waiting for you to present your arguments based on Bhaskar and Bunge [or wherever] so I can counter them with references from the 1000s [4750] of files I have on hand.
and so far you have only listed around 20.
That was specifically to Critical Realism.
Note I replied earlier,
- Re the thousands of files related to Realism vs Anti-Realism,
I have argued for the following;
All Philosophies Reduced to Realism vs Idealism
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643
Since I have >9000 files related to Philosophy,
I am confident on that basis >4000 files are related to Realism or Anti-Realism in some ways.
I did not claim I have >4000 files specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate. Nevertheless I have read many books and articles that are specifically related to the "Realism vs Anti-Realism" debate.
Can you counter why you cannot accept the above response to your question?
Note at present the majority of philosophers belong to either those of the Analytics [mostly UK and USA] the majority are realists and those of Continental Philosophy [mostly Europe], the majority are anti-realists.
Since my approach is eclectic my philosophy database will have a fair share of Western Philosophy re analytic [realists] and continental philosophers [anti-realists].
As such if I have >9000 files, I am confident 50% of my philosophical files are likely to comprised either analytics or continental, thus realist vs anti-realists views.
I could give you a full list of all the files I have, but it would be stupid of me to oblige to your request given the long time and tedious effort* to do so.
If there is a sure way we can establish a bet that you pay me US4500.00 if I am proven true and I'll pay the same if my claim is false, then I will take the effort to do it because I am very confident of the facts in my possession.
* even for the 20 files I listed, I had to do the following;
1. Print screen of the folder,
2. Paste it to Words
3. Crop and save it as an image file.
4. Convert the image to text, using a special software
5. Copy the converted text [which is one chunk] to Word,
6. Format the text.
So much work for 20 files and
to extract >4500 files would be too tedious.
But if you are willing to bet US4500.00 and there is assurance of payment either way, then it is worth my effort.
I had done it before, one can extract the files from the folder using a written command where on has to write the code and that is also tedious.