Metaphysics as an Error

[FBM]

As a general rule, it's safe to direct your comments towards the posted material, but when you extrapolate from there to speculate negatively about the poster, well, that's at least a derail, and heading in the direction of personal attacks. Please proceed with caution and maturity. Please? If it's plagiarism, let's talk about the plagiarism, not the plagiarizer's RL.

[SpeedOfSound]

Can a solipsist plagiarize?

[FBM]

Can a solipsist plagiarize?

Uhmm...damn. Not as far as s/he is concerned, I guess...

[Kenny Login]

What we are aware of are the pitfalls of using a word like "existence" and wibbling about ontology. You don't have to say anything about existence in order to do science. Since you are so insistent on declaring the ontologic underpinnings of science, why don't you just fucking say something intelligible about what is entailed in "existence"?

I think this is very relevant. The question of whether we can 'do' metaphysics is an odd one. In the sense that we 'do' science; no, for all those reasons that you plus others have stated. There are intractable problems in thinking about and formulating coherent arguments for metaphysical properties in terms of propositional statements. Let alone being subjected to scientific (in)validation.

But in the sense that metaphysical assumptions may be useful and inescapable heuristics, psychologically speaking, the case is not so clear. I am thinking in particular of research into things like object permanence and self-awareness, self- as spatially separate from others etc in developmental psychology. Karmiloff-Smith is a bit of a guru in the field of developmental neurocognition, and she's done some really interesting stuff in cognition and brain development.

Whether ontological representations count as solely within the physical domain rather than overlapping into the metaphysical, I don't know. (And this wouldn't be too much of a concern for developmental psychologists, nor indeed for science as a whole). But 'existence' may be one such troublesome area: despite the obvious semantic and philosophical problems associated with the concept of existence, it's hard to argue that questions concerning existence are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

It may then be a distraction to view metaphysical investigations of the dualist type, of the 'other', of the 'secret but ultimate reality', as entirely separated from cognitive processing and empirical investigation. That's my position on it, FWIW.

To exorcise the metaphysical from scientific and empirical programmes it has to be expunged from preconscious representation as well as conscious thought. And in that sense I doubt it's possible, at least not without going beyond the remit of any philosophical enquiry. But that's a whole other hornet's nest.

Hopefully still relevant-ish to the OP.

[SpeedOfSound]

it's hard to argue that questions concerning existence are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

Elaborate please?

Why would any of it be pre?

[Little Idiot]

For anyone who was offended or upset by my plagarism, I am sorry.

For anyone interested in how it came about; it was an accidental overlooking of including a cridit to the website. I was cutting and pasting from a word-form of an old post I put on RDF a long time ago, and I guess I became a little mixed over which were my words and which were taken from the website.

I regret the oversite, it was a mistake.

[Little Idiot]

I repeat, knowing how hard it is for you to entertain an opinion not in agreement with or submission to your own; your opinion regarding my professional status is irrelevant.

I could care less whether you think of my opinion irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that if I talked to your boss about plagiarism, he'd find it very relevant. I could be an educator if I wanted to (the hours, however, are not sufficient for me to do it, combined with the low paygrade) so consider it a collegial assessment. Frankly, I don't think anyone here would look kindly upon their educator plagiarising in his spare time. It's all about credibility and if you ever had one here, you sure threw it out of the window with this one.

And I could be a president if I wanted too
You are not seriously claiming to be a qualified teacher, I assume. As briefly mentioned by SoS and myself, sometimes institutions are forced to drag in incompetents to do the job, unless you have a suitable qualification or a few years experience, that is all you would be.

Actually, I'm a qualified teacher, but not a qualified tutor, if that's what you mean. I would have to follow a brief course but my knowledge of psychology is sufficient to tutor it.

Therefore you are no more suitable to give a collegial assessment than the security guard or janitor.

Admittedly, I would have to attend a one, or was it two, hour lecture before I was able to provide such an assessment. The stuff about 'hiring incompetents' is silly and misguided. If anything, the word you are looking for is 'unqualified' workers, but I'll give you that for free considering your apparent problems with the English language.

Obviously my statement that 'your opinion of my professional capacity is irrelevant' is a factual account of the situation - you are not a stakeholder in the school. It is not my opinion, so much as a simple and definite fact.

This isn't about my opinion anyway, it's about your plagiarising

Your opinion of my credibility is just that; your opinion. As such I dismiss it as insignificant to me.

So what? Why should I care whether you care about my opinion? I'm going to post here and comment all I want - remaining within the parameters of the rules. If you start plagiarising stuff, like you did, I'll tell you what I think about that.

You've provided no source, no reference or link to any RDF post that might imply that you were sourcing material. There was no indication that you were 'quoting yourself'. You passed of work of others as your own. That's plagiarism. And yes, this reflects greatly on your role as an 'educator'. It doesn't matter that it was one percent of your post, or that you once linked to the material on a different website, or that the source doesn't agree with your point or mine. You plagiarised material and it makes you an unlikely candidate for a serious discussion and a joke as an educator.

gotta love that smilie for dealing with you

Is it not at least as likely that the original link to the page came from my RDF post, since many of us are former RDF'ers and could well have seen the link?
Is it not most unlikely that someone stumbled upon a website, recognized less than 100 words from amongst the multiple thousands on that site and said to themselves 'Oh look my photographic memory recognizes those few words from that post by LI'

If you get your 'conflict kicks' by talking out of your ass, then feel free. I will however report you to the mods for repeated and unnecessary ad-hominem if you make another comment against my capacity as an educator.
Even if your story were factual rather than mere allegation, even if I were to have zero credibility on the forum in the eyes of everyone, that has no bearing on my professional capacity.

In the words of my current smilie fav;

I think you are the most unqualified and most incompetent educator I have ever met and I think that everyone who you have educated has been a worse person for it and should seek reparations. I think you should be barred from whatever institution you 'teach' at, your stuff thrown out after you, and boo-ed by the students whose trust and respect you so violently raped.
I think a picture of you should be printed out and spread around the campus under which "We do not tolerate plagiarisers here".

Your professional capacity as an educator hinges upon your ability to maintain a standard of ethics. If you are unable to display ethical behaviour, which includes respect for source material (scientific or philosophical) and you are unable to, when pointed out, to genuinely apologise, you have shown that you lack the standards of any decent educational office.

If this forum gives me a warning for this, I'll fight it and if I lose, I'll leave. I have no intention of being part of a forum where I can't point out someone is a plagiariser and make the connection. If I'm here warned for holding up an educator to a standard of ethics, the administration here should ask where they are going with this forum. If you decide to take me to court, I'll subpoena this forum and I'll demonstrate that your plagiarism is true. That's grounds for dismissal, in case you were wondering.

You want my advice? Apologise and get out of this thread while the getting is good. This is only going to be more painful.

This is outragous.

EDIT to say I have reported this post. I see no point in asking you to distinguish between attacks on my posts or ideas and attacks on my person, I have asked repeatedly, and your childish need for conflict drives you too far.
I have reported you formally for continual personal attacks, despite several attempts by me and informal mod notes againsyt personal attacks.
And the rules clearly forbid this, you have no right to do this. The mods may warn me for my mistake, but you should be warned for yours. This means you will leave the forum, by your own post above, or suffer loss of face.

[the PC apeman]

[Little Idiot]

[Luis Dias]

Kenny, I am sorry I do not want to offend you in any way, so don't regard my exercise over your post as anything other than a satire, which should be viewed as an invitation for you to see where we come from, when we hear or read the word "metaphysics".

The question of whether we can 'do' Astrology is an odd one. In the sense that we 'do' science; no, for all those reasons that you plus others have stated. There are intractable problems in thinking about and formulating coherent arguments for Astrological properties in terms of propositional statements. Let alone being subjected to scientific (in)validation.

But in the sense that Astrological assumptions may be useful and inescapable heuristics, psychologically speaking, the case is not so clear. I am thinking in particular of research into things like Star Placement and a Sense of Harmony with the World, self- as spatially separate from others etc in developmental psychology. Hubble is a bit of a guru in the field of Astronomy, and he's done some really interesting stuff in galaxy spotting.

Whether signs count as solely within the physical domain rather than overlapping into the astrological, I don't know. (And this wouldn't be too much of a concern for developmental astronomists, nor indeed for science as a whole). But 'horoscopes' may be one such troublesome area: despite the obvious empirical and philosophical problems associated with the concept of horoscopy, it's hard to argue that questions concerning horoscopes are not being handled preconceptually and preconsciously.

It may then be a distraction to view astrological investigations of the dualist type, of the 'other', of the 'secret but ultimate reality', as entirely separated from astronomy and empirical investigation. That's my position on it, FWIW.

To exorcise the astrological from scientific and empirical programmes it has to be expunged from preconscious representation as well as conscious thought. And in that sense I doubt it's possible, at least not without going beyond the remit of any philosophical enquiry. But that's a whole other hornet's nest.

Hopefully still relevant-ish to the OP.

It may not be an accurate satire. Any ways, we are not dealing here with the usefulness of certain words, metaphors or concepts to deal with some questions and frame our lines of inquiry, research programs. So yes, we can define the "thing" as "consciousness", treat it as a field of research program and then let science do the job of unveiling it. And yes, we can be somewhat philosophical at it, and try to be very demanding of the outcomes of scientific endeavours, and utter at the end of the day "this is still not the cake". What are we demanding, then, and what are our "real" interests here, if we don't know "yet" of what "consciousness" is exactly "made of"? We will probably know when we get there.

This is to say that philosophical questions such as "consciousness", "free will", etc., are important, at least as riddles, as irony laden things, as paradoxical questions that confuse the hell out of us, those are good, they are important to us. At least I think so. Now, this fact alone does not deem them to be metaphysical. By "metaphysical" I mean something beyond the empirical. No, it's not something "Beyond" the empirical. As a matter of fact, it is the very empirical fact of life, time, space, consciousness, etc., that eludes and fascinates me, not the non-empirical side of those issues.

So, no, there's nothing metaphysical at the questions you pose. They are, as all the fascinating questions men have always posed, confusing and probably filled with errors in the formulation of the questions themselves. They will be answered by empiricism, not by navel-gazing, and we will all die anyway at the end.

[Luis Dias]

Bah, exactly. 3 alternatives: You two (LI and JS) either get a bed and work out that stuff between you two; actually report the damned "other" for good and see what the mod actually says; shut the fuck about this and stop derailing this thread to drama queenage ego-tripping mode. If I wanted to see wankering contest, I'd rather watch the parliament tv.

[maiforpeace]

We have a simple rule here: play nice. Demands and sarcasm are not helpful or productive and don't quite fit into that rule. Please keep your criticisms to ideas rather than people.

[Little Idiot]

Bah, exactly. 3 alternatives: You two (LI and JS) either get a bed and work out that stuff between you two; actually report the damned "other" for good and see what the mod actually says; shut the fuck about this and stop derailing this thread to drama queenage ego-tripping mode. If I wanted to see wankering contest, I'd rather watch the parliament tv.

Your right Luis. No point asking him to stop attacking me, again,. he just continues to do so. Therefore, I either take it or stop it dead...

[LaMont Cranston]

Little Idiot and Luis, I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I just wanted to say "Aloha" to both of you. On RDF, I was known as "Dr. Robert Klass," but my new identity is "LaMont Cranston." Please don't tell anybody my secret identity...

[Luis Dias]

Little Idiot and Luis, I hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I just wanted to say "Aloha" to both of you. On RDF, I was known as "Dr. Robert Klass," but my new identity is "LaMont Cranston." Please don't tell anybody my secret identity...

Hey, welcome back, Bob! Check out the Rational Skepticism forum. It's full of RDF people.... this is the last thread that somehow survives here.... it should be redirected there somewhat, somehow.

Do you have anything to say about "Metaphysics as an Error" OP?