ha, the irony!
It’s only ironic for the first 115 thousand times. Human beings aren’t ironic, anymore, they’re pathetic.
ha, can’t quit 
Yeap, the logical positivists. It’s like marx, himself, for neither want to admit they reason. They like to act as if their premise and scope in the instance was clean and of some god-like state and had nothing to do with their conclusions. I don’t get all this separation stuff. So what if a scientist came up with his or her science. If it’s good science, fruitful, and difficult near irrefutation, then so what, a human actually partook in the event. It’s a human partaking in such events that they deem to be so wrong and fallible. Not the science, but the human actually partaking in the science they deem to be an error. They attack the very discoverer, producer, thinker, artist, and individual heart. It’s a perversion of human nature to think we don’t have ideas, think, and reason.
Well, it’s not quite like that. Many of the Positivists, Popper himself for example, held that one could know philosophical truths. What Popper argued that these were not ‘scientific’ statements in the narrow sense, that is verifiable quantitative information about the world. I do not think he ever attacked the ability to reason. Though he (and others, including Russell and Quine in analytics and Wittgenstein in the ‘linguistic’ camp) did have doubts about the ability to communicate certain information in a meaningful way, and he didn’t think you could really know anything about the physical world ‘a priori’. Though you were capable of discriminating between contradictory and non-contradictory.
Witty and Russell are both different, but basically all of them seem to want to reduce reasoning to symbolic transformation. Which is weird - reasoning is the experiential and semantic content, symbols are just ways we attempt to transfer information.
I’m talking about how subjectivity has become to mean something wrong to the point it needs purged.
Did you even bother to look at the trivial picture I linked ? It can’t get any easier. Here, again.
Those are two moving electrons. Moving electrons have an associated wavelenght (the DeBroglie wavelength.)
You are displaying the limit of your understanding. Please stop belittling people who don’t believe absurd things. Believing in absurd things is not a virtue.
I’m saying they are wave packets. They are complex, perfectly possible structures.
They have nothing to do with your mystical, baseless assertions. Physics has nothing to do with revealed religion. But, but, but, your pastor says…
And there it is. The point where an already somewhat off topic thread gets completley derailed due to an argument about an example being made to try to prove a point.
An argument in which probably none of the people were actually informed enough to answer. How many of you can do differential calculus on the fly? I can’t. And are you really a pathbreaking expert in quantum electrodynamics? Or do you perhaps have revolutionary ontological views?
Seriously, know thyself.
I’m not saying not to talk about this stuff. But keep a little perspective. Whoever called Stirner an idiot, is an idiot.
I’ve provided a response, just you haven’t found it to your liking, so you dismiss it. Neither through logic, nor maths, can you analyse nor understand the Lord.
I would accuse you of the exact same trick, only, you’re using it the other way.
Crushing. I like it.
Here. f(x)=x^2. Derivative is 2x. Wow, I’m such a genius. Speed is the rate of change of position wrt time (first derivative). Acceleration is rate of change of speed (second derivative). An object moves 1 meter in 1 second. Speed is 1 m/s. Differential calculus on the fly.
The thing is, physics is bounded by logic. Any illogical claim made by the high priests of modern physics is, well, illogical and false. Invoking them as an authority is just compounding fallacies.
I take it the faith vs. reason debate was already off-topic ? The original topic was if libertarians tend to be atheists or believers ?
Very true. That is what I meant by “somewhat off topic”. I think it would be better for everyone to be more willing to use “break off” type threads to keep these threads easier to read, more to the point, and therefore more useful to a reader.
That being said I am half tempted to do a drinking game on this site to see how many times any talk of religion turns into the God vs No God debate. I just bought a bottle of 15 yr Scotch, I may as well put it to good use.
The thing is, physics is bounded by logic. Any illogical claim made by the high priests of modern physics is, well, illofical and false. Invoking them as an authority is just compounding fallacies.
I agree. Which works well when critiquing the explanation of a model, but not so much when we’re advancing a new one (except for telling us what models are not logically acceptable). But many of the arguments were relying on fairly narrow interpretations on pretty complicated experimental evidence which probably none of us is really qualified to evaluate.
Two words: Bohm-Aharonov(sp?) Effect.
Or in other words, God is the unconceivable concept, the invisible pink unicorn, the insideout holey sock, the living-dead vampire-human, the honest politician, the klein bottle of dehydrated water, and so on.
Or in simpler terms: it’s bullshit.
Not one that has any merit.
Blatant assertion. Rejected as such.
But then you’d commit the fallacy of a strawman.