kuresu:
If it is the latter, do you see that you never answered Java's claim that you are, indeed, a Rationalist? After all, a Rationalist is just as much a philosopher as an Empiricist is.
I see your point, and you are right...
I should have stopped it right, then, and there... by saying that I am
not a rationalist. I like to combine disciplines... As I have said before (in other threads), we must combine the rational mind, the existential desires, and the emperical world... into a coherent and composite whole in order to arrive at the truth. Therefore I am not a rationalist. I do however... try to take the best of 'rationalism' (that which it has in common with good logical philosophy in general) and use it properly. So when JavaMan said I use rationalist arguments, he was right. But it was he who called it 'rationalism'. I should have taken the time to calmly stop and think it through right there...
I was also under pressure because of making far too much of the definitions of 'empirical' and 'empiricism' respectively. I was trying to use them to make my case for the effectiveness of 'combined disciplines'. I blew it!
I did not make this clear... so I take responsibility for this mess of sub-topics.
But it has nothing to do with defeating the main topic and the question of the the Murchison extractions. I sensed long ago that you guys were attempting to put pressure on and take attention away from the topic by simply discreditting me. I even complained about it. But those not directly engaged in these discusions have a pretty hard time sorting through the mess I imagine. And it doesn't help, when we magnify errors to make it even more so.
I have never claimed that you guys are unqualified to say anything about the Murchison extrations because of your mistakes (remember when you said you didn't think replication was dependant on ATP?) It wasn't that big a deal really. I only thought you seemed a little desperate to again discredit me.
Stop going for the jugular!
If a person wants to take advantage of a mistake, turn up the heat on one (in this case me) who is known to get sloppy under pressure, and win the debate by converting the tendancies of their opponent into a public spectacle, they can certainly do so. It's good theatre and gives much of the mob what it is they came for. It is even personally gratifying...
But doing so has little to do with finding the truth and everything to do with 'winning'! We win the single battle and lose the larger war.
You already understand what I was saying. We covered it earlier. You even defended me against Archer (for which I applaud you): http://
EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions -->
EvC Forum: Murchison Meteor Questions
kuresu writes:
And technically speaking, science is a philosophy. At least, according to several epistomology charts.
I am not going to say another word about this... I want the rest of the thread left open strictly for Murchison. If you want to debate the definition of science and legitimate epistemology then rip me over there.
Please...
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.