Sounds like you've taken up the task of solving the demarcation problem.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:16 am You pretend you are a scientist. How much more wrong could you be?
Go for it! I'll grab coffee.
Sounds like you've taken up the task of solving the demarcation problem.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:16 am You pretend you are a scientist. How much more wrong could you be?
Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:18 amSounds like you've taken up the task of solving the demarcation problem.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:16 am You pretend you are a scientist. How much more wrong could you be?
Go for it! I'll grab coffee.
Why do you think your set is authoritative?tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:22 am Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.
Why do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative? You on the other hand apparently believe that there are particular activities that will confer 'scientist' status on some. The demarcation problem is only a problem if you cannot get your head around context. So, what in your head makes you a scientist?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:27 amWhy do you think your set is authoritative?tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:22 am Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.
Because you appointed yourself as an authority which gets to tell me whether my qualification has a place in your set.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:36 am Why do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative?
"On the other hand"? You have a category/set of "scientists" in your head. Surely you have some rule by which you place some people in and out of that category?tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:36 am You on the other hand apparently believe that there are particular activities that will confer 'scientist' status on some.
Do you think you can get your head around context? I know a thing or 1000 about context-free, context-sensitive and recursively enumerable languages.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:36 am The demarcation problem is only a problem if you cannot get your head around context.
The fact that I do science (amongst other things).
What is wrong with me being an authority of my own set?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 11:56 amBecause you appointed yourself as an authority which gets to tell me whether my qualification has a place in your set.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:36 amWhy do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative?
He has a background in computer/information science, and then a casual, hobbyist's interest in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. That's it.tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:36 amWhy do you think it follows that because there are some people I call scientists that I think it is authoritative? You on the other hand apparently believe that there are particular activities that will confer 'scientist' status on some. The demarcation problem is only a problem if you cannot get your head around context. So, what in your head makes you a scientist?Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:27 amWhy do you think your set is authoritative?tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 10:22 am Fair enough. Tell me what you do that in your mind qualifies you as a scientist, and I will tell you whether that has a place in the set I call scientists.
Then categorize me as you see fit. What do you need me for?tillingborn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:11 pm What is wrong with me being an authority of my own set?
What is wrong with you that you care about whether you fit my description of a scientist?
Your views amount to solipsism, whether you explicitly argue for that, whether you like that, or not. It's the upshot of various things you claim. All idealism amounts to solipsism.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 7:26 am
Nope I had never argued for solipsism which is a incoherent theory.
Really? I just had him down as some incel with anger issues.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:12 pmHe has a background in computer/information science, and then a casual, hobbyist's interest in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. That's it.
Idiot.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:12 pm He has a background in computer/information science, and then a casual, hobbyist's interest in mathematics, science, philosophy, etc. That's it.
It's kind of like if someone were to say, "Is there a doctor in the house?" and I were to reply "Yes, I'm a doctor," just because I have a couple PhDs. That's the same sort of way that Skepdick is a "scientist"--because he either has a computer science or information science degree or at least he's worked in a computer science field.
And even if he wasn't explicit about the latter, which he has been, it would be clear, because he's a classic case of "when you have a hammer" ("everything looks like a nail"). He parses everything in computer science terms, more specifically in information science/programming theory terms, and because he must have had some praise and/or possibly a position of some authority employment-wise in that, he has a unique sort of ego-protecting, defiant arrogance in his "when you have a hammer" approach, where in his responses that demonstrate perpetual misunderstanding in novel ways, he'll routinely make completely hypocritical moves, and even outright endorse/forward contradictions in order to do this. His ego is that fragile.
I see what you mean:
And now there are two retarded armchair psychologists on the forum
You seem to struggle with basic arithmetic....