Welcome to a birthday marathon of "Doggerel," where I ramble on about words and phrases that are misused, abused, or just plain meaningless.Woos are commonly under the impression that it's impossible to be happy unless you're a woo of some stripe. Some go as far as claiming it's impossible to believe in all the good things in life if you don't believe in the supernatural. This is, of course, ridiculous on the face of it, but that won't stop them from claiming they've got the upper hand on happiness.
This is, of course, a typical subject change. A drunk person may be happier than a sober one, but that doesn't make the drunkard right. Given the inherent inflexibility I see in woos, I don't see much reason to even give them ground in the subject change: In order to support their various hypotheses, they often have to deny the wonder of the universe, the ingenuity of mankind, and a lot of other generally cool stuff.
Quite frankly, I don't see how the "supernatural" is supposed to be better than the natural world. The "supernatural" usually comes with whines that we can never understand it. The natural world has no such limitations.
8 comments:
The "supernatural" usually comes with whines that we can never understand it. The natural world has no such limitations.
Godel would like to have a word with you.
Of course, applying Godel's Incompleteness Theorem to the mind only actually prohibits us from absolute knowledge (Take that, faith!). We're still quite capable of becoming 99.99999% sure of the way the world works, and capable of having this be the right way. We can just never completely rule out the off-the-wall Matrix-style scenarios.
Yeah, I was thinking of mentioning that, but it'd be a bit of a tangent.
Mostly what I was going on about was that woo sets up explicit boundaries while Godel's IT seems to leave the border as unknown.
"Yeah, we only understand 99.99999%, but if my theory works out and we can redefine this to get around this paradox we might be able to understand 0.000009% more."
Yeah, I was thinking of mentioning that, but it'd be a bit of a tangent.
That's what comment threads (and parenthetical asides; you might have noticed me using a lot of these) are for.
Well, if you think that kissing PZ Meyers ass is happiness, more power to you.
The trail of the evasion-scent continues here.
What's PZ got to do with it? This is about little people like you whining that love, art, and so forth aren't meaningful enough.
Funny, I found nothing about love and art in your original post. Only the usual equivocations, strawmen, and complaining of logical fallacies all the time commiting them yourself.
You can go back to kissing PZ Meyers ass now.
What, too much of a coward to point them out, specifically, Mr. Relativist?
Those aren't the verbal components of a magic spell. You have to, you know, point out the location of those phantom fallacies.
Chicken? Yes, you are, after all, rather than actually follow through with your transparent non-attack, you waste time changing the subject to PZ Myers.
How about I start calling you American Idolater? After all, if you think popularity counts, like in that other thread, you must change your opinion every time a poll goes out, right?
So, do we have to vote to determine if 2+2=4.
Come back when you have an epistemology that's not oriented towards the ever-changing tides of convenience and fashion.
Some comments relocated here.
Post a Comment