Correction. Everyone is his own branch of philosophy, potentially. But some never develop beyond the bud; others are stunted as shoots; while a few branches are blighted by close-mindedness and never develop at all.
You’re still wildly missing the point. You need to get back to Communications 101 and how language itself works to begin with. Language is just a set of symbols used to represent various meanings. “Dope” represents a dumb person. It also represents marijuana. It also represents something being cool, rad, awesome, etc. These are all ways that the word “dope” is used. They are all correct. As long as the receiver of the message understands the correct usage and context of the word and therefore understands the meaning that the sender of the message intends to convey, proper communication has occurred.
Much obliged for the linguistics lesson, but you're way off the point with it. ITN and gfm are not talking about ordinary language or the dynamics of everyday communication. They are talking about the foundational assumptions and semantic commitments of a field of study. As I pointed out to you, for naught apparently, even in your engineering example, the foundational theories and concepts are the business of philosophy of engineering, notwithstanding what the ordinary conversation of engineers consists in. This foundational analysis of engineering is the province of philosophers of engineering, trained in engineering and committed to laying out the philosophical groundwork of their field of study. In natural science as well, however the scientists in the labs and research facilities converse.
It studies how and why we reason in those areas...
Yes, philosophy must not make use of outside sources.
Like the Big Bang Theory? The Theory of Evolution? The Theory of Abiogenesis? ... Think about what you're asserting there, good buddy...
You keep using the word "irrelevant." What ITN and gfm are talking about may indeed be irrelevant to what you're talking about, and what you're talking about may indeed be irrelevant to what they are talking about. All that tells us is that you and they are talking past one another. They're talking about one thing, and you're talking about another. For hundreds of posts. I've tried to clear up your differences, but carry on if you insist. It's all the same to me.
Philosophy defines some words. Science defines other words. Logic defines words. Mathematics defines words. You are making a compositional error.
This word is defined by engineering.
WRONG. Cavitation means a stalled propeller or impeller. It can occur in any fluid. In water, you get the little bubbles.
Because the term is defined by engineering.
Correct.
Correct. They defined the term.
'Cavitation' is not defined by philosophy. It is defined by engineering.
The word 'evidence' is defined by philosophy and logic.
The meaning doesn't change in the world of science.
What about your flight gear? What about your radio gear? What about the gears in your engine?
The term 'gear' (like the kind found in your engine) is defined by engineering and (like what you call your landing gear) by mariners The term wandered into aviation along with the navigation lights you use, and other mariner defined terms, such as the 'bilge' in your airplane. 'Rigging' is also in your airplane. That is a term defined by engineering. 'Rigging' is also on a ship, and on a crane.
This philosopher is doing just that.
You are. The term 'gear' as used by mariners (and aviators) may refer to any collection of 'stuff'. People commonly use both the engineering definition and the mariner definition.
No, they don't. They have no idea whether you are talking about your landing gear, your radio gear, your flight gear, your computer gear, your antenna gear, your training gear, etc. unless they gather it from other context.
Nope. Means the same thing as the mariner definition, unless they are using the engineering definition; just like in aviation or at sea.
No, he's actually been quite accurate calling out fallacies you keep falling into. He's also been quite accurate pointing out paradoxes people make.
Paradoxes and fallacies are due YOUR comments.
You don't point out your comments as absurd.
You are now denying your own argument. A fallacy is not a 'card'. It is an error in logic, just like a mistake in arithmetic is an error in mathematics. Logic is a closed functional system, just like mathematics. You can't just deny an error in logic that you made. Go on with your argument and stop making the error.
You are not calling out yourself.
You are not debating. You are barely making any sense at all at the moment.
WRONG. A fallacy is a definite thing. It is an error in logic.
You apparently missed how this line of conversation started. Feel free to step out of it if you aren’t aware of the context
Appearances can be deceiving, as you surely know. I've followed this line of conversation simultaneously in two threads currently active and one other no longer active. So I am both aware of the context and feel free to step out of it. I have this funny aversion to wasting my time.
?? I have been presenting arguments all this time. WTF???
No, you just deny philosophy.
Fallacy fallacy. There is no circular argument here. Philosophy is not a 'who'. It's a 'what'. You seem to think philosophy is a 'who'.
Welcome to your new paradox. Which is it, dude?
Insult fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
They are. They are utterly useless to support an argument on any forum. There is no way to prove them.
I never made any such claim.
True Scotsman fallacy. Philosophy simply is.It is a 'what', it is not a 'who'. Philosophy is quite open. The only rule is that it does not use outside sources.
Already answered in previous posts and here again. Philosophy is not a 'who'.
Not a philosophical argument. You are referring to Pascal's Wager. This is an argument in logic, not philosophy. It applies to more than just the gospel or religion. It is actually the name of the fallacy he pointed out now.
No outside sources are used. No argument of philosophy can use arguments borrowed or taken from others. No Holy Links. No Holy Quotes. No Youtube videos. No outside source or argument at all.
No, I meant predicate. I mean predicate. You are now denying logic. That term is defined in logic.
No, I meant 'undefined'. You are attempting to undefine words completely. You are attempting to convert them into voids.
No, I meant 'paradox'. You have now a paradox outstanding. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. You must clear your paradox to make any further comments related to it. Denying your paradox does not make it go away. The only way to clear a paradox is to reject one argument utterly and to never use it again.
I generally post in response to posts. They are treated according to the response required.
Compositional error fallacy. I am not required to respond to every point in a post. In lengthy posts, it is not practical due to software limits. I do not necessarily respond to arguments I have already responded to.
Anyone who wants to can do so. Indeed, there are times when I encourage it when people are lying. I do not bet on anything of the sort.
Nothing novel here, other than your attempt to define philosophy as a 'who'.
Welcome to another new fallacy. Which is it, dude?
I have already said why. Philosophy is not a 'who'. It is a 'what'.
You are denying philosophy. You are trying to define philosophy as a 'who'.
