memla
Joined 14 years ago
Karma
173
Submissions
45
Member since
May 17
Recent submissions
Comment · 9 years ago
If the goal is to make it simple to run, why not support SQLite?
Comment · 11 years ago
Opera has built in tab hibernation that seems to work pretty well: http://www.reddit.com/r/operabrowser/comments/2vkdjr/tab_hib...
Comment · 12 years ago
Look, i originally cited that identifying (P⊃◻Q, P) ∴ ◻Q as a fallacy in an argument is an example of refuting that argument without any data. I don't care about your struggles with some random article.
As i said, i don't really want to argue weather that is math or philosophy, especially when i see statements to the effect that affirming the consequent was once philosophy but math "swallowed" it so now pointing out that fallacy means you're doing math and things like that. Talk about imprecise and meaningless right there.
Comment · 12 years ago
First example claims that "(p => q, p) so q" is a fallacy by closely squinting at word "must". Second example claims that p => q where ~q => ~p is assumed is also a fallacy because they claim that one word that q consists of spills out and covers whole statement
No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly.
Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time.
Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.
Comment · 12 years ago
>>It's not that the discussion is simply derailed. It's that it can't even take place until both parties agree on the terminology.
On a theoretical level, this is true for every discussion in every discipline. On a practical level, how would you know that this is a special problem in philosophy if you admit that you haven't studied any?
>>That's the problem. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with... more words.
Just for the record. I did say that arguments are required and of course those arguments are composed of words (and symbols) but i never said that those arguments are about the meaning of words.
Comment · 12 years ago
You can't refute an argument without data.
What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy?
What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?
Comment · 12 years ago
But in a philosophical debate, "right" would be quite ambiguous. One party, for example, could posit that the ideas of "right" and "wrong" are completely subjective. That, in the absence of some stated goal or constraints, what's "right" or "wrong", "good" or "evil" is no more valid a topic of debate than whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.However, once you introduce said constraints, the discussion is no longer philosophically interesting.
So, what you're saying is that the problem of philosophy is that someone could derail a discussion concerning ethics by simply asserting meta-ethical subjectivism and that would be uninteresting or bad in some other way...
I don't quite understand this objection. Not to mention that this is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to find in a philosophical debate. The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned and not just asserted. That of course includes subjectivism.
Comment · 12 years ago
Well, holding fallacious beliefs prevents you from arriving at the correct answer. Since philosophers have refuted many fallacious arguments concerning that question they have, therefore, made some measurable progress.
Comment · 12 years ago
That's sort of like reading this bash quote: http://bash.org/?574642 and saying "What's so funny about people being shot?!"
Comment · 13 years ago
These complaints are ridiculous. Of course philosophy is going to deal primarily with philosophical discussions, and not with scientific ones, that's the job of science!
If you're trying to claim that only scientific ideas are worth entertaining, then the problem is that that claim itself is not scientific.
The commenter you're responding to does not even understand the problem if he thinks science can solve it, as others have pointed out.
Comment · 13 years ago
Judging by that TL;DR people would think that there's an article with pages upon pages of what Facebook decided to eliminate from PHP, and not to make it easier but to make it possible to mantain their codebase. No such thing can be found in the provided PDF.
Comment · 13 years ago
Things like this and some interesting developments from Facebook concerning them are mentioned in the presentation, so it would be nice if people would actually discuss that. Just a suggestion.