chasteh

Oh RushMC, I missed you. Theres nothing like watching someone repeatedly ram themselves into a brick wall.

>Marg, I think you are arguing with a pure existentialist (experiential? not sure of the terms here, i admit), and my suspicion is he will say that no, the jovian moons did NOT exist until we "observed" them. That is absolutely absurd. Such a thing is easily disprovable. As far as existentialism goes, I am not quite sure about it. I have much more to study and think about before I claim my position, much less label myself so that you all can use the same rubber-stamp arguments against me. >this seems to be a description of his underlying personal philosophy. I couldn't tell you, because I haven't decided what to think myself. I can give you a long list of the problems I find in other perspectives, though. Why dont we start with science? I already have. Religion? Already did. >If a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound? What is "sound?" Are we assuming that the empirical world is real? We need to be more specific. I, however, will admit to you that I think that things (whatever those are) exist (in whatever form) independent of perspectives. >Cliche, perhaps, but this particular philosophy that answers the question with an emphatic "no" is very difficult to reconcile with the empirical evidence that yes, the tree hitting the ground creates sound waves, thus creating a sound. Again, I have said no such thing! >As you can probably tell from my tone, i think this particular philosophical bent is, to put it bluntly, pure bunk, Well the one you thought I endorsed sure is. >however, i will freely admit that i don't have the philosophical education to effectively argue against it. Fair enough. >My brain is bouncing around the ideas that the existentialist ideas are as much of an "irrational" belief as religion (or science, according to chasteh), but i don't know how to nail it down right now. Yea that much is possible. You'll have to show me where I consider myself an existentialist again. >this is not a PA, just a funny: i'm thinking of the old joke right now about what did the philosophy major say after graduation? A: Would you like fries with that? (please no offense...if i could have minored in it, i probably would have) There are a ton of good ones. Oh hey look there are two philosophy majors. I wonder if they share the same shopping cart? Hah! No need to wonder. I am a Flight Instructor. Philosophy is just for fun. edit: ...and my plan for world domination. *Cough*

>If those are your stipulations then the inus is on you to show them. >First, is either belief irrational? Are they rational? >Second, do either groups exhibit the stipulated beliefs? Religion: Depends on the assumption that God exists. Science: In this case, depends on the assumption that the empirical world is real, and that we can obtain actual information about it. >If either (or both) are false, the assertion is false. Doesn't look like they are false. Both science and religion depend on assumptions that cannot be proven by us. One tends to be more dogmatic in its approach than the other. >And at least you’re referring to scientists rather than “science” now. Use them interchangably, if you wish. >The asserted equivalency does seem to have changed from the original version, which is quoted above. Are you trying to prove or disprove the existence of “a ‘God’” now? No. I am saying doing so with science and religion will never be achieved. "If religious folks are irrational in the belief of a "God" Then Scientists are irrational in the disbelief of a "God"" I also said: "What is naive of scientists is linking their discoveries within the sensible world as actuality. That m uch is not provable. It is naive to say that it is actuality when you cannot prove it." >It doesn’t. It demonstrates that skepticism and religion can co-exist. That neither are mutually exclusive. Youll have to show me where I said that skepticism and religion can't co-exist. Oh yea, and do you remember this: "Sure. It's just that many of their churches don't encourage or even permit "testing" of any sort. That sounds more like bondage to authority than religious love." I recall saying: "Do you need more examples of statements among religions that are both stated by the religions themselves and mutually exclusive?" in response to another post, if that is what you have a problem with. My comments on mutual exclusivity were a bit different were they not? >Science only applies to those parts of the world that is knowable. Oops! Think BIV scenario. Shit. >If it’s not knowable one can’t use the method (science) to study or know of it. Bullshit. You can still use induction to say that you are 99% sure, for example, that the empirical world is real. However, Knowledge or certainty do not come in degrees, therefore, you cannot say you "know" it. You can still use the scientific method to constructively assess, research, and develop within the realm and not be 100% sure that it is real. >For example, before Galileo viewed the Jovian moons through his telescope did they still exist? Yes. hehe. IF the empirical world is indeed real. Read Schopenhauer's World and Will as Representation, or really any of the modern philosophical writings. This is still highly debatable, with possible alternatives, therefore you cannot be certain of such masses. >We didn’t have tools to see them. That didn’t mean they didn’t exist before the 1600s. Right. That doesn't mean that having tools to "see" what you refer to as "them" exist either. You have inductive probability on your side, not deductive certainty. I still admit the empiricist is PROBABLY right, but I cannot say it with certainty, thus I cannot KNOW. >The existence of the Jovian moons wasn’t ‘knowable’ by scientific methods (public, repeatable, pertaining to physical world) before that.... and so on... You still are speaking science-talk. Please go read up on BIV scenarios. Your not eliminating the possibility that this is all wrong. You need to eliminate the BIV scenario as a possibility to claim certainty about the physical world. We are not discussing certainty given the world being real, which is what your still lost discussing here. Stop it. >For example, before Galileo viewed the Jovian moons through his telescope did they still exist? Yes. Oh yea, I NEVER claimed that truth EVER depended on your perspective, or the limiatations of your perspective. Stop it. I said that you cannot come to certainty by the limitations of "us" and our "experiences." I NEVER said that actuality depends on your view. UGGHH!!! >I find the real existence of cooperative binding of oxygen to hemoglobin and myoglobin to be a very, very fortunate thing. Respiration and a whole host of other physiological processes suffer without it. BIV. End. >please correct me if that’s wrong, but your posts in this thread have been very hard to follow "afaik" As far as I am concerned they do. I guess thats where we split ways, Nerdgirl. BIV. Go read about BIV's please. >You’ve been given an example in which assumptions don’t change the physical reality. For the love of God, are you reading? Look at what you quoted: "It is another crazy assumption to say that actuality depends on your perspective." Therefore, by my assertion that such an assumption is crazy, I do not endorse it. I am saying nothing of the sort! Again! >What are these irrational assumptions? That the empirical world is the actual and only world. "Science only applies to those parts of the world that is knowable." - from your own post. >Asserting something repeatedly doesn’t make it true. Excellent. I definitely am not banking on repeated assertions. Are you? I am well aware of such a rhetorical fallacy. (Blasted rhetorical fallacies, being the foundation for an entire subject in philosophy) >And remember, if it’s outside the realm of the physical universe, science is not the appropriate method Thank God. (Oh man what a pun) >What are those criterion? Or have you redefined “knowing” to suit the hypothesis you assert? The most common from of traditional "knowledge," as defined in epistemology, will suit well. JTB perhaps. Certainty is really all I am concerned with. Certainty meaning JTB that cannot possibly be false. >than it is outside the realm of science. That’s the realm of the metaphysical. Not when science conerns itself with searching for truth. >To give a trivial example: like debating whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better. Heh. Yea, as if knowledge were actually dependent on something such as preference. Please. >What’s important for one person in choosing ice cream flavors may be different than someone else. Well thank you for that insight. Ill write that one down for later. >That’s not the realm of science. Ook. (Tangent: Actually, for psychologists and nutritionists it is- but what the hell) >You’re right to some extent. No one can be absolutely certain that tomorrow the sun will appear to rise in the east. Nor can I be absolutely certain that tomorrow morning I won’t wake up and be 5’10.” Precisely. This is the little room I am banking on, but nevertheless can use to say that you can't know that science tests the "actual physical world" or that religious people are "right" when they infer that God exists. >I can be pretty gosh-darned certain that the sun will appear to rise in the east and that I won’t gain 5” in height while sleeping No, you cannot be "pretty certain." You have inductive strength. In this case, we are just arguing the meaning of the terms and what symbol is appropriate. You get my point. >Those hypotheses can also be tested. Ok maybe yo don't get my point. They can be tested, but not with complete certainty. You may claim "I will wake up tomarrow 5 10" but to be believe it as true is to leave room for being false, which means you can't be certain of it. >And the results can be shared in a verifiable way. It's like testing that gravity won't work one time when you skydive. If the empirical world will continue into the marrow, then we can infer that it will be there and gravity will work. However, we cannot claim the antecedent of that statement. >Religious or spiritual experiences aren't subject to public, repeatable verifiable tests and causal mechanisms. Sure they are, you just don't get anywhere with scientific measurements of them.

>So you're saying that Christians only help others because they want some benefits for themselves in afterlife? Not all of them, but a majority, if not most. It also could be for fear of going to hell for not helping others. It could also be because they just want to help other people to help them, without ulterior motives. >And once you remove those beliefs, then a lot of them would stop helping others? Yep.

>The Constitution stole from the Magna Carta Isn't that like saying Spanish stole from Latin? Thats kinda different from one business stealing from another business. >Ford stole the assembly line from Eli Whitney, who stole the idea from England (edit) But did he steal the idea of using an assembly line for the purposes of mass producing automobiles from Whitney? Thats a bit harder to relate to stealing an operating system that had the same code and the same interface, with different labels. In this case, with Microsoft, Apple, Xerox, were talking about "stealing" something from another person, that would just so have happened to make that person the wealthiest person on Earth. That's a pretty big deal, bucko. (I will admit it was stupid of both Xerox and Apple to allow a competitor to tour their facilities in the way they did. What a disaster)

Oh yea, you guys put up a pretty good fight too. (Well, due to the complexity of your responses) I have found quite a few intelligent posters in this forum, probably of a higher ratio than I have found in others.

Fair enough. I really enjoyed talkin with you guys though. Arguing on the internet may make you a retard, but I find it very therapeutic. I hope it does for you guys too. Im sure it does.

>If logic were empirically shown to be wrong, would it be changed? Has it? Can it? If logic were proven wrong, you could no longer use statements like "If...then" With any indication of truth-preservation. It would also make propositions rather worthless, as truth-values would no longer have bearing on anything. What would then be the purpose of scientific inquiry? Looks like the empirical world isn't going to do much to dent logic. Crap. >If you answer no, logic can prove nothing of consequence. In that case, logic would be subordinate to science. Perhaps you could try doing this. You will have changed logic and science forever. >If you answer yes, logic is based on empiricism. Not necessarily. Logic would then have been shown to have a possible influence from empiricism. It does not, however, mean that logic is based on empiricism. Major difference. Also, when are you going to show that logic is based on empiricism? When are you going to show that logic is even influenced by empiricism? Cmon man! Lets fuckin roll. Or float. I like boats too. And dolphins. Flips and shit.

>If everything you say is 100% true (*poof* I am now an existentialist), then what - using your methods, or opinions, or beliefs, whatever - is the purpose of science and religion? WHY do they exist? If Everything I say is 100% true? I am a human, prone to error as the rest of us, however, there isn't that much room, if any, in what I have said in this thread. >using your methods, or opinions, or beliefs, whatever - is the purpose of science and religion? WHY do they exist? For the purposes of making the lives, whatever those may be, though not necessarily actual, easier.

>No you didn't. You just regurgitated one of the axioms. NUH UHHHHHH!!!!! The statement is necessarily true. Are you sure that is an axiom? Perhaps you should read about theorems. Oops! (edit:) "The concept of a theorem is therefore fundamentally deductive, in contrast to the notion of a scientific theory, which is empirical." >Isn't your whole premise that you can't prove anything in the empirical universe? If by "prove" you mean "make necessarily the case that you can be certain of such a proposition" then yes, that is what I mean. You made the claim that logic is rooted in the empirical universe. Take a shot at it.

>Some good logic mmm goood >but the flaw (not a logical one but a practical one) is that logic holds it's own regardless of content, and even with no content. Sure. >Logic is the study of structure mmm sort of. Logic has syntax and semantic properties. >and without any content is mental masturbation Right. Unfortunately for science and religion, propositions end up being subordinate to preserving truth. The mental "masturbation" is a necessary component to putting use to any empirical proposition, particularly when we are trying to claim that such a set of propositions are truth-functional or not. >Kind of how math relates to physics Nice. >You can run equations until the cows come home, but they are meaningless until applied to something outside the world of mathematics. Ok. Unfortunately, the necessity of a particular statement can be proven whereas the existence of the empirical world it purports to explain cannot be proven. >So yes, you can prove that A or not A is a true statement. It's only purpose is to show that you can prove an abstract statement. Hence, there are things provable within abstract reasoning that "exist" independent of a scientific method or religious dogmatism. Therefore, logic can indeed give us such a certainty, however evaluated, that does not exist in either science or religion.

>thereby fundamentally based on assumptions Yet I have just shown you how there is no assumption necessary to prove at least one type of statement as necessarily true. Shit. >You say that science can't "know" anything because it is based on the empirical universe and you can't know if that is real. True. >This logic also applies to logic itself, since logic is also rooted in the empirical universe and you can't know if that is real. False. Logic is not rooted in the empirical universe. Neither is philosophy. The empirical universe only gives us the truth values with which to assign to propositions that we made independently of the empirical universe. Nice try. Prove how logic is rooted in the empirical universe. That ones gonna be tough for you.

>I'm not anti philosophy, it's just that your argument boils down to "ultimately we can't know anything" which is a revealation of neither use nor ornament. I have not said such a thing, either. Philosophers consider the purpose of their lives to disproving that often without science or religion. Also, I have not adopted skepticism myself, but the skeptic does have a valid point: You can't "know" information in the empirical world (other than you "know" that you have sensory input, it is not possible for this to be otherwise) and you can't "know" that God exists given the inputs we have. You haven't summarized my argument well at all, Jack. >But the irony is that your philosophy (if true) must also apply to itself. And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic. False. I can know things that are necessarily true or false. Mathematical truths are an example. Another example, from mathematics and Logic are necessary truths derived from no assumptions. Derive: (A v ~A) Assumptions: None. A, having either the truth value T or F (True or False), makes A [or] notA , i.e. (A v ~A) , true. Because the statement says Either A or Not A. If A is true, then ~A is false, but Av~A is still true because only one disjunct is true. However, if ~A is true, making A false, that means that Av~A is still true, because one of its disjuncts, in this case ~A is true. Therefore, we "KNOW" that the statement, whatever A symbolizes: (A v ~A) is undoubtedly true. Therefore, there are propositions that exist independent of the empirical world and assumptions that are necessarily true. (In case you didn't get it, that means that "we can k now something." This negates your assumption of my argument: "We can't know anything" - which my premises do not entail) In other words, You haven't made any headway against me nor logic nor philosophy. Shit. >the irony is that your philosophy (if true) must also apply to itself You're gonna have to do a better job of illustrating the contradiction that you say exists within "my philosophy," whatever that is. >And with that, anything you think you know has to dissapear into a puff of your own logic False, for the reasons above. You done yet?

>there are plenty of NON- Christians that are giving people. There are lots of atheists that help to reduce poverty. Fantastic. However, that doesn't change your statement about how they don't work to make the world a better place. Oops! >along with all those groups we would also get rid of lots of Christian-based HATE groups that exist in the world Maybe we could get rid of all the non-christian hate groups in the world too. The Christian here is guilty of believing things in a dogmatic light, and following others based on the dogmatism. This happens in plenty of other non-Christian methods as well. Would you point the finger at them as well, or is your post only intended as an Anti-Christian rant? >and all the bad things that go with the so-called good Christians, like groping young boys in church...... Why don't we do the same to all the pedophiles that exist in the world? Sex offenders? Rapists? You have a point, but the point is something that isn't exclusive to christianity. Sorry. Perhaps that might indicate there is room for "Good Christians" to ease up on some of the inferences they made about the "Good God's" instructions. (Like all of their members to marry, have children, or even be homosexual. Perhaps that is where the blame lies. It, however, isn't for Christianity as a whole. Progressive christians believe far different things (that are consistent with the Bible) that the Christian coalition or Televangelists don't allow.) >And there are plenty of non-secular charities that do the same work that these 'Christian' groups do. Yep. Getting rid of Christianity, though, would eliminate alot of the cause that exists in the world for helping others. How many of the 2.1 Billion Christians on this planet would stop helping others? Probably more than the number who are interested in killing others or destroying others lives. >Again my point is that being Christian does not make you a good person. Really? It looked quite a bit like you were trying to accuse Christians of being bad people for not helping the world as you saw fit. "it is all bunk, I wish you would put your energy to trying to solve the immediate problems of the world, hunger, education, healthcare, instead of worshipping a deity," >Being a good person makes you a good person. With or without the faith, you can still be good, do good, lead a good life, etc Absolutely. Well, of course, we still need to define what "good" is, who dictates what "good" is (if there is such a thing as "good" in actuality) and what the consequences are, if there are any.

>it is all bunk, I wish you would put your energy to trying to solve the immediate problems of the world, hunger, education, healthcare, instead of worshipping a deity, Overboard. Youll find Christians are some of the most giving people in the world, and among American conservatives and liberals, they are most likely to do something to solve the immediate problems of the world, like hunger, education, healthcare, etc. RonD- remember that crazy rant you and I had on that crazy thread you and your christian friends made last time? Yep. I'm helping on this one. "You mean, there is a rational voice behind that Chasteh guys anyways?" I guess that when we get rid of the Christians, we will also be getting rid of the Christian childrens fund, Christian Aid, Generousgiving.org, Christians rebuild, and so on.

>not a PA...a blatant generalization to ALL philosophy professors and abstract discussions. Even abstract discussions that occur in all the math courses you took to become an engineer? Surely you don't mean to say abstract discussions and complex problems make for an invalid field of study. >Apparently you missed the tone of my post, but OK We don't quite agree, I don't think. >so if science and faith are both "irrational" (apparently we DON'T agree, my mistake), then what human endeavor IS rational? Logic. Math. Sex. (Just kidding) >Or does rationality exist at all, according to you? Yes. Unfortunately for science and religion, they are subordinate to Logic. There are undeniable truths out there, but you cannot achieve them through religion and science alone. You need logical necessity.

>Right. But Apple, who stole the concepts for their interface from Xerox PARC Brilliant! Thus Microsoft stole something that Apple stole from Xerox. Scum all around!

>Chasteh, can you succinctly (and distinctly) state your personal position for those of use who aren't philosophy majors, as you apparently are? You mean, can I announce whether or not I myself am religious, or whether or not I am a pragmatist or a skeptic? Hah! I don't have to do such a thing to asses the problems with other perspectives. >This is what we care about in SC, not esoteric definitions of philosophical terms. I have removed quite a but of the "esoteric" terms from my posts. They are understandable for the person who has basic knowledge of philosophy or what "empirical" means. As an engineer, you should have little difficulty understanding the posts. >I seriously cannot pin it down. What, EXACTLY are you arguing, here? Post # 70. >I see is someone playing "devil's advocate", and not necessarily on the underlying issue of the thread (faith, science, and the relative mutual exclusivity of the two) Have you read any of my posts? There are at least three concerning mutual exclusivity. and its logical implications. Each other post is about the uncertainty that faith and science are dependent on. >I see someone who is arguing about the methods of debate, "can you argue this" or "can you argue that" are important features of religious and scientific statements. >which is probably a most fruitless endeavor here in SC, and more than a little nitpicky. Well thank you for your opinion of what you assume to be my goal. >Which is funny, since from your initial posts i got the impression we agreed. Bottom of post 70: "BL: Religion = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions Science = irrational b/c of faith on assumptions (The assumption that this realm of sense-perception is the true world; Although the probability that it is the realm of Actuality is quite high, it is not something we can attach certainty to) If you accept the bottom-line and do not attach yourself to Christianity nor necessarily to science, then we agree." At that point there is enough said. >It's really quite baffling. Are you actually a philosophy professor? Maddening. Personal attack?

>just that they were successful and had made a shitload of money for a lot of shareholders. You also made the statement that "many" people hate Microsoft "because it is fashionable to hate a large company." I am willing to say that even those people found other reasons to hate Microsoft, just like the hate many other large companies and their business practices. Many people hate Microsoft because it was founded by a guy who stole the software and ease of use from another company who created that software and ease of use. Many people hate Microsoft because it isn't realistically prone to a competitor's providing a worthy alternative. Macintosh is an expensive and worthless alternative. Buy a mac. Have zero compatibility. Spend a shitload of money to be a part of a "community" of other Mac-buyers. edit: Buy a Linux-box and enjoy spending the rest of your life making it user-friendly.

Safety first! I mean, what could possibly go wrong anyways?

>Yes, really. The forced component is a false parallelism w/r/t asserted equivalency of irrationality. Then it wouldn't be a forced dichotomy. It would be a false parallelism. Very different. "Either A or B. Not Both, and Nothing else" is a forced dichotomy. Here is an example: "Either you are with us, or against us." Can you show me where I said something as such? Maybe I won't be convinced you are a nerd after all. religious folks are irrational in the belief of a "God" IF and ONLY IF Scientists are irrational in the disbelief of a "God" Both depend on assumptions of something that hasn't been proven, and to me, won't ever be proven by empirical means. Can you show me otherwise? >Heck, both of those encourage outright skepticism. How does that change the notion that they depend on faith, again? If they depend on skepticism, then they depend on faith in there existing no genuine explanation. That would be belief in something that isn't verifiable. Shit. >Science is a process (or methodology) by which positivists explore the knowable/testable world. Uh oh. Knowable is a bit of a stretch, huh? Wait, positivists wouldn't say that. Shit. That looks like another belief in something that skepticism has leverage over. >that doesn't change regardless of one’s assumptions. I am a brain in a vat, and such information gained by whatever machinery exists as a fabrication of my brain in a vat, and not actuality. Shit. Looks like that just changed. (Yep, sounds rediculous huh? You need to do something with the BIV scenario to say "That doesn't change with your assumptions." >The specific nanometer (nm) wavelength of light absorbed changes depending on whether oxygen or cyanide is bonded to the iron atom Unfortunately those all "exist" in the empirical world. You can't use the empirical world as proof that there are undoubtable things in the empirical world. That would result in begging the question. Shit. >not whether a conservative lesbian black female Jew, a straight white liberal male Hindu, or a libertarian asian transgender secular humanist is observing it. I guess you will have to show me where I said a person's perspective has bearing on actuality. Shit, I didn't. It is another crazy assumption to say that actuality depends on your perspective. That much is easily disprovable. Given your empirical assumptions, we have even more room to say that it is "possible" that your perspective has no bearing on actuality. >Humans don’t always behave rationally. Personally, I think that can be a wonderful trait – love, honor, bliss, hope, excitement, and courage are often irrational but can make the human experience worth living, imo. Ok. That is a bit unavoidable. Does it change the fact that science relies on irrational assumptions, as does religion? Negative. It just says that we can sometimes be irrational, and that it is often "ok" to behave as such. >The underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal. Philosophically, the criterion I am using for "knowing" are the same here. They are both applicable in epistemic terms. That is all I need. >To try to explain the differences in the methods or approaches to measuring parts of the world using the same explanation would be a forced dichotomy too. It might be time for you to go grab the rock. Applying a continuous standard to things that cannot be measured the same way is not a forced dichotomy. You have either read some philosophy or taken philosophy courses, I can see that. Do you remember taking Symbolic Logic, or any other upper-level logic course? Did you take epistemology? >The underlying reasons for the differences in precision are not the same, i.e., not equivalent or equal. However, the guage I am using (Certainty) is applicable to both religious and empirical assumptions. You can't quite be certain in either realm given the limitations of our sense experiences and the limited supply of evidence we have to come to such a necessary conclusion. (edit) In science and religion, you are bound to only being "pretty" certain in epistemic terms. "But wait, Chasteh, you can't be "Pretty certain." If your are "pretty certain" of something, your not certain. Certainty doesn't come in guages." "That is right. And if you can't be certain of something, then you can't know it. Shit"

>Other than for a bit of philosophical masturbation, what difference does it make if there is a hidden reality behind empirical reality? You can't see it, you can't detect it in any way, you can never know anything about it and it is completely indistinguishable from it's own non-existance. Postulating such a thing doesn't get you anywhere, it explains nothing, it proves nothing, you have no evidence for it, you have no reason to suggest such a thing. Because the purpose of philosophy is to "know" or to find "truth" in everything. Science, being an empirical philosophy, seeks to find the truth in everything concerning the physical world. If it cannot obtain genuine facts that are indisputible and outside assumptions (like empirical assumptions) then it cannot obtain knowledge. Does this mean we shouldn't use science to further the lives that we just assume to be real? Of course not. Does it mean that we can say that we know those lives to be real? NO. >Why waste time trying to trap scientists with such semantic weaseling? Why waste time working on assumptions about the sensible world? For the first question: To come to truth, which is the goal of philosophy. (Duh) For the second: Because it can aid productivity and the quality of life for those of us who can't know that the empirical world is actual. >The only possible use I can see for this is as an inflatable philosophical cosh (all hot air and very little substance) to try and bash empiricists with. I figured you would turn out to be an anti-philosopher. That is fine, just don't discredit philosophers for sticking to its goals of obtaining knowledge of the truth. After all, it took some philosopher to decide that empiricism could be a method of obtaining truths, which could add value to philosophy, did it not? >all hot air and very little substance How are you going to argue that? Oh wait.. you need philosophy and its Logic to do that. Shit.

>If [Microsoft or Windows] sucked really badly a Linux would take over - so they have to maintain a certain minimum level of quality. Wow. You don't happen to be a software engineer for Microsoft, do you? >Many people hate Microsoft because it is fashionable to hate any large company. Aaand it was founded by a thief. Shit. Microsoft must not be a very good example of how businesses can be responsible on their own.

>One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment of a monetary system. In addition, automation has resulted in the technological replacement of human labor by machines and eventually most people will not have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services turned out. Hmm. Nice. Does that mean that this Venus project is a viable means of eliminating those problems? We would have to see. I think we ought to delve further into the philosphical issues we already have before wasting our time and money on a hopeful society like this. >The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. Nice. >There is no single philosophy or point of view whether religious, political, scientific, or ideological, that someone would not take issue with. Hence, you are prone to having wars and crime. Shit.

>Pure communism doesn't work I was hoping someone would say this. Can you please provide an example of a society that has ever existed while remaining true to the tenants that Karl Marx laid out in his writings? You'll have to find one that preserves not only Political equality, but one that has preserved Economic and Social equality as well. (Hint: No one has done this. Every "communist" society either ends up with a dictator (not communist, this is authoritarianism in communist disguise- read that twice you libertarians) with a major economic inequality (think about the wealth that has been spread around Russia in a method that is not consistent with "from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs.") >Pure capitalism doesn't work. You mean, a genuinely free-market society doesn't work either? The nerve! Come get 'em, Tom! >Pure socialism doesn't work. Of course, you would be referring to the authoritarian states that have been made in the past. You can thank the USSR and the people of the U.S. for claiming that the USSR actually represented socialism. We have done the greatest disservice to socialism by acknowledging such a label on the USSR. >Pretty much any "ism" is going to place more importance on ideology than on actually, well, working. Is the same true for democracy? Can we say there has been a solid example of a democracy that has "worked" (whatever that means) without problems? (whatever those are) >Which is why the system in the US works as well as it does. Heh. Hahaaa! I'll admit it works quite well relative to other societies, but I won't admit that it works very well. >We have a socialist school, air traffic There are people who would say both have been a disaster. Air traffic controllers have one of the most underfunded working conditions in government. Oh, by the way, a majority of the ATC centers in the U.S. are actually privately owned facitlities employing certified and approved controllers. (edit:) Wait a minute, with the assistance of socialism (government funds) and the ability of a firm to control the costs of an ATC facility, why is it that such facilities are in such deplorable condition? Why is it that the Europeans aren't using 30 year old radar screens like ours? Why is it that the ATC facility on one side of my town had such a difficult time staffing its facility during the year and a half that it was ready for use, but not operational? Hmmmmmm >police and firefighter system There is much to be changed about the police system. See Tom Aiello. Surely he has enough to be said about that. Firefighter system? Well done. This is an area not to be skipped out on. >By taking parts of all these systems, rather than being a slave to an "ism," we get the better parts and don't have to deal with the bad parts. Well, ok, but you will want to ignore everything inthis post but this statement. We have a police-state, a democracy that is ruled by a tyrannical majority, an over-the-top taxation system, and greedy corporate executives. We have to deal with the bad parts. Maybe you can list some more of those "good parts" again for me.