I think you might be confusing me with someone else, Blaggard. No doubt I can be a self righteous p****, but on this occasion, I don't think I have been. I fully acknowledge that some of what you post is philosophy and apologised for implying otherwise. The fact that the posts I accepted as evidence didn't contain any references to books or authors, should stand as evidence that I don't think it is necessary to read books to do philosophy. What I was asking was, on what do you base judgements such as this?
Blaggard wrote:...I doubt most philosophers have even met many scientists, let alone are in any position to have an opinion on what scientists are like, I get the same impression about their ideas about how science works, and various other things too, that they have a sort of cobbled together internet philosophy of science and scientists, and almost no practical knowledge of actual science or actual scientists.
I don't think it is necessary to read books to do philosophy, I do think though that it is reasonable to expect that a judgment of philosophers is based on some appreciation of what they have actually said. I also think it is a minimal courtesy that if you feel compelled to respond to a post, you at least read it.
We all are allowed to do our own thing and learn in our own way you know.
I have said as much on many occasions, even citing an author and book, that is a powerful exposition of precisely that point (Feyerabend; Against Method. It is worth reading, but not necessary; the gist is that a look at the history of scientific progress will show you that any idea of a scientific method beyond, as you put it I think, put up or shut up, is not supported by the evidence. Methodological anarchy he called it.)
You see what I mean you start off ok just being logical and then I feel I want to reply, and then you say something really pompous like, I suggest you read my authoritah before you respond because even though it doesn't need to be said and you are just reiterating the shit you said earlier, I do so need to be patronised again, and then I just think you really havent understood anything I have said at all, and the hypocrisy is amazing. You're so busy being up on your high horse, you actually think it's apposite to talk down to people.
I started this ball rolling by saying if you are going to criticise where science is now you know something about where it is now, I haven't criticised mainstream philosophers however only some "philosophers" who are not actually Philosophers. You're come back has been about how limited I was in philosophy, well duh no fucking shit Sherlock. You started this whole derail into me as a person and all my faults, faults I have already laid out at length anyway on many other threads. It's like you are trying to teach me to suck eggs. You're telling me what I already know, what I already said, like you are some sagacious wit, but really all you are doing is repeating things I don't care to hear because they are already known. I can learn however I like and no hidebound feckless person can tell me otherwise. If you don't like the way I chose to learn about a subject, or express myself the ignore function is there, but I am fucked if I will be talked to like 3 year old who has been naughty. Go single out some other pleb you can be pompous to.
I really don't have time for this shit any more if you want to start an ad hom thread about how evil I am do so but that's about it for me, there's only so much pompous ad homs you can take before you get bored.
Let's get back on topic. There's better things you could be doing than patronising people and insulting them, so stick to that. Clearly you don't realise how pompous and patronising you sound when you tell me things I have already said a dozen times. Yeah right on dad, roll on.
Yeah we're all allowed to express opinions but when you start out insulting people left right and centre, are you really surprised you don't have a decent dialogue, because all you have done is demean and insult and you know it. So don't come the oh if only he read my veiled insults shit with me. You know full well that you have made this all about me and not about the thread topic. And so does everyone else. Is that good philosophy? I don't think so.
Apprently philosophy is all about just reiterating what dead people said, yeah whatever. Who the hell do you think you are and while you are thinking about that why not think about joinging a thread I am on and attacking my argument instead of me? Because unless you do I am fucked if I care. ::)
Good God I an only hope you aren't like this in real life, because I can seriously tell you, you'll be waking up in a ditch at 3 in the morning with blood all over you, or dead soon if you ever deign to speak to people like you do now, in real life.
You seem to think you can just wade in talk shit at someone, not tackle the actual thread topic and then wade out like some mighty arbiter of justice. You do know what an ad hom is right, because you've done that for several threads now, and none of them have been justified despite your back tracking and sophistry.
Time to put the person back on ignore, no damn it I know you are just going to try and reply to this and it will start with a reasoned argument, but then it will just devolve into a serious of ad homs as usal so why bother, you have a bee in your bonnet, and you should really take your hat off. Because that bee keeps stinging your head.