Originally Posted by Eric the Green

At a time when the public is stalemated by an ideological divide, the parties have come to represent them. The philosophy of parties is not set in stone, but they find a spot where they can represent some faction or another. Now the teams are set by the divisions of the people. In the 4T, nothing is flexible anymore. The struggle is set and the two sides have dug in. One side must win.

The people shift their loyalties gradually, according to which faction the party decides to represent. Very few people vote for a party just because it's a party. Ultimately, the people decide, not the politicians; the latter just go which way the weather vane points. Formerly loyal Republicans have blinked, and many have switched parties; same with Democrats. Things are lined up for the fight. It's a 4T. People are going to have to put their fortunes and their sacred honor on the line.

I don't see the political divide so much in philosophical terms as one narrative versus another. Inside a narrative, each party can define and idealize its attributes, and denigrate those of Team Adversary. Most of this has little to do with intellectual issues. It has to do with emotional connection to ones team, and steadfast opposition to all others. This is more closely aligned with team sports than governance. How else could a Sarah Palin or a Steven King be an effective advocate for a political party?

This is cheer leading and team identity, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Odin

Yep, this sounds exactly like an edgy Reddit Atheist who ends up in /r/badphilosophy. You're own beliefs are based on ontological and epistemological foundations (logical positivism) you just assume to be true, and when others question your unconscious assumptions underlying your beliefs you lash out at them and call philosophy stupid. It's the smart person's version of classic American anti-intellectualism.

No assumptions needed. Science uses controlled experiments to confirm "beliefs." All the rest of your post is the standard philosophy major's cry that "I did not waste my time!" Who are you really trying to convince?

Please note in my original response that I said most philosophy, not all. Some philosophical inquiries can help refine the types of questions we ask of nature. But, you simply assume that all philosophy is equally "valid" and/or useful. If your philosophy uses the ancient Greeks as a primary source then, while it may be a good exercise in discourse, it is almost certainly going to be out of date as a reference tool for understanding nature.

The terms ontological and epistemological are just philosophy's way of setting up the ground rules for how they intend to play their word games. When it comes right down to it, that is what most philosophy ends up being, a contest to see who can make the more clever word game. Nothing to do with the understanding of the natural world.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, I have to say that in any disagreement between Vandal and Eric, I'm somewhat more likely to agree with Vandal. Like I said, Eric really does make a lot of mistakes when it comes to science. But he's a much nicer person.

Care to find out how nice social conservatives and Republicans in this forum think Eric is? You just think he's nice because he shares a belief in the same New Age nonsense you do.

This is kind of off-topic but I consider the topic to have been well and truly settled among thinking people, and the only remaining serious question is what we should do about it. We're likely past the point where reversing the input of carbon into the biosphere can prevent disaster. We should have been working on that decades ago. As it is, we may need to consider geo-engineering of some kind.

Anyway -- mechanistic materialism isn't a religion (good or bad), but it's a faith-based belief system

Like I said before, "If your opponents seem to have countered all your nonsense, then simply accuse them of being exactly like you and declare victory."

and, like all faith-based belief systems, leads to irrationality. And quite often to unpleasant behavior in service to that irrationality.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I don't see the political divide so much in philosophical terms as one narrative versus another. Inside a narrative, each party can define and idealize its attributes, and denigrate those of Team Adversary. Most of this has little to do with intellectual issues. It has to do with emotional connection to ones team, and steadfast opposition to all others. This is more closely aligned with team sports than governance. How else could a Sarah Palin or a Steven King be an effective advocate for a political party?

Because the other side is so stupid, that's how!

This is cheer leading and team identity, pure and simple.

There's something to that. I think there's a commitment to ideology and values behind it, but after a while it becomes easier just to stick with one side, especially for the red side that doesn't like to actually examine issues and problems. And, unlike team sports, there is little sportsmanship, because the game is about livelihood and values. It's not just a diversion; a lot is at stake for both sides. Really, what's at stake for the country is that the left wins, but the money and power on the right is able to buy and deceive many people to think they have a stake in the right wing winning.

It used to be that the two parties were not like this. There were teams before the late 60s, but within a team you could take a stand with the other party if you wanted. Now, after 50 years of increasing polarization, uniformity is imposed. On the right, that means pretty much uniformity on every issue. On the left, you don't want to upset certain groups by taking a social conservative stand. It's easier just to identify with your team.

There's little room for dissent, especially for a member of congress or state legislature. A governor can be somewhat more flexible. Independents have grown by leaps and bounds, as many people don't want to identify with one rigid team in this unfortunate fight to the death. But they still tend to vote with one side or the other. Take me for example; I opted out; but I still take sides with real Democrats.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I was thinking about this today too. You can't really escape the divine, even in the form of love or special experiences of beauty. I tend to think that people are consistent, but that is not true. Someone with Vandal's philosophy, were he consistent, could find no place for anything of value except scientific research and experiments; no love, no enjoyment of life just for the sake of it, no freedom in a world where everything is explained and caused by some force.

Pure bullshit. Just because someone actually understands how sunsets work does not mean they are incapable of enjoying one. Just because a biologist comprehends the cascade of neurotransmitters and hormones released while falling in love does not mean that they are immune from ever experience it.

For many who share a passion for science, the understanding of the physical processes only serves to enhance the experience. Many of my Physics students tell me that after finishing the course they end op seeing the everday world around them differently. They pay attention to the little details that previously escaped their attention because they were not aware that anything of interest could be there. They notice things like shifting positions in a car as it banks around a turn, the movement of a helium balloon in the car as it brakes (the ballon moves to the back of the car.) They often begin to see little arrows designating the various forces at play when they go water skiing or play basketball.

In my opinion, understanding how things around you works allows one to better appreciate the specialness of every moment of every day, not just the socially dramatic ones.

But, I would wager that even Vandal can relax and have fun once in a while, and partake of the things that can't be explained; what we might call the irrational.

Of course I relax and have fun, but I don't lie to myself or others in order to make any particular event or time seem more special than it already is.

As a science enthusiast, the unexplained is the whole point! We seek to take what is not known and make it known.

However, New Age pablum is not actually unexplained. The fallacies, self deception and plain old misinformation are already well understood. There is no mystery there to be explained.

Not that he wouldn't claim to be able to explain them, but most folks know that they can't be.

There really are true mysteries left to be figured out in science. Your New Age gobbledygook just isn't on that list.

And he does have some concern for real life issues besides scientific purity as he sees it.

Scientific purity? Stop making shit up. I object to your repeated lying about what science actually knows and your repeated lies concerning your understanding of science. I'm in no way advocating that we should build some strange society built purely on scientific principles. For one, the very idea that you could build such a society shows a deep misunderstanding of what science is and what it isn't. The only purity I seek is honesty.

Consistency is something that eludes most people, contrary to what I or others might think. You can't put people in a box, after all, and the divine resides even within those who deny and ignore it or haven't the slightest conscious inkling of it. You might as well deny the wallpaper that you don't remember to observe while going about your business in your room or office.

Gobbledygook that sounds deep but actually says nothing at all.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

From what I've seen, I think both of them provide a good presence on this board, even if the viewpoints are quite opposite. I don't have a problem with either of them. Well, I do have a problem with Vandal's username, but that's a lighter and unrelated issue.

Lighter issue? You and I both know that there is nothing light about it!

Well, I think that's why the GOP and the right have been trying to make the existence of AGW an unsettled issue. They don't want anything done about it, because it would make their ideology unfeasible and threaten their core political base. So it's perfectly logical that they have pursued that agenda--even though it's an agenda that imperils the well-being of life on this planet.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Lighter issue? You and I both know that there is nothing light about it!

Indeed, you truly ARE a wicked vandal of the soul! Yes, your name is quite serious and most appropo I don't compliment you on much at all, but I compliment you on choosing a name that truly represents your very heart and soul (or your admitted lack thereof....).

I still think that deep inside that vandal soul of yours, there is a new ager somewhere yearning to breathe free. Or at least someone who can do more than argue endlessly about nothing. Somewhere inside, it's there; I hope the real you comes out someday. I have faith!! Amen, brother.

"I am your father...."

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Indeed, you truly ARE a wicked vandal of the soul! Yes, your name is quite serious and most appropo I don't compliment you on much at all, but I compliment you on choosing a name that truly represents your very heart and soul (or your admitted lack thereof....).

My moniker is a description of where I've been, not who I am.

I still think that deep inside that vandal soul of yours, there is a new ager somewhere yearning to breathe free.

Nope. Scientific understanding of the topics is the perfect vaccine against the mind fungus of New Agism.

Or at least someone who can do more than argue endlessly about nothing.

I do many different things in my free time. But, a liar is still a liar and someone has to do the dirty job of exposing those lies.

Somewhere inside, it's there; I hope the real you comes out someday. I have faith!! Amen, brother.

"I am your father...."

My father would chew you up and spit you out before he even had his morning coffee. Four years in the navy as an enlisted man and forty years working for the railroad will do that to you.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

My moniker is a description of where I've been, not who I am.

vandal is a description of a person who behaves in a certain way, not a location. Try again, vandal of the soul!

Nope. Scientific understanding of the topics is the perfect vaccine against the mind fungus of New Agism.

I am glad to be infected!

I do many different things in my free time. But, a liar is still a liar and someone has to do the dirty job of exposing those lies.

YOU have "free time"? Imagine that. Time off from exposing yourself.

My father would chew you up and spit you out before he even had his morning coffee. Four years in the navy as an enlisted man and forty years working for the railroad will do that to you.

YOu obviously inherited his attitude. I guess genetics works! I am convinced! I accept Mendel and Darwin! You ARE your father!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

vandal is a description of a person who behaves in a certain way, not a location. Try again, vandal of the soul!

You know you could try Google to figure it out. Or, are you afraid that it might expose you to some real scientific knowledge?

I am glad to be infected!

Doesn't change the fact that the infection rots your ability to think and reason effectively.

YOU have "free time"? Imagine that. Time off from exposing yourself.

Exposing?

YOu obviously inherited his attitude. I guess genetics works! I am convinced! I accept Mendel and Darwin! You ARE your father!

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

vandal is a description of a person who behaves in a certain way, not a location. Try again, vandal of the soul!

Vandals are also a Germanic tribe. There are some others I know of offhand.

Visigoths
Svears <- one of Rag's tribes.
Angles
Saxons
Jutes
Franks, etc.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Vandals are also a Germanic tribe. There are some others I know of offhand.

Visigoths
Svears <- one of Rag's tribes.
Angles
Saxons
Jutes
Franks, etc.

Yes, probably the word is derived from those barbarians and their behavior.

I am an angle/saxon, so I must be from a different tribe from vandal.

Before I discovered "Eric the Green" and "Eric Mystic," I sometimes called myself Alaric, after the guy who toppled Rome in 410AD (the visigoth), since the name combines my first and middle name, and since I challenge the established, decadent western civilization paradigm that vandal upholds so ineffectively (and incessantly).

I don't know if it's my newagism or not, but sometimes I jump ahead and get confused on details.

Of course vandal will grasp at any straw in order to knock me, or somebody else. Remember how he harped incessantly after I referred to the "boson field?" As if I think about it everyday and would know the exact name offhand?

Maybe I need a head accelerator.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You know you could try Google to figure it out. Or, are you afraid that it might expose you to some real scientific knowledge?

Noone can figure you out. You are a mystery beyond all scientific knowledge.

Doesn't change the fact that the infection rots your ability to think and reason effectively.

I am glad that according to you that the infection has rotted my ability to think and reason effectively. I know I am doing it right, then.

Exposing?

Look it up; try google to figure it out.

Whatever.

OK Darth.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Lighter issue? You and I both know that there is nothing light about it!

Yep. "Lighter" doesn't mean "light".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You know you could try Google to figure it out. Or, are you afraid that it might expose you to some real scientific knowledge?

Noone can figure you out. You are a mystery beyond all scientific knowledge.

People will need to Google my username in conjunction with his. So far, everyone else has been way off...

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Spring like weather in Seattle today, sunny and mild. According to the weather people on TV, we aren't supposed to have that kind of weather till April.

Last day of the Midwinter Thaw here in Fargo, gonna get up to 40F.

*cough* university mascots *cough*

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are a panpsychist? Are you sure you want to get that close to me philosophically?

It has to do with my own reading up on the Hard Problem of consciousness. Panpsychism and Emergentism seem to be the only positions that fits logic, modern neuroscience, and people's individual subjective reality (qualia and all that), and I'm not sold on the Emergentist position.

Eliminativists like Dan Dennett just make me facepalm. Dennett's a smart guy, he should know better than succumb to the temptation of solving an issue by saying the issue doesn't really exist.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

No assumptions needed. Science uses controlled experiments to confirm "beliefs." All the rest of your post is the standard philosophy major's cry that "I did not waste my time!" Who are you really trying to convince?

Please note in my original response that I said most philosophy, not all. Some philosophical inquiries can help refine the types of questions we ask of nature. But, you simply assume that all philosophy is equally "valid" and/or useful. If your philosophy uses the ancient Greeks as a primary source then, while it may be a good exercise in discourse, it is almost certainly going to be out of date as a reference tool for understanding nature.

The terms ontological and epistemological are just philosophy's way of setting up the ground rules for how they intend to play their word games. When it comes right down to it, that is what most philosophy ends up being, a contest to see who can make the more clever word game. Nothing to do with the understanding of the natural world.

Thanks for EXACTLY proving my points. ALL worldviews are based on assumptions, that is how worldviews work. If you don't think Science is based on assumptions you are simply in denial. Hume and Kant criticized the exact assumptions you have over 200 years ago and all you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

Originally Posted by Odin

Thanks for EXACTLY proving my points. ALL worldviews are based on assumptions, that is how worldviews work. If you don't think Science is based on assumptions you are simply in denial. Hume and Kant criticized the exact assumptions you have over 200 years ago and all you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

Well, there are worldviews where all worldviews except one's own are based on assumptions. One's own worldview is based on Obvious Truths. Your statement above is based on an assumption that one's own world view isn't special.

Some consider Science to be special, that the nature of its core assumptions make it unique. Of course, some believe the Bible to be special too, as are worldviews based on an assumption of literal Biblical Truth. As a general rule of thumb, I sort of expect everyone to believe that their own worldview and values are special. This might almost be a Universal Truth, that all worldviews include a clause which states they are uniquely True. Simply stated, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong."

Vandal? There are rules of science that professionals ought to know to prevent them from falling into Error. Part of his schtick is rubbing layman's noses in these rules. This diversion started with his denial that volcanic eruptions and hotspots can be roughly periodic. Some of them obviously are. Eric might have improperly assumed that because some of them are, all of them are apt to be. Yellowstone? We haven't enough data point to be sure, and even the most regular of periodic series might be expected to end eventually. We just don't know. No matter how long a hot spot has been inactive, one shouldn't ignore the possibility of a return to action.

This is not unrelated to a previous eruption of Vandal. As one storm can't prove global warming, three mega eruptions of Yellowstone can't establish a periodic behavior. Statistical methods have their limits. Vandal seems more obsessed than most with making people aware of the limits of statistics.

Still, at a common sense layman's level, if a threat has manifested in the past, it is fair game to assume that it might happen again, that the government has to consider whether to spend money and effort to prepare for such events. Past history is fair game as a tool for how many resources should be set aside for any given threat.

There was a big quake in New England in colonial times. There might or might not be a similar quake in my lifetime. How many building code clauses and emergency preparation measures should Massachusetts push? Boston has a lot of brownstone apartment buildings and old Victorian triple deckers. Should they all be reinforced or torn down? No? At the moment, the Massachusetts policy is to require California standards for new construction but not to require retrofitting stuff that has already been built. Is this the correct answer? That might depend on one's values. How does one balance lives against economics in the face of uncertainty?

Science can say nothing definitive at this time. They might be able to do better in another decade or three. The field is advancing. Until then, one has to look at the history, make an educated guess, and acknowledge that people with different values will want to make different educated guesses. When science fails, one has to use common sense.

In these forums, one might want to avoid using scientific language when using common sense. Vandal is apt to throw a hissy fit and grind a thread to a halt for a time. Any use of probability without dotting all "I"s and crossing all "T"s is apt to set him off. He seems to think he is the Mona Lisa Vito of statistics.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, there are worldviews where all worldviews except one's own are based on assumptions. One's own worldview is based on Obvious Truths. Your statement above is based on an assumption that one's own world view isn't special.

Bob, I'm glad to see you post. I hope you're okay and weathering the storm and not flooded out.

Originally Posted by Bronco80

Yep. "Lighter" doesn't mean "light".

People will need to Google my username in conjunction with his. So far, everyone else has been way off...

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

You know you could try Google to figure it out. Or, are you afraid that it might expose you to some real scientific knowledge?

Football teams in Idaho.



Idaho winters shrivel footballs. I'm surprised that deflate-gate-a-teers didn't use that excuse.


Let's use www.duckduckgo.com, a search engine that doesn't keep your searches so the NSA can't search it for your searches.


Vandal-72
http://espn.go.com/college-football/.../idaho-vandals

1-10 in 2014 Same record my high school team has, 1 win, all others, losers.

Bronco Time

http://espn.go.com/college-football/...-state-broncos
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings

12-2, top 20 team.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Bob, I'm glad to see you post. I hope you're okay and weathering the storm and not flooded out.

I'm on top of a high hill. My waterfront is fresh water, well above sea level. I don't need to worry about floods until the Greenland ice sheet is gone along with a good size chunk of Antartica. Well, I did have one minor flood last summer, but the new water heater has a 12 year warranty. That's not the same.

The snow is very light and fluffy. The wind was intense. Lots of drifting. This is the first time I remember snow blowing with the grain of the drifts, being forced to work around places where the snow was deepest. There are places where the wind blew things down to bare brick and grass. As I drove the blower from the basement door to the driveway, I didn't enable the augur until I was half way around the house. There was no snow to move where the wind was howling up the sides of the house. Downwind of the house, though, I've got a five foot drift. I think the average was around two feet, but it's hard to judge. I did lose power and internet for a while, but the generator kicked in. I'm warm and comfy at this point.

Like Sandy and the "Perfect Storm" we had a low pressure system coming up the coast crashing into a potent arctic high. At least the low wasn't a hurricane this time around. While one storm doesn't prove global warming, we are getting more of these double storms than I like.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, probably the word is derived from those barbarians and their behavior.

Not "probably."

I am an angle/saxon, so I must be from a different tribe from vandal.

Still haven't quite figured out the reference I see.

Before I discovered "Eric the Green" and "Eric Mystic," I sometimes called myself Alaric, after the guy who toppled Rome in 410AD (the visigoth), since the name combines my first and middle name, and since I challenge the established, decadent western civilization paradigm that vandal upholds so ineffectively (and incessantly).

I don't know if it's my newagism or not, but sometimes I jump ahead and get confused on details.

Of course vandal will grasp at any straw in order to knock me, or somebody else. Remember how he harped incessantly after I referred to the "boson field?" As if I think about it everyday and would know the exact name offhand?

Maybe the fact that you don't know basic terms off hand indicates that you shouldn't be trying to teach others all about the topic. Maybe your lack of familiarity with basic terms shows that you don't really understand the topics as well as you think you do.

Maybe I need a head accelerator.

Originally Posted by B Butler

Well, there are worldviews where all worldviews except one's own are based on assumptions. One's own worldview is based on Obvious Truths. Your statement above is based on an assumption that one's own world view isn't special.

Some consider Science to be special, that the nature of its core assumptions make it unique. Of course, some believe the Bible to be special too, as are worldviews based on an assumption of literal Biblical Truth. As a general rule of thumb, I sort of expect everyone to believe that their own worldview and values are special. This might almost be a Universal Truth, that all worldviews include a clause which states they are uniquely True. Simply stated, "I'm right and everyone else is wrong."

Vandal? There are rules of science that professionals ought to know to prevent them from falling into Error. Part of his schtick is rubbing layman's noses in these rules. This diversion started with his denial that volcanic eruptions and hotspots can be roughly periodic. Some of them obviously are. Eric might have improperly assumed that because some of them are, all of them are apt to be. Yellowstone? We haven't enough data point to be sure, and even the most regular of periodic series might be expected to end eventually. We just don't know. No matter how long a hot spot has been inactive, one shouldn't ignore the possibility of a return to action.

This is not unrelated to a previous eruption of Vandal. As one storm can't prove global warming, three mega eruptions of Yellowstone can't establish a periodic behavior. Statistical methods have their limits. Vandal seems more obsessed than most with making people aware of the limits of statistics.

Still, at a common sense layman's level, if a threat has manifested in the past, it is fair game to assume that it might happen again, that the government has to consider whether to spend money and effort to prepare for such events. Past history is fair game as a tool for how many resources should be set aside for any given threat.

There was a big quake in New England in colonial times. There might or might not be a similar quake in my lifetime. How many building code clauses and emergency preparation measures should Massachusetts push? Boston has a lot of brownstone apartment buildings and old Victorian triple deckers. Should they all be reinforced or torn down? No? At the moment, the Massachusetts policy is to require California standards for new construction but not to require retrofitting stuff that has already been built. Is this the correct answer? That might depend on one's values. How does one balance lives against economics in the face of uncertainty?

Science can say nothing definitive at this time. They might be able to do better in another decade or three. The field is advancing. Until then, one has to look at the history, make an educated guess, and acknowledge that people with different values will want to make different educated guesses. When science fails, one has to use common sense.

In these forums, one might want to avoid using scientific language when using common sense. Vandal is apt to throw a hissy fit and grind a thread to a halt for a time. Any use of probability without dotting all "I"s and crossing all "T"s is apt to set him off. He seems to think he is the Mona Lisa Vito of statistics.

Leave it to Bob to be the voice of reason!

Originally Posted by Odin

Thanks for EXACTLY proving my points. ALL worldviews are based on assumptions, that is how worldviews work.

Science isn't a worldview. It is a process for learning about the natural world and it is a body of knowledge gained through using said process.

Typical philosophy major, thinks that everything boils down into their word games.

If you don't think Science is based on assumptions you are simply in denial.

the difference is that any assumptions in science can be tested. When was the last time panpsychism proposed an actual method for determining if it is a valid view?

Hume and Kant criticized the exact assumptions you have over 200 years ago and all you are doing is sticking your fingers in your ears yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!".

That's nice. Never heard a philosophy major scream "Hume and Kant" when they get backed into a corner for their failure to present anything beyond word games. Oh wait, I mean it's standard deflection strategy.