Something to delight in

It annoyed me too until I read a book by a man called Eric W Stevick called Meaning Memory and Method. Stevick has been teaching English for "fifty years" and has learned a handful of other languages to boot. Apparently not even he can go back to his home town without breaking into the old holly four barrel dual exhaust vernacular. As I recall he says it bothers us because we like to think that we have a unique identity seprate from our relationships with other people, but that that is an something of an illussion. Who are you outside of your relationships to other people? Nobody really. And when you move from one group to another you naturally absorb and reflect their mannerisms, attitudes etc. A personality can change and grow, it's a natural, positive thing and something to delight in rather than feel bad about.

poop in the pool

Don't mean to be the poop in the pool but is there a cover charge for this fine event and if so how much darlings is it?

river boat cpatain

But why mumbai? You a filmakem, racconteur, river boat captain, odd job casanova? Got a tool boxstuffed under the front seat? Ever eat a Pine tree? Some parts taste like cresote. So anyway Mumbai eh, how's about the ticket? Cheap is it? Include breakfast?

keep jiggling

Letting go is like dying and being born at the same time. Keep jiggling, you'll known when you have found it.

novel finish

But I never was and I never had an ideal past and my novel is finished and I am glad that work is cancelled etc etc.

biaoxian ziran

Biao3xian4 zi4ran2
(Act Naturally)

1) Ta1men5 yao4 ba3 wo3 fang4 zai4 dian4ying3 li3tou2
(They're gonna put me in the movies.)

2)Ta1men5 yao4 ba3 wo3 bien4cheng4 da4 dian4ying3 min2gxing1.
(They're gonna make a big star outta me.)

3) Wo3men5 hui4 pai1 yi1 bu4 dian4ying3 guan1yu2 yi1ge5 bei1shang2 he2 hen3 ji2mo4 de5 nan2ren2.
(We'll make a film about a man that's sad and lonely.)

4)Wo3 xu1yao4 zuo4 de shi4 biao3xian4 zi4ran2.
(And all I gotta do is act naturally.)

5) Wo3 gen1 ni3 da3du3 wo3 jiang1 hui4 bian4cheng4 yi1ge hen3 da4 dian4ying3 ming2xing1
(Well I bet you I am gonna be a big star.)

6) Peng2you5men5, ye3xu3 wo3 hui4 ying2de2 yi2 zuo4 ao4se1ka3 jiang3.
(My friends, an oscar You can never tell.)

7) Zhe4 bu dian4ying3 jiang1 hui4 wo3 bian4chang4 yi1 ge da4 ming2xing1, yin1wei4 wo3 hui4 ba3 zhe4 ge jiao3se4 ban4yan3 de hen3 hao3.
(The movies gonna make me a big star cuz I can play the part so well.)

8) Wo3 xi1wang4 ni3 hui4 guo4 lai2 kan4 wo3 zai4 zhe4bu4 dian4ying3 li3, ran2hou4 ni3 hui4 kan4 dao4 yi1 ge5 you3 shi3 yi3 lai2 zui4 da4 de5 sha3gua1 bian4 you3ming2, wo2 xu1yao4 zuo4 de zhi3 shi4 biao3yan3 zi4ran2.
(Well, I hope you come and see me in the movies.
Then I know that you will plainly see
the biggest fool that ever hit the big time.
and all I gotta do is
act naturally.)

9) Wo3men5 hui4 pai1 yi2bu4 dian4ying3 guan1yu2 yi1ge5 bei1shang2 he2 hen3 ji2mo4 de5 nan2ren2 dun1 xia4 lai4 bai4 tou1 ai1qiu2.
(We'll make the scene about the man
that's sad and lonely
and beggin down upon his bended knee.)

10) Wo hui4 ban4yan3 zhe4 ge jiao3se4, wo3 bu4 xu1yao4 cai3pai2, wo xu1yao4 zuo4 de zhi3shi4 biao3xian4 zi4ran2.
(I'll play the part and I won't need rehearsing.
All I have to do is
act naturally)


11) Wo3 gen1 ni3 da3du3 wo3 jiang1 hui4 bian4cheng4 da4 ming2xing1.
(Well I bet you I'm gonna be a big star.)

12) Peng2you5men5, ye3xu3 wo3 hui4 ying2de2 yi2 zuo4 ao4se1ka3 jiang3.
(My friends, an oscar, you can never tell.)

13) Zhe4 bu dian4ying3 jiang1 wo3 bian4cheng4 yi1ge da4 ming2xing1, yin1wei4 wo3 ban4yan3 zhe4 ge jiao3se4 fei1chang2 hao3.
(The movies gonna make me a big star cuz I can play the part so well.)

14) Wo3 xi1wang4 ni3 neng2 guo4 lai2 kan4 wo3 zai4 zhe4bu dian4ying3, ran2hou4 wo3 zhi1dao ni3 hui4 dan1chun2 kan4 dao4 yige zui4 da4 de sha3gua1 bian4chang4 cheng2gong1, wo3 xu1yao4 zuo4 de zhi3 shi4 biao3xian4 zi4ran2 de.
(Well I hope you"ll come and see me
in the movies.
Then I know that you will plainly see
the biggest fool that ever hit the big time
And all I gotta do is
act naturally.)

guandong a ling a ding dong

bob - I'll be doing another one of my "travel the world and practice your English" English courses next week. This time to the sunny vacation paradise of Guangdong. Anybody here got an inkling of anything to do there that might involve using English. Ex-pat bars that kind a thing a ling a ding a ling? Thanbks hick*

skeptic yank - i dunno. when i was there it was just grimy and depressing.you could always go the US consulate that is built into the 5 star hotel on the same island where the opium kingpins used to have their warehouses. you'll see some whiteys coming to adopt chinese baby girls and LONG lines of folks trying to get a US visa. there is a worsening fuel shortage there and lotsa people are pretty much stuck.

enjoy.

mind fabric

Like all ESL teachers I spend rather a lot of time listening to horribly mutilated English. I am frequently expected to sit and listen to people who do not in fact possess any ability to speak the language. They have no vocabulary, no understanding of basic grammar or of the sound system of English. They frequently have nothing to say in fact, and even if they did, do not seem to have any realistic conception of reality or the dictates of logic. Despite all of this they remain convinced that they need an opportunity to "talk." Personally I would prefer that they spent a lot of time with a carefully designed listening program first. In fact I have come to see my job primarily in terms of being an environment provider/creator. If and when I can bring them around to appreciating the necessity for massive amounts of roughly tuned input their English tends to improve rather remarkably. The problem is that it is frequently difficult for me to get them to recognize my expertise in the matter and so continue to show up for class unprepared, yet expecting an opportunity to talk. The resulting noise I am sure is having a negative impact on the very fabric of my mind.

blueberry turd delight

Poor Taiwanese spends years sitting through stupid English classes preparing for the day when big nose will ask directions to the toilet, and then lo and behold the big day arrives, big nose approaches! - brain kicking into overdrive now, "What is the past tense of beside?" he wonders, "argh I'll never get it" - big nose getting closer now "Just say something he thinks" and so blurts "So, you like Taiwan?" to which big nose responds "Hen xihuan. Dui bu qi. Chin wen. Cesuo zai nali?" Of course all of this throws neural circuitry of poor Taiwanese into major spaz leaving him looking like he just swallowed Japanese blueberry turd delight and big nose has a bit of a case of the squirts from the contaminated ice they put in his cream of corn so he isn't quite as patient as he might otherwise be. And so it goes in sickening little circles until the whole issue winds up here in the "Open Forum" and the redbook seal of good houskeeping school of international affairs and feminist Mandarin studies sorts the whole thing out. Again.

the brash honkey

Having noticed the phenomenal success enjoyed by "The Brass Monkey Pub" we at "He left right? brain film studio and language school" have embarked on the creation of our very own establishment called The Brash Honkey. This is a high concept, low budget affair so we have done away with a lot of the extravegances normally associated with drinking, man/womanizing and throwing up. To whit ours is a bar with no chairs, tables or traditional bathrooms. In fact being on the roof of my apartment complex it has neither walls nor roof. The washroom arrangements are a dangle your bits from the edge affair that are sure to provide a thrilling moment of relaxation. And we have a range of musical styles from Alice to Cooper. So next time you are feeling bored, broke, lonely and in the mood for something a little different, drop on by the The Brash Honky Pub! Oh, and don't forget to stock up on your favorite beverages downstairs before coming up.

oops

A lot of us with years of experience both teaching and studying languages have come to the conclusion that there is not much hope of progress unless the second language somehow becomes a meaningful part of everyday life. This is true partly because there is so much to learn but also because language learning is more effective when it relates to the total person - to all of his senses, his emotions, his sense of rhythm and fun. Movies and television programs such as "Six Feet Under" are great for making English study a more fully rounded experience; however programs such as that one are not designed specifically for language learners and that is why we at "He Left Right? Brain Film Studio and Language School" have endeavored to create the world's first R rated ESL movie. Studio classroom has the basic idea down fairly well but unfortunately their program has all the drama, humor and genuine emotion of a dead fish.

If this concept appeals to you might I direct you to the flounder forum where you will find a more detailed description of the project under the heading of "Taipei Idiots the Movie Talent Call" and "Why Don't Us Retards Make Our Own Movie?" Thanks.



Back to top PROFILE PM EMAIL WWW


son
Ink Still Wet in Passport



Joined: 29 Jul 2004

Posts: 1
Total Words: 0
Location: couldn't say that would blow my cover



Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:36 pm Post subject: Re: he left right? brain film studio and language school SQUEAL IGNORE QUOTE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It sounds like your trying to get at something. What in the world could it be?

and things are good I guess

Back to top PROFILE PM


bob
National Security Advisor



Joined: 14 May 2004

Posts: 4615
Total Words: 316,709
Location: up and down in the water



Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:00 pm Post subject: Re: he left right? brain film studio and language school SQUEAL IGNORE QUOTE EDIT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things are just dandy son. Rather having the time of my life actually since introducing more drama to the teaching procedure.

As for the exactly what it is I am trying to get at part, I was hoping you could help me. I see my role more as facilitator here.

Did you read "Taipei Idiots The Movie Talent Call" ? How about "Share your mantra?" " Village Idiot Status?" "The Clock on the Wall says 4:10?""Toe Hires?" "How many people can read and write chinese characters?"

These posts (and a few other whose names escape me) will hold the answers you seek maybe. Anyway when you figure out what it is I am trying to get at let me know. Love.

epistemology 6

Elegua - Quote: Can I prove any of this? No. But I want you to understand that likewise you cannot prove anything at this level using science.


Correct. Science can neither prove nor disprove this. Niether can it really explain why objects have mass. No one that truly understand science would make such a claim. Science would only say, "There is a doubt that there is a 'higher intelligence'".

You still don't understand science.

fred smith - Quote: Correct. Science can neither prove nor disprove this. Niether can it really explain why objects have mass.


Glad to see that you agree.

Quote: No one that truly understand science would make such a claim.


I am not making that claim but my impression is that Bob is.

Quote: Science would only say, "There is a doubt that there is a 'higher intelligence'".


I think that you are getting off the track here. My discussion with Bob centers around the fact that metaphysically, epistemologically and ontologically, science cannot even prove the concepts that underpin its knowledge and therefore is unable to provide any true knowledge in this area.

Quote: You still don't understand science.


I think that I do, but I am not sure that you understand this debate. Reread this thread in its entirety if you don't mind.

Elegua - Yes - but you guys keep getting back onto this same subject, which is silly because it is a moot point.

fred smith Not necessarily Elequa:

I have repeatedly and in just about every post stressed that I have nothing against science and yet you too have come along with the statement that I do not really understand science so I am finding that often the best technique when discussing issues with people (and many do not read very carefully) is to repeat, repeat and repeat until the point is made.

I reiterate:

1. I have nothing against science. I am all for science and technology.
2. Epistemologically, ontologically and metaphysically, science cannot prove scientifically the very concepts that underpin in.
3. This is relevant since we are having a discussion on intelligent design.
4. In this context, this inability to rest on sure foundations when it comes to delivering true knowledge is absolutely crucial and central to the debate.
5. Given that this is the case, I merely wish to point out that those who put their faith in science have literally put their faith in science.
6. Given that I have never criticized those who put their faith in science, I am merely requesting that given these are unknowables, that those who have put their faith in science realize that highly intelligent people have chosen to put their faith in other areas and that they should be respected for doing so especially if they can adequately back up the reasons why they have chosen to do so. Anyone who wants to put their faith in science metaphysically, ontologically or epistemologically is more than free to do so though I personally would not be comfortable doing so. Again, this is not a debate about the practical and every-day applications of science, I am speaking epistemologically, ontologicaly and metaphysically.

I really hope that this is clear now.

Elegua - Yes. I hear you - but you're still not understanding science.

You seem to think that science is about certain ideas or theories. Science is not. At its very base it is about an unending questioning an doubting it is more than just let say... verficationism. This is different epistemologically, ontologically and metaphysically from what you are talking about - it is not faith - it is lack of faith that makes science what it is.

bob - fred smith: I have always said that science has a role, but now you have finally come around to admitting that science cannot prove itself scientifically (a major challenge in my book) and that it must "freeze" things to examine them in a lab, but since the world is ever-changing, how does this make sense? [quote]

I can't pick myself up either but that doesn't mean that I don't exist. It is the scientific view of, lets call it reality, that has given us an understanding of the fact that what might appear to us as solid objects are in fact just swirling massses of atoms with a thing for each other. It is science that allows us to understand that perception is a biological event involving both the observer and the thing observed and that this relationship btwn the two is in fact yet another reality distinct from either considered in isolation. All we can do is accept these fundamental facts and base our lives on the fact that, from a certain perspective, things can be said to exist and cause effect relationships also exist.

Think of it this way.....

The only faith I have is that my perceptions "are" a reality, despite, for example, whether or not I am hallucinating. Perhaps you know the halo story. The halo was true "as a hallucination". Other things take on a more concrete aspect when other people, by means of this wonderful set of symbols we call "language" confirm with one another that those things exist, at least temporarily. The Great Wall of China might be a good example. We can look at it, talk about it, measure it, take pictures of it etc. All of these things lead to the conclusion that the great wall "actually" exists, now, as a unique combination of atoms. In this, I have faith, if you choose to call it that. Having faith in a good and loving god is an entirley different issue however because unlike the great wall you can't look at it, talk about it, measure it or take pictures of it.

Quote: Again, I am not in any way criticizing science or its accomplishments. In fact, I am a firm believer in the development of new technology especially regarding global warming, er climate change, er alternating weather patterns. There, you seem to be the skeptic.


Where did I ever say that? I believe the technology exists now. What I don't believe exists is the will to use those technologies, and for that I blame the oil companies, automobile manufacturers, city planners, advertisers, the apathetic public, and politicians. Everybody basically.

Quote: Isn't science and technological achievement your "god?"


No. Science is science. I don't believe in god.

Quote fred: Quote bob: I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.


What in the world is this supposed to mean?


It means that through a scientific study of human motivations and perceptions it is more likely that science will prove some particular philosophy wrong than that philosophy will prove science wrong. I don't think philosophy
can "prove" anything.

Quote: You do realize of course that Hume, Kant, Nietzche, Heidegger, Levinas, et al are absolute beginning blocks to the study of philosophy including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. You did realize that didn't you?

They don't seem to help you much. Basically all you do is repeat their names like some cabalic incantation and expect attitudes to change.

Quote: Now, I would like to make my final point now that you seem to have conceded finally that science cannot prove itself scientically. Now, let's go back to our original discussion regarding Intelligent Design (only with my preference not for the political theory but intelligent design as in small caps). I have "faith" in something Godlike which I prefer to call the Ultimate Formula lest it raise your discrimination and prejudice against traditional religion.


There is no differene btwn large cap and small cap intelligent design.

Quote: You now admit that you are putting your "faith" in science.


I admitted no such thing. I said that nobody had an answer to the REALLY big questions. Not me, not you and not some long dead philosophers.

Quote: You do realize now that we are on equal planes at least philosophically.


No. I am still fairly certain that I am smarter than you.

Quote: Now, pondering that I want you to admit to yourself that highly intelligent people may examine these issues and come to different conclusions than you. I have never told you that it was ridiculous to believe in or put your faith in science but I do not believe that the opposite has been true. And I believe that my faith gives me strength in terms of ethical standards, morality and the confidence and security that comes from believing that there is a purpose to our existence. Can I prove any of this? No. But I want you to understand that likewise you cannot prove anything at this level using science.


What you don't understand is that the "purpose" of life is the promotion of happiness and the avoidance of suffering. Given our social nature this is best accomplished in harmony with others, and harmony is best achieved when certain, at times quite flexible, ethical codes are followed. I know this is true because I have observed it to be true. Happiness requires no justification beyond this.

Quote: And to me, ultimately, I may appreciate the technological benefits that science and new discoveries can deliver, but I would not want to live my life with science as the ultimate arbiter in deciding how I live my life. Now, do you understand where someone like me is coming from?


No. You seem unwilling to simply accept that nature is something intrinsically worthwhile and that its protection should be our most pressing goal, and I think that unwilligness is born of a belief in something "behind" nature, something greater than nature. It is an unscientific and extremely dangerous position to take.

Quote: Again, I am not condemning science but I do want you to understand that religious people such as myself whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or other have wrestled with these issues in a multitude of ways for millenia. I just want you to accept this and perhaps view those of "Belief" in a Higher Intelligence with a bit less smug, self-satisfied superiority in full recognition of the time and effort that has been put into studying and pondering these issues. Fair? Point made? Can you meet me half way on this?


Nope. For too long people have had their heads pickled by religious nonsense that frequently goads them into the belief that they have some sort of divine insight that informs their decisions. Bush is a great example. Not academically curious I think is how he was described in college. Big boozer after that. Suddenly he hits 40 and has an epiphany of sorts which was "forgiven" by Billy Graham and the next thing we know Iraq has been invaded. If anything is clear about that situation it is that Bush just didn't know what sort of can of worms he was getting into. He didn't know. There are a lot of things people don't know and therefore should show more restraint in acting upon. Religion encourages just the opposite and has done so for centuries.

fred smith - Quote: You seem to think that science is about certain ideas or theories.


Yes, to an extent.

Quote: Science is not.


Okay, why not?

Quote: At its very base it is about an unending questioning an doubting it is more than just let say... verficationism.


Let's see where you go with this...

Quote: This is different epistemologically, ontologically and metaphysically from what you are talking about - it is not faith - it is lack of faith that makes science what it is.


You are right but only up to a point. The fact is that science assumes (puts its faith in?) certain concepts and "assumptions" that make it possible to put forward a theory and "prove" it. That works in our day-to-day world and delivers a great many benefits BUT science has never "scientifically proven" that those concepts exist or that those underlying assumptions can be proven. That is my point.

I sense that you keep wanting to drag this down to a discussion of scientific experimentation while avoiding the epistemological side but if you do so then what really comes of this debate on intelligent design? You are granting a certain sort of privilege to science to remain above the fray and why should you be allowed to do so? What science may or may not claim to be able to do or not be able to do is beside the point here. The point is that for many detractors of those who believe in organized religions, science reigns supreme (including metaphysically). Essentially, I may be misinterpreting Bob's responses since quite honestly, I can make neither head nor tail of them, but isn't he suggesting in a sort of "commonsense" approach to Being, Reality and Knowledge? Isn't he sort of suggesting that it is all obvious and that we see is what we get and anyone who does not would be a fool?

fred smith - Quote: They don't seem to help you much. Basically all you do is repeat their names like some cabalic incantation and expect attitudes to change.


No, I repeat their names because they stand for specific views, having outlined specific positions regarding philosopy, including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. I am sorry that this does not mean anything to you but then again, I get it that you have not studied philosophy before, that is why I am attempting to bring my argument down a bit to explain the basic concepts to you rather than assuming that you already know them. Anyway, your flippancy is amusing but it does not cover the lack of knowledge that you have on this subject. Okay, you are the "commonsense" kind of guy who does not have any time with mumbo jumbo. Just give you the facts right? Okay. I get that and I think that we can leave this discussion at that.

If you don't mind, I wouldn't mind continuing the discussion with Elequa for a bit longer to see where it goes. Perhaps, it may be more fruitful?

bob - Now Fred seriously, is that any way to lose yet another debate?

My position makes more sense any way you slice it.

I exist. I have "faith" in that. You exist. I have faith in that too. External reality exists. More faith. It is possible for both of us to observe an aspect of that reality and to conceptualize our peceptions in the form of language and to transmit those concepts, with greater and lesser degrees of accuracy, to each other. You can go and check whether or not my conception of the Great Wall as being one long son of a bitch conforms to reality or not. You can even question the idea of "long" and we will have to agree finally that long is a relative concept. In the end we will agree that the Great Wall is a long son of a bitch relative to the fence around my mother's house and we will have communicated succesfully, unless of course you decide to question the meaning of "son of a bitch" and I will then be required to point out that some language is intended to impart a certain attitude rather than a specific meaning. In the end, for clarity, we might agree that for the purposes of this discussion "The Geat Wall of China is long relative to my mother's fence," is perhaps a better choice of words and we may both have faith that an act of communication has occured via a symbolic system regarding some aspect of external reality.

Or then again perhaps none of this is actually "faith" so much as "belief" based on experience. Faith is something you believe despite having no such experience to back you up.

Really, if you can actually find any kind of mistake in this logic tell us what it is. Otherwise we'll assume you are hiding behind a few big words and a few famous names.

If you like, we can leave the discussion at that.

fred smith - After that, I have no hesitation in completly acceding to your request. I 100 percent admit to having "lost this debate" with you.

epistomology 5

bob - fred smith wrote: Okay, have your fun. But it is impossible to have a debate with someone about these issues when that person so clearly does not have even a clue about where and how debate on this has developed.


I appear to have enough of a clue about it to make a stronger case here than you. That should be good enough.

Quote: You can pretend all you want that you are just a commonsense kind of guy though the first two of those syllables would perhaps be more accurate than a total inclusion of all three, but the actual underpinnings to which you seem to think that you have free latitude to base your ideas on concepts that have not been conceptually proved. Anyway, enough from me.


"Conceptually proved"? You mean by those guys sitting around wondering if we really exist and whether we can really know anything? How bout the idea of god being a good, loving guy with a plan? Has that been "conceptually proved"?

Actually I think I've discovered a cause effect relationship here!

It goes like this....

The more clearly you defeat fred smith in an argument the more stridently he will come out banging his "you obviously have never studied philosophy" drum.

fred smith - I would like to ask you two questions.

Have you ever studied philosophy?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

In summation, I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically. I have stressed this all along.

Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up. Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?

You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own ?cough cough?common sense? haha


Elegua - Quote: Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own


I think you don't understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don't know what we don't know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.

fred smith - I think you don't understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don't know what we don't know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.Quote:


Fred Smith says.... I do not know how this fucking god damned Mac in Mexico works so this is all reversed. The quote should be for the previous person and not me but whatever.... perhaps it believes that it is a scientist too and does not want to help me with my philosophical argument haha. The computer is playing god with me.

I think that you do not read very carefully. Again, no where have I said anything against science. What is the title of this particular thread? It is called epistemology right? Now, what does epistemology deal with? It deals with what knowledge we can have and how can attain that knowledge. Philosophers have dealt with this subject for the better part of two millenia. Science falls under empiricism generally. This is not a new subject, one that has not been dealt with before.

Again, if no one here has any grounding in basic philosophy this conversation is going to go nowhere and fast. No where have I said that science does not have a place. I am talking about how scientific theory cannot prove the very principles upon which it is based from a point of view of epistemology.

Clearly, there are very few people on this thread that know what that means. My mistake for attempting to open a conversation on the subject here. I should have known better. I promise that henceforth I will ask only what your favorite color is and what it tells about your political views. haha

bob - [quote="fred smith"]I would like to ask you two questions.

Have you ever studied philosophy?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

In summation, [quote]

In summation of what? All you did was ask two questions.

Quote:
I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically.


Whatever.

Quote: Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up.


OK so science collapses and with it the universe. Nothing is known. It's all an illusion, excpet the God part of course, he is real "because" unlike the atoms that make up this universe, philosophers of a certain persuasion have conceptually proven the possibility. Does that about sum it up professor?

Quote: Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?


I didn't give it this title. This thread was split from the global warming thread.

Quote: You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own ?cough cough?common sense?


See now you've been using that approach for so long now it just doesn't phase me a bit anymore. Perhaps it is time that you experimented a little, grew as a writer. Who knows it might help to slow the gradual degeneration of the mental faculties that we've seen happening for some time now.

fred smith - Perfect timing with that last statement. I will be off the air for a while and am relieved that you had nothing of relevance or interest to add lest I be tempted to make the effort to come back to post. There is a God and he just saved me from continued tedium. haha

bob - Where are you going this time? Taoyuan?

fred smith - Dear Bob:

After thorough search, I have determined that Hume, Heidegger, Nietzche and others all support my view that science cannot prove itself scientifically. You may have some better ground to stand on going with Kant because of his views on transcendental idealism but I have to reread the section to determine if this would include ALL concepts or just those of time and space. Admittedly, I find his writing a bit heavy going. Filthy Germans, even worse filthy East Prussians. That said, unfortunately, he is going to be just about the only one that would maintain that we can have any true knowledge of the concepts that would underpin scientific knowledge. The rest of the crew is dead set against it.

Just for fun, you could check out Jurgen Habermas as well since he is a fan of the Enlightenment and Reason and has attempted to preserve ways to maintain the traditions despite the onslaught of destructuralist and postmodern thinking. I, too, admire the accomplishments of the Enlightenment. In fact, my last name does in fact mean that very thing in Latin. Changed in 1147 apparently because of a fetish and fad for all things Latin then. Ironic isn't it?

But there you are. You have two philosophers out of the rest that would lean toward a view that science in terms of epistemology can use concepts to prove true knowledge but even then I would say that with Habermas the overall view is one that recognizes the limitations of such knowledge while advocating the spirit of the Enlightenment and again for Kant, I am rereading and rereading but I am having a hard time determining whether his views on transcendental idealism would enable such concepts to be used.

One philosopher that I have certainly found great affinity with is Emmanuel Levinas. Check that one out as well. Let me see if I can get the links to make this easier for you... I know that hard word is anathema to you. haha

Quote:
During the period of his academic career, extending from 1747 to 1781, Kant, as has been said, taught the philosophy then prevalent in Germany, which was Wolff's modified form of dogmatic rationalism. That is to say, he made psychological experience to be the basis of all metaphysical truth, rejected skepticism, and judged all knowledge by the test of reason. Towards the end of that period, however, he began to question the solidity of the psychological basis of metaphysics, and ended by losing all faith in the validity and value of metaphysical reasoning. The apparent contradictions which he found to exist in the physical sciences, and the conclusions which Hume had reached in his analysis of the principle of causation, "awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber" and brought home to him the necessity of reviewing or criticizing all human experience for the purpose of restoring the physical sciences to a degree of certitude which they rightly claim, and also for the purpose of placing on an unshakable foundation the metaphysical truths which Hume's skeptical phenomenalism had overthrown. The old rational dogmatism had, he now considered, laid too much emphasis on the a priori elements of knowledge; on the other hand, as he now for the first time realized, the empirical philosophy of Hume had gone too far when it reduced all truth to empirical or a posteriori elements. Kant, therefore, proposes to pass all knowledge in review in order to determine how much of it is to be assigned to the a priori, and how much to the a posteriori factors, if we may so designate them, of knowledge. As he himself says, his purpose is to "deduce" the a priori or transcendental, forms of thought. Hence, his philosophy is essentially a "criticism", because it is an examination of knowledge, and "transcendental", because its purpose in examining knowledge is to determine the a priori, or transcendental, forms. Kant himself was wont to say that the business of philosophy is to answer three questions: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? He considered, however, that the answer to the second and third depends on the answer to the first; our duty and our destiny can be determined only after a thorough study of human knowledge.


Whoops I guess we can take Kant off that list as well. Back to you bucko.

bob - Science has no need to prove "itself" scientifically because that is not it's concern. It's concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations. Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not. I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.

Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foreign that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.

fred smith - [quote]Science has no need to prove itself scientifically because that is not it's concern.[/quote]

I would love to have this preserved as one of the most incredible things that I have ever read on this forum.

Quote:
It's concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations.


This is incredible. What are you saying? I have always said that science has a role, but now you have finally come around to admitting that science cannot prove itself scientifically (a major challenge in my book) and that it must "freeze" things to examine them in a lab, but since the world is ever-changing, how does this make sense? Again, I am not in any way criticizing science or its accomplishments. In fact, I am a firm believer in the development of new technology especially regarding global warming, er climate change, er alternating weather patterns. There, you seem to be the skeptic. Ironic isn't it?

Quote:
Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not.


I am curious as to why you would hope not.... Isn't science and technological achievement your "god?"

Quote:
I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.


What in the world is this supposed to mean?

Quote:
Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foreign that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.


You do realize of course that Hume, Kant, Nietzche, Heidegger, Levinas, et al are absolute beginning blocks to the study of philosophy including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. You did realize that didn't you?

Now, I would like to make my final point now that you seem to have conceded finally that science cannot prove itself scientically. Now, let's go back to our original discussion regarding Intelligent Design (only with my preference not for the political theory but intelligent design as in small caps). I have "faith" in something Godlike which I prefer to call the Ultimate Formula lest it raise your discrimination and prejudice against traditional religion. You now admit that you are putting your "faith" in science. You do realize now that we are on equal planes at least philosophically. Now, pondering that I want you to admit to yourself that highly intelligent people may examine these issues and come to different conclusions than you. I have never told you that it was ridiculous to believe in or put your faith in science but I do not believe that the opposite has been true. And I believe that my faith gives me strength in terms of ethical standards, morality and the confidence and security that comes from believing that there is a purpose to our existence. Can I prove any of this? No. But I want you to understand that likewise you cannot prove anything at this level using science. And to me, ultimately, I may appreciate the technological benefits that science and new discoveries can deliver, but I would not want to live my life with science as the ultimate arbiter in deciding how I live my life. Now, do you understand where someone like me is coming from? Again, I am not condemning science but I do want you to understand that religious people such as myself whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or other have wrestled with these issues in a multitude of ways for millenia. I just want you to accept this and perhaps view those of "Belief" in a Higher Intelligence with a bit less smug, self-satisfied superiority in full recognition of the time and effort that has been put into studying and pondering these issues. Fair? Point made? Can you meet me half way on this?

epistomology 4

bob - ggarret1 wrote: Yes, Einstein used Pythagorean?s Theorem in his derivation, assuming it to be ?true?, then, paradoxically, asserts that it is not a physical reality. My point is, even if the theorem is not a physical reality it is still ?true? based on metaphysical reasoning. It?s applications to physical reality validate the theorem and, therefore, validity of the metaphysical method of achieving knowledge.

OK so the Pythagorean's theorem is not a physical reality but it's applications to physical reality validate not only the theorem, but the metaphysical method by which it was derived. You can see where a guy would get confused. Your position is doubly confusing (confused?) by the fact that the theory was not derived from pure metaphysics anyway. It was based on observation and logic in these three dimensions we happen to be aware of inhabiting and where the formula stands up perfectly well.

In any event you should check out the back of my wifes head. I bet that thing is flat on five dimensions!

ggarret1 - We say one plus one is equal to two. This can only be true if we assume one is equal to one. It may seem obvious that one is equal to itself. Yet, we say we have ten fingers even though two of them are thumbs. No two apples are exactly equal though each is one apple.

When we apply numbers to the real world one is never equal to one. Hence, Einstein?s remark that two plus two is never equal to four. Numbers, as such, do not exist outside of the human mind. They are an innate property of consciousness - metaphysical truth with no external existence ? knowledge drawn from the void.

bob - ggarret1 wrote: We say one plus one is equal to two. This can only be true if we assume one is equal to one. It may seem obvious that one is equal to itself. Yet, we say we have ten fingers even though two of them are thumbs. No two apples are exactly equal though each is one apple.


Balderdash. When we say we have ten fingers what we mean is we have ten digits. Four fingers and two thumbs. If enough of us do that often enough the meaning of the word "finger" will gradually expand to include the notion of thumbs and this change will come to be reflected in dictionairies. It will no longer be "incorrect" to say we have ten fingers. That is how language works.


Quote:
When we apply numbers to the real world one is never equal to one. Hence, Einstein?s remark that two plus two is never equal to four. Numbers, as such, do not exist outside of the human mind. They are an innate property of consciousness - metaphysical truth with no external existence ? knowledge drawn from the void.


Nah, it's knowledge drawn from the observation that, for example, on a cold winter night it's better to have two logs on the fire than one. The concept of numbers may be an invention of the human mind in but it is an invention based on an awful lot of observation. Once things have been sorted into catagories according to similar properties it is natural as can be to start counting concrete examples of those "things". From there it is a logical matter to start dealing with numbers as pure abstractions and to formulate laws based on reason concerning the behaviour of those numbers. If you want to know whether those laws work the place to check is in the physical world.

ggarret1 - A magnificent mathematical construct such as the Mandelbrot set http://gairrett.tzo.com is not a human invention but a human discovery. An alien mathematician in the Andromeda galaxy studying the properties of complex numbers would discover the same set with the same bizarre and beautiful properties. A million universes could come and go yet this eternal truth would remain.

It has no external existence. It exists only in the metaphysical sense.

triplexpat - The concept of any number or quantity is a human invention, just like any word is a means to convey thought. But just because we don't have a definition for an object, an emotion, an action or an effect doesn't mean they don't exist. I can't claim to be so deftly versed in the philosophical arts as you fine gentlemen, and I'm not sure which side of the argument this will fall, but the four pages of this thread sound like a "if a tree falls in the woods..." kind of discussion (and that question was invented to EMPTY one's mind!) I happen to believe the tree does make a sound, just as I believe the mathematics that created the fractal art has always existed, it just hadn't been terms we could understand before--(and by 'we' I mean mathematicians...I never made it past calc!) It has no acknowledged bearing on us until we name and define it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's just a matter of proving it, ie gravity. Before we defined it as a law, we were still governed by its effect.
I can believe a tree I don't hear makes a sound because trees I have seen and heard fall make a sound and I can infer that the unwitnessed tree makes a sound as well.[/b]

bob - ggarret1 wrote: It has no external existence. It exists only in the metaphysical sense.


Examples of it exist on our computer screens.

fred smith - This has gotten a bit off of my original point which was to discuss intelligent design with no caps. Bob seems like many others to be enamored of science but does not realize its limitations. Let{s take a few comments from HeideggerѠ

Science can reach a point where there is a crisis in its basic concepts. The point he is making is that the sciences are capable of reaching a state where the concepts that ground them become open to question. The sciences cannot, he says, be grounded in the sciences themselves. They take the conceptual ordering of reality that grounds their own possibility for granted. They presuppose the condition in order to investigate entitites of a particular kind but they cannot investigate the condition of which an entity is an entity. They must presuppose this in order to continue. Sciences are concerned only with entities in the world, i.e. their subject matter. Science is based on concepts but concepts are frozen in time in order to study a specific entity at a specific time, but since we are all being in the process of becoming how do you justify metaphysically stopping and freezing something for that moment that science needs when by our very nature we are in a constant state of change that defines our very being.

Also science and being are in time so subtract time and what happens to these?

Therefore, my point is that I find it laughable that so many people put such "faith" in science. Again, I am not saying that we do away with science but this laughable idea that everyone today has everything figured out is well simply wrong. That is why many scientific minds have remained religious because they at least know the limits of what they can know. Does this mean that they want to quit their jobs as scientists to become pastors, priests or rabbis? No. It means that they fully understand the limits of science while still being interested in pursuing scientific enquiries withing the framework of what is possible.

So again, I once made a point earlier that too much education can be a bad thing. What I mean by this is that so many people today with their limited understandings of the true nature of science, metaphysics and religion believe that they have it all figured out. There is an arrogance that is sweeping in its contempt for religion. Yet, it will come as a surprise to many of these rational thinking beings that many of those who remain religious have gone beyond them in terms of study on the subject and have chosen to remain religious because of what we have learned.

Religion is not necessarily about the stereotypical Bible banging Baptist who faints when touched by a healer. Nor is it about some snake charmer in India nor is it about some Muslim terrorist. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and many of the other great traditions have long understood science, rational investigation, etc. and have found as many of us have that there are limits to how far it can go, how adequate it can be in terms of explaining the universe and what we know about it. Therefore the irony here may be that while thinking they have some sort of superior intellectual and rational basis for their thinking, those who are most contemptuous of religion are in fact the ones who are most lacking in the intellectual and rational qualities that they seem to mistakenly believe that they possess in abundance.

There, I have said my piece so peace brothers and sisters. haha

bob - Your Heidegger is gobbledy gook that nobody can understand. What we know is that there exists a swirling mass of matter and energy that comes together and falls apart on a scale so vast that there are literally no words to describe it. Somehow this swirling mass gave rise to consciousness on this planet. Nobody knows how but they might someday somehow discover that too. In any event this consciousness that has arisen is an anxious, creative little beast that likes to know the answers to questions. Religion provides answers but they are not real answers.

[quote="fred smith"] Let{s take a few comments from Heidegger [quote]

Indeed.

Quote: They presuppose the condition in order to investigate entities of a particular kind but they cannot investigate the condition of which an entity is an entity.


What does this mean?

Quote: They must presuppose this in order to continue. Sciences are concerned only with entities in the world, i.e. their subject matter. Science is based on concepts but concepts are frozen in time in order to study a specific entity at a specific time, but since we are all being in the process of becoming how do you justify metaphysically stopping and freezing something for that moment that science needs when by our very nature we are in a constant state of change that defines our very being.


Being in the process of becoming? Is that a fancy way of saying that things are changing all the time? I think we had that figured out already, and I think it was the study of chemistry that really banged it home.

Quote: Also science and being are in time so subtract time and what happens to these?


Everything stops moving? Heck, I dunno, you tell me.

Quote: Therefore, my point is that I find it laughable that so many people put such "faith" in science.


You don't really think it is funny. You just say that because you have said it so many times before and can't think of anything original to say now.

Quote: Again, I am not saying that we do away with science...

Oh really professor? And what would lead you to such a profound conclusion?

Quote: but this laughable idea that everyone today has everything figured out is well simply wrong.

Another stunning insight! Anyway since I am the only one participating on this side of the thread and since those are my words I think I can safely assume that they are actually directed at me. I know you are a little simple so let me explain that I don't really think that I have it ALL figured out, just that I have it figured out as well as anyone else here and certainly as well as you. If I really wanted to learn more I'd talk to a scientist.

Quote: There is an arrogance that is sweeping in its contempt for religion. Yet, it will come as a surprise to many of these rational thinking beings that many of those who remain religious have gone beyond them in terms of study on the subject and have chosen to remain religious because of what we have learned.


And many didn't. Go figure.

Quote: Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and many of the other great traditions have long understood science, rational investigation, etc. and have found as many of us have that there are limits to how far it can go, how adequate it can be in terms of explaining the universe and what we know about it.

What religions do is tell people the answers when really there are no answers. Nobody knows the answers to the basic issues raised here.

Quote: Therefore the irony here may be that while thinking they have some sort of superior intellectual and rational basis for their thinking, those who are most contemptuous of religion are in fact the ones who are most lacking in the intellectual and rational qualities that they seem to mistakenly believe that they possess in abundance.


I never said I was contemptuous of religion. I think religion and the literature and music and philosophies it inspires are awesome manifestations of the profound anxieties and longings involved. Absolutely stunning, and ultimately, absolutely flawed.

fred smith - Bob, you simply have no understanding of the basic concepts that underlie philosophy or metaphysics. Have you ever studied any of this? Obviously not. Okay, have your fun. But it is impossible to have a debate with someone about these issues when that person so clearly does not have even a clue about where and how debate on this has developed. You can pretend all you want that you are just a commonsense kind of guy though the first two of those syllables would perhaps be more accurate than a total inclusion of all three, but the actual underpinnings to which you seem to think that you have free latitude to base your ideas on concepts that have not been conceptually proved. Anyway, enough from me.

Elegua - fred smith wrote: Bob, you simply have no understanding of the basic concepts that underlie philosophy or metaphysics. Have you ever studied any of this? Obviously not. Okay, have your fun. But it is impossible to have a debate with someone about these issues when that person so clearly does not have even a clue about where and how debate on this has developed. You can pretend all you want that you are just a commonsense kind of guy though the first two of those syllables would perhaps be more accurate than a total inclusion of all three, but the actual underpinnings to which you seem to think that you have free latitude to base your ideas on concepts that have not been conceptually proved. Anyway, enough from me.


Try reading some Feynman - there is a very good lecture on just this very subject in The Joys of Finding Things Out. There is no crisis of basic concepts in science as the basis of science is an unending scepticism and questioning of all things, including itself. Me thinks Heidegger is confusing engineering with science.

epistomology 3

bob - I don't have a clear what you are talking about either honestly. Give me a universal truth that cannot be, as you put it "buttresed by sense experience" or that is not a logical consequence of known facts. Just one example. I'll point out that your example represents faith and not knowledge, but that is getting ahead of ourselves.

fred smith - Reread the statement in the original link and then tell me if you can use sense experience to PROVE a universal truth based on the inductive reasoning that perceives causation as a means of providing true knowledge. I am all for getting an answer.

bob - I think you want me to give you an example of a universal truth that is provable with sense experience or inductive reasoning. OK. The universe is an infinitely complex web of cause and effect relationships. This is true down to the smallest detail. For example say.... the paper in my printer. How did it get there in exactly that form? To answer that "completely" would invlove an infinite series of formulations regarding economics, biology, physics etc. leading you all the way back to the big bang and beyond I suppose. Everything is like that. From the paper in my printer to the fact that I choose to respond to you instead of taking a nap. This is what we "know" about the universe. In fact it is all we know. Call it a universal truth if you like. Indeed, lets take it one step further and call it a universal truth based on observation and reasoning. As I recall, all the way from the beginning of this paragraph, that is what you asked for.

fred smith - Sorry that won?t work. Anyway, do read up a bit more on philosophy some time. You may find it interesting.

bob - I think it worked really well. The universe "is" an infinitely complex web of inter-related cause and effect relationships. Surely that qualifies as a "universal truth." And it is based solely on observation and logic. By the way I am still waiting for even one example of a unviversal truth that is "not" based on the same. Just one.

ggarret1 - bob wrote: I think it worked really well. The universe "is" an infinitely complex web of inter-related cause and effect relationships. Surely that qualifies as a "universal truth." And it is based solely on observation and logic. By the way I am still waiting for even one example of a unviversal truth that is "not" based on the same. Just one.


Your example of the angles of a triangle is such a truth. Historically, the laws of geometry came from measurements taken from physical reality. However, it has been shown that these same laws, Pythagoreans theorem and such, can also be proven from set theory or ?topology? without making reference to physical reality what so ever. The fact that the physical universe behaves according to mathematical laws is validation of the ?truth? of mathematics. Nonetheless, Mathematics can rightly be viewed as a purely metaphysical body of knowledge.

bob - ggarret1 wrote: The fact that the physical universe behaves according to mathematical laws is validation of the ?truth? of mathematics. Nonetheless, Mathematics can rightly be viewed as a purely metaphysical body of knowledge.


If "a law of mathematics" fails the physcical test it isn't a law, it's a mistake. There must have been a few of those along the way. And it doesn't matter whether the laws concerning triangles "could have been arrived at" without actual triangles. The fact is that those laws are confirmed in the real world. There is nothing in this aside from observation and logic. Again, if there is some law which was not derived from one or both of these processes we have yet to hear about it here.

ggarret1 - In fact according to Einstein Pythagoreans Theorem is such a ?mistake?. According to general relativity, the universe is non-Euclidean having shape in the fourth dimension and Pythagorean?s theorem is only a good approximation ? not actually ?true? when applied to physical reality. It can be asserted that Pythagorean?s Theorem ?would? be true on a perfectly flat surface if there were such a thing which, according to Einstein, there isn?t. Hence, Pythagoreans Theorem can only be viewed as an ?absolute truth? based on a metaphysical argument.

bob - ggarret1 wrote: Hence, Pythagoreans Theorem can only be viewed as an ?absolute truth? based on a metaphysical argument.


Or a mistake based on Einsteins theory of relativity which in turn "is" based on logic. It all depends on whether or not there is actually such a thing as a flat surface I suppose. Einstain says there isn't but then again he has never seen my wife's head has he?

ggarret1 - Yes, Einstein used Pythagorean?s Theorem in his derivation, assuming it to be ?true?, then, paradoxically, asserts that it is not a physical reality. My point is, even if the theorem is not a physical reality it is still ?true? based on metaphysical reasoning. It?s applications to physical reality validate the theorem and, therefore, validity of the metaphysical method of achieving knowledge.

epistemology 2

bob - OK I read it again and I think it is nonsense. This bit especially ...

Quote:
Positivists inadvertently slip in an immaterial agency, whereby indeed they beg the question when they appeal to induction to explain the genesis of knowledge; the inductive process involves universal abstract principles and logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.


That is not true. If someone posits a "logical law" and that logical law is not subsequently confirmed by observation of physical events then that logical law moves more into the realm of being a mistake, or flawed theory, if you'd prefer. I know how sensitive you fancy pants intellectuals can be.

fred smith - Quote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.


Do you disagree that this is true?

bob - fred smith wrote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.


Do you disagree that this is true?


Yes, I disagree that that is true. Or, to put it another way, I agree that it is a mistake. Let me give you an example. Imagine that I go to my doctor and tell him that I plan to hit myself in the head with a sledgehammer and he says "based on my experience based knowledge of seeing people hit themselves on the head with sledgehammers I feel safe in advising against such a plan as it would likely cause a nasty bump." Since I have a lot of respect for my doctor and his experience based knowledge I would be inclined to heed his advice. It's a practical thing.

bob - fred smith wrote: Quote: logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations.
Do you disagree that this is true?


On second thought I neither disagree nor disagree with that because it does not in fact say anything. It is a noun group modified by an adjective clause in the passive voice which is in turn modified by an adverb clause. The whole package however lacks a verb and "therefore" constitutes what is known as an incomplete idea and is impossible to agree "or" disagree with.

fred smith - Do you think that senses can provide knowledge of causes? or rather than you can have definite true knowledge of causes from sense experience?

butcher boy - I think you guys may have switched everyone else off. Anyway just thought you might like to search for Gettier, in regards to the never ending agrument about whether it is possible to know anything (apart from logical truths).

You could also read the link below (i admit I haven't gone that far through it yet) which seems to be drawingh the whole problem together.
http://www.unc.edu/~ujanel/Gettier.htm

bob - fred smith wrote: Do you think that senses can provide knowledge of causes? or rather than you can have definite true knowledge of causes from sense experience?


Yes.

And yes, I suspect this is some kind of trap. I am not, however, interested in avoiding traps. I am interested in learning something I didn't know before. That has not happened yet in this thread or in the related global warming thread. It has been an interesting writing exercise though, and for that I thank you despite whatever sort of axe you are about to drop on my skinny neck.

fred smith - Quote: And yes, I know this is a trap.


This is not a trap. It is a fair question.

Quote:
I am not, however, interested in avoiding traps. I am interested in learning something I didn't know before.


Good.

Quote: That has not happened yet in this thread or in the related global warming thread.


Nothing?

Quote: It has been an interesting writing exercise though, and for that I thank you despite whatever sort of axe you are about to drop on my skinny neck.


Nothing to drop on your skinny neck. Just an observation (intentional). You cannot prove that true knowledge can be gleaned nor can you use sense experience to prove causes and this is something that has bedeviled philosophers for quite some time. That was what I was referring to earlier with regard to the lofty pronouncements that fans of science bandy about as if they were written in stone. Now, perhaps you will also understand why given these variables, many including those of a scientific frame of mind have gravitated to becoming religious. Once they understand the weak underpinnings of science at least in terms of metaphysics, they have to look elsewhere for answers. Now, I am not in any way suggesting that we get rid of science. I am merely pointing out that to use science to scientifically investigate the principles on which it rests show that it too requires faith to accept. Ironic isn't it?

bob - Not to me because I don't agree with what you are saying. Science, basically, is about making theories about cause effect relationships. Smoking causes an increase in cancer rates. Properly designed listening practice causes an improvement in second or foreign language ability in the motivated student. Either of these propositions can be argued against but not very convincingly. There exist phenomena that we don't know the cause of, or that we know are the effect of a multitude of (perhaps an infinite number of - perhaps everything fits here ultimately) causes but that does not preclude the possibility that these causes, or the major or most recent causes, are knowable as a result of observation or inductive reasoning. The ultimate cause is perhaps the only unkowable thing but it is truly that, unknowable, and assigning any qualities whatsoever to an entirely unknowable force is pure folly IMHO.

fred smith - Quote: Not to me because I don't agree with what you are saying. Science, basically, is about making theories about cause effect relationships. Smoking causes an increase in cancer rates. Properly designed listening practice causes an improvement in second or foreign language ability in the motivated student. Either of these propositions can be argued against but not very convincingly. There exist phenomena that we don't know the cause of, or that we know are the effect of a multitude of (perhaps an infinite number of - perhaps everything fits here ultimately) causes but that does not preclude the possibility that these causes, or the major or most recent causes, are knowable as a result of observation or inductive reasoning. The ultimate cause is perhaps the only unkowable thing but it is truly that, unknowable, and assigning any qualities whatsoever to an entirely unknowable force is pure folly IMHO.


I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about here. The point is that if you can, I would like you to prove that sense experience can be the basis for true knowledge of causalities. Now, the point is that while you think that a triangle will always have three sides and it very well may, you cannot prove based on your sense experience (observations) that this was, is and always will be true. You cannot use your sense experience here to support a universal principle or universal truth. That is the plain and simple reality that philosophers have struggled without through millennia. I would be immensely pleased if we were to find some sort of hidden piece to the puzzle that has eluded the world's greatest minds all these years. So sorry, but you see where you are with this now. And as to that sense experience leading to oh for Christ's sakes man, you can see that this truth is self-evident. May I point out that it was once self-evident based on sense experience that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and no one would have ever been able to foresee the elaborate mechanisms involved in the Theory of Relativity. That is all I am asking. Please admit that universal truths cannot be buttressed by sense experience and labeled as true knowledge.

epistomology

bob - fred smith wrote:
What does observe mean to you?
In this context I would say it means experience through the senses.

Quote:
What are the challenges that face determining our knowledge based on what we learn from our senses?


Schizophrenia, sleepiness, dream states, somebody is playing a trick, time constraints, the limitations of our sensory apparataus... Basically though I think that the existence of some thing or relationship between things can be confirmed if that existence can be confirmed by the observation of other observers. It is not fool proof but it is the best we know of.

Quote:
What is inductive reasoning?


Inference of a general law from particular instances. For instances I observed particular instances of human and animal suffering and by a process of inductive reasoning concluded that if there is a god it is a part time evil god.

Quote:
How does it differ from deductive reasoning?


Goes the opposite direction.

Quote:
Is there such a concept as reductive reasoning?


Yes, it invloves simplifying a problem to it's essentials.

Quote:
What part would each of these play in what you know and how you know it even though it would be something not "observed" or "learned from sense experience?"


OK first I experienced things and then I used inductive reasoning to conclude, for example, that there is no good and perfect god with a plan. A similar, though less sophisticated process came into play with regard to Sanata Clause and the Easter Bunny.


fred smith - What would you say to this then... in criticism of the idea that Ideas are and can be formed from observation and induction...

Quote:
None of these peculiarities of the idea can be discovered in any sensation or image, which always represents sensuous phenomena, existent and concrete. Locke's "reflection" and Condillac's "processes of association" will not suffice to transmute sensations into ideas, since these two states are essentially, because objectively (representatively), different. Positivists inadvertently slip in an immaterial agency, whereby indeed they beg the question when they appeal to induction to explain the genesis of knowledge; the inductive process involves universal abstract principles and logical laws which are constituted of ideas that essentially transcend sensations. The supersensuous character of ideas follows equally from their "extension" or range of applicability. Ideas as representative of essences, are available as predicates, and are the terms whereof absolutely universal principles are constituted. Hence ideas are universal, whereas sensations and images can represent only objects that affect the sensory organs, i.e. individual, physically existing objects. Moreover, ideas represent objects as abstract--physically abstract, e.g. individual sensible qualities; mathematically abstract, e.g. extension and number; metaphysically abstract, e.g. nature, entity, substance, truth, etc. And indeed unless ideas were of the abstract there could be no science, physical, mathematical, or philosophical; all these sciences consider their objects apart from concrete individual determinations. No intellectual judgment whatsoever would be possible, since every predicate is a generalized term and hence in some degree abstract. Sensation cannot represent an abstract object; for though the sight, e.g., perceives colour apart from sound, nevertheless

no sense can abstract from the subject-matter--from the existence and individuality of its proper object; the eye does not see colour as such and abstracted, but the coloured object physically and individually existing;
no sense can abstract from its proper object (its appropriate stimulus or object-quality), nor from its common object (quantity, the extended object);
a fortiori, no sense can perceive one dimension of extension or a mathematical point, or things non-existent, or abstract forms like man and humanity.
Nor does the common image suffice to explain the universal idea as Locke and the Herbartians suppose, for the common image, though indistinct, remains always in some way concrete and sensible; since the imagination as primarily reproductive can represent only what the senses have reported. Consciousness attests this; for if the imagination represent e.g. a triangle, it is always of some certain size and shape; it cannot represent a triangle which is neither rectangular, obtuse, nor acute; while the idea of a triangle prescinds from every size or shape. Besides the image there is therefore the thought, the intellectual concept, the latter differing essentially from the former. Hence the common image is not predicable of the individuals distributively because it is still somehow concrete, singular, sensible, material, and represents only quality. Nor can it be predicated as confusedly blending all its inferiors, because the predicate of a judgment is attributed according to comprehension rather than extension. At best, moreover, the image is like to things; the concept is identical with the subject of which it is predicated. According to the empiricists the common image results from a comparison of representations, so that what is common to them, i.e. some pre-eminent quality, stands as the concept. But the intellect would thus have to immediately perceive and compare the images, which is impossible; nor could it form a concept unless a number of sense perceptions and representations of a thing or things of the same species had preceded. We know, however, that we immediately form a concept of a thing, even though perceived but once. Furthermore, in order to form the common image a concept of the object must have preceded; for in order to compare similar things we must previously have perceived their likeness. Now, to perceive their likeness means to perceive some common objective aspect wherein the similar things agree, while differing in other aspects. But this the senses cannot perceive; hence there must precede an intellectual perception of the note of agreement common to the objects represented by the images, i.e. a universal idea must precede the common image. The common image therefore does not precede but follows the common concept, whereof it is a sort of shadow. This is specially so in the case of the productive imagination which re-arranges in new forms previously compared images and hence supposes reflection and judgment, operations which no sense call perform.


and then this is the final nail in the coffin...

Quote:
Science is the knowledge of things in and by their causes; but the senses cannot perceive causes. Positivists claim that by their method the sciences have made wonderful progress, that by employing observation and induction the laws of nature have been discovered. Now, observation of phenomena entails universal ideas whereby the phenomena are classified under groups or species, while induction, to be legitimate and certain, postulates the principle of causality. Therefore the physical sciences suppose physical abstraction; the mathematical, mathematical abstraction, the metaphysical, metaphysical abstraction (primitive, i.e. direct, and reflective; ontological, logical, psychological). The negation of universal, necessary, immutable ideas essentially different from sensations means the destruction of even physical science, a fortiori of mathematical and philosophical sciences.


Naturally, this is not my argument. I could never put this so clearly. But what do you say regarding the issues raised?

bob - The idea of a triangle exists because actual triangles have been observed in reality. If they had never been observed then the possibility of their existence could have been arrived at inductively based on simple geometry. In fact the archetypical triangle, the abstract concept, an object with three straight sides and straight angles adding up to whatever it is, 180 degrees I think, could have been arrived at in no other way.

Sorry, try again.

fred smith - Sorry... May have to get back to you in a couple of weeks on this. Off soon so may not be accessing computer for a couple of weeks.

Just a cursory glance. I think you missed the point. I apologize for not having the time to go back and reread through the statement, but I believe the point was that ideas CAN be based on inductive reasoning, but the process behind how these ideas are formulated involves universals and abstracts and this is where the problem could arise. Please reread that section once again and get back to me. I will try to come back on tomorrow before my flight.

bob - fred smith wrote:
I think you missed the point. I apologize for not having the time to go back and reread through the statement, but I believe the point was that ideas CAN be based on inductive reasoning, but the process behind how these ideas are formulated involves universals and abstracts and this is where the problem could arise.


No, I got it. It just doesn't make sense. You can pile abstraction upon abstraction if you want but if those abstractions don't have a basis in physical reality then you are moving into the realm of speculation, imagination, or faith, not knowledge.

Notice too what a poor example the triangle was. If it is possible to have some kind of real knowledge not based on observation or induction based on that experience, why didn't they give an example that supported that possibility rather than one that contradicted it?

fred smith - I think that the point was that you were basing knowledge on observation (senses) and induction, but that ideas generated from the two were occasionally contradictory. I realize that this is complicated but my understanding is that to talk about the knowledge that you seem to be discussing, the problem would arise in that you are using your senses to back up your inductive reasoning which would seem logical BUT from a philosophical point of view, you cannot assume that such knowledge would be actual knowledge because you have not clearly defined or proven how that knowledge could be guaranteed to be true knowledge. Philosophers have oft debated how we can actually KNOW anything. I think that your argument is resting on the assumption that your sense knowledge can back up your inductive reasoning and vice versa. I believe that the writer here would disagree with that.

bob - fred smith wrote: I think that the point was that you were basing knowledge on observation (senses) and induction, but that ideas generated from the two were occasionally contradictory.

An example would be nice. The example he provided illustrated the exact opposite of what he was saying.

Quote:
I realize that this is complicated but my understanding is that to talk about the knowledge that you seem to be discussing, the problem would arise in that you are using your senses to back up your inductive reasoning which would seem logical BUT from a philosophical point of view, you cannot assume that such knowledge would be actual knowledge because you have not clearly defined or proven how that knowledge could be guaranteed to be true knowledge.


If inductive reasoning and experience confirm a notion it qualifies as knowledge. The three angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees. That is a notion that mathematicians can explain I expect and that is always confirmed by experience. I think we can say we have knowledge of what a triangle is. If there is something more to it we have yet to hear what that something is.

Quote:
Philosophers have oft debated how we can actually KNOW anything.


That is something I think about whenever I feel like being nauseated. Isn't there a book about that? By some French guy with a famous grandfather who invented the listen and repeat theory of language learning I think. Or was that Berlitz? No, Berlitz use the language circle and pictures. Les Mot Les Mot they drive me crazeee!

Quote:
I think that your argument is resting on the assumption that your sense knowledge can back up your inductive reasoning and vice versa. I believe that the writer here would disagree with that.


He is free to disagree all he likes, but until he gives me an example I am free to disagree with him as well.

fred smith - Quote: If inductive reasoning and experience confirm a notion it qualifies as knowledge.


Not necessarily. Certainly, the author makes a good point while this may seem logical, it cannot be proven to be so because senses cannot be used to confirm casuality and it is precisely that casuality which underpins the universal notions that make your inductive statement possible.

bob - You must be using the term in a way that I don't understand because I use my senses to confirm the cause of things all the time. For example my walls are the exact shade of green that you have in your avatar behing Herr Shroder or whoever he is. I know that what caused the walls to be that colour was me going to the paint store, picking a colour, buying brushes etc. bringing all the junk home and painting the walls. What am I missing?

fred smith - Quote: You must be using the term in a way that I don't understand because I use my senses to confirm the cause of things all the time. For example my walls are the exact shade of green that you have in your avatar behing Herr Shroder or whoever he is. I know that what caused the walls to be that colour was me going to the paint store, picking a colour, buying brushes etc. bringing all the junk home and painting the walls. What am I missing?


Oh I understand why you are missing something. It is very difficult to actually question what we "think" that we "know" when it seems to be a given. That is what philosophy is all about: testing and determining exactly what we know and how we can know it. Reread the statement highlighted again about senses not being able to perceive casualty and then there you are.

cheque in the mail 4

spook - MaPoSquid wrote: spook wrote: What would be the result if one day we agreed that henceforth corporations could no longer own any portion of America's vast natural resources and an individual could only own that portion necessary for personal use?

The vast balance would become assets of America Inc. and every American citizen would by birthright become a shareholder in those assets and receive monthly dividend checks. The corporations would be hired and fired to manage and exploit the minerals, energy sources, arable and habitable land, water and other considerable natural assets of the nation and generate the dividends to distribute to shareholder-citizens. A small portion of these dividend payments would be held back as taxes.

I believe they tried that in Russia for about seventy years. When it all fell apart at the end, some people got shares in Yukos, and other people got shares in the local dildo factory they worked in. Rather than cash, the latter often were paid in excess dildo production. Of course, Russian dildos aren't worth a hell of a lot, so they basically got screwed.

I wish I had a copy of the story about that Russian dildo factory, but this was Before The Web in about 1992, I believe in the Chicago Tribune, and the article discussed how these impoverished Russians would have to go door to door trying to sell their monthly dildo dividend so they could buy vodka.

In a communist system, the state owns everything and private property is outlawed. I'm envisioning an America run like a corporation owned by its citizens exactly as a capitalist entity with true share dividends and with true private property including zero income tax on income from employment. Rather than the Soviet Union, the state of Alaska is a distant approximation of what I'm talking about. I'm only talking about limiting private ownership of natural resources to personal use and common shares but it would be absolute ownership by birthright and not conditional ownership as in the U.S. today or meaningless communal "ownership" as in Marxist-Leninist states.

If the central idea is to go to the heart of the inequities which make poverty in even wealthy nations endemic and to come up with a solution which ends the inherently unfair indenturement of the productive class to the underclass then something somewhere else will have to give. It's just unavoidable and not necessarily the Trojan horse of repackaged socialism.

bob - A rich, technologically advanced economy should be able to provide at least the basic assurance of survival. Instead what we have is this nightmare compromise between the right who can't see that we are in this thing together and the left who thinks that money grows on trees.

cheque in the mail 3

bob - Hobbes wrote:
why not skip the corrupt middlemen and counterproductive incentives and give the money directly to the people who need it?


There it is. Have a look at the inflated rental rates on so called "affordable housing" in any big Canadian city (the states are likely as bad) and ask yourself who really benefits from the welfare system. If you come to any other conclusion than the landlords (and those employed in the "welfare ministry") and I'll be amazed. I knew landlords in Vancouver who would only rent to people on welfare because... you guessed it. It meant a steady rent cheque as it is not possible to collect welfare without a rental agreement. Working stiffs, especially those at the lowend of the pay scale were just too liable to go tits up on account of some firing or laying off and it would take a couple of months for them to go through the process of demonstrating to welfare that they were truly destitute and so qualified for assistance. Once qualified though they could sit there forever, as long as any income that came in did so well under the radar, in other words through drug dealing, prostitution, a bit of casual labour or, of course, private language tutorials.

So in all of this the one who suffers big time is the low wage earner. He pays exorbitant rent, if he can find housing, and is left with barely enough to live on. The middle class also suffers inflated rent and has to deal daily with a class of permanently unemployed who frequently, shall we say, show little respect for the society that supports them.

The people who benefit of course are the landlords. Laughing all the way to the bank that lot is. Of course they sometimes suffer the inconvenience of kicking whole families out in the snow but by golly this is a tough world after all and if you can't make the rent this month well, that just shows you need a little toughening up. Three weeks in January camped in your car with the wife and kids will teach you....

redandy - Ok, I'm having a hard time seeing how this reduces corruption and beaurocracy. It seems to me that with a massive influx of people into the welfare system, the beaurocracy expands. As for corruption, if people abuse current systems why won't they abuse this one?

j99l88e77 - Giving money to people who aren't working does not work, bob. I didn't read anything else. If you want to elaborate on how this could work, I won't read it because it's silly and I'm too lazy.

You can give too much cash to people who are laid off/quit/get fired/are on welfare, but the fear of no more money coming gets them off their collecitve feet.

I got checks (cheques) from the government to the tune of 50,000 NT/month clear for 10 months on employment insurance. My rent and everything else utility wise added up to maybe 5500-6000 NT/month. Nice vacation.

guangtou - A badly structured welfare net will indeed incline people to 'sit down' - in fact, that's just what many aboriginal Australian's call their monthly welfare check (i.e. 'sit-down money'). But it is not inevitably like this. I read an article about a year ago now (sorry, the piece is locked-up in storage back in Oz and I can't remember the reference) that was basically a test of two different welfare philosophies. The researchers took two groups of unemployed people in Chicago and did this to their welfare payouts (1) kept one group the same (i.e. a status quo control group with a cut-out date after 6 months), (2) gave the second group the standard 6-month payout, but offered a generous lump sum reward for those that found a job. Low and behold, the ratio of successful job seekers was higher in the second group than the first. They took the incentive and ran with it. Interestingly, the total payouts per group were significantly less for the second than the first, even though the second had a lump sum reward thrown in - the unemployed people in the second group got busy early and found work, reducing the total welfare expenditure through the 6 month period. What this test didn't do was see what happens when you get rid of unemployment payouts altogether - there are, of course, ethical problems with running such a piece of research... Anyway, the point is, the way you structure your welfare system can have BOTH a negative and positive effect on work incentives. Handing money to people per se is not necessarily a disincentive to work.

belgian pie - In Belgium as a head of the family you can get unemployment money forever as long as you go out once in while and do a job interview and proof you are looking for work, currently this should be like around 35-40,000 NT$/month
Add some child support money for 2-3 children and you could get more than 40-50,000 NT$ monthly

Who wants to go out and look for job or work ... if you do some moonlighting you could make more money and pay less taxes than in a regular job.

Some large families (mostly immigrants from north africa) can get around 100,000 NT$/ month in the system.

A bonus is that you also qualify for public/housing and that's far from what you see in the US, in belgium a lot are one family homes with garden and garage.

bob - 35 - 40,000 a month is outrageous. It reminds me of the unemployment insurance system in Canada where the amount you collect is a percentage of the amount you made while working. Those who had good paying seasonal jobs would continue to collect pretty reasonable amounts of money the rest of the year and would frequently do this year after year. If the guy who worked at a low paying job quit or got fired he would have to wait six weeks or something to collect and then all he would get would be a percentage of what was already not enough money. Basically what it meant was that if you weren't in a Union the boss had you by the balls and could abuse you at his leisure. If you were in a Union (especially a government Union) you were probably a bit lazy, got paid a little too much and had your UIC cheque waiting for you if things went south.

In any case the unemployment insurance model is definitely not what I am talking about. What I AM talking about is a bare subsistence amount NTD10-15,000 given to everybody over eighteeen. People with good salaries would pay all or a portion of that money back in taxes and the people who really needed it would have it. There would be no disincentive to work, no waiting periods, no degrading interviews with half witted social workers, no extortionary contracts with landlords. The minimum wage could be lowered or eliminated altogether giving small businesses especially a running chance. People could go to school if they wanted, live in a tent if they wanted, go to school AND live in a tent...

Jaboney - Interesting idea bob.

I caught John Ralston Saul speaking on healthcare once, and one of his aruments in favour of a universal system was that the management costs of anything other are ridiculously out of line with what's delivered. Another time, I caught a guy from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives speaking against cutting gov't benefits (seniors' benefits, I believe) to the richest Canadians on the basis that a universal system, even if it doesn't actually benefit everyone ('cause at a certain level of income, you're paying in more than you get out), enjoys the virtue of being seen to be there for everyone. (Much the same argument often used in favour of a no-loop-holes, no exceptions, flat rate income tax.) Such systems enjoy huge savings on management and administration because they're universal, and enjoy significant support because they're there for all.

From a (un)employment insurance standpoint, it'd also be nice because there'd never be any ridiculous waiting period. There are silly buggers like myself, who simply refuse to apply on principle. I know that work will be forthcoming, and it also has come up, but it can take awhile. I've had friends not file papers because they'd rather look for work, only to file much later when there was no work to be found. Then, because they'd tried to got out and do the right thing, they're benefits were significantly reduced thanks to the forumla used.

And the seasonal ski-team workfare scam is ridiculous. Like the fishermen who get maybe 3 or 4 days a season, but manage to qualify for year-round EI/UI. All because the gov't let out too many licenses and now finds too many boats and too few fish in the water.

MaPoSquid - spook wrote:
What would be the result if one day we agreed that henceforth corporations could no longer own any portion of America's vast natural resources and an individual could only own that portion necessary for personal use?

The vast balance would become assets of America Inc. and every American citizen would by birthright become a shareholder in those assets and receive monthly dividend checks. The corporations would be hired and fired to manage and exploit the minerals, energy sources, arable and habitable land, water and other considerable natural assets of the nation and generate the dividends to distribute to shareholder-citizens. A small portion of these dividend payments would be held back as taxes.

I believe they tried that in Russia for about seventy years. When it all fell apart at the end, some people got shares in Yukos, and other people got shares in the local dildo factory they worked in. Rather than cash, the latter often were paid in excess dildo production. Of course, Russian dildos aren't worth a hell of a lot, so they basically got screwed.

I wish I had a copy of the story about that Russian dildo factory, but this was Before The Web in about 1992, I believe in the Chicago Tribune, and the article discussed how these impoverished Russians would have to go door to door trying to sell their monthly dildo dividend so they could buy vodka.

"I am the descendent of an old British Family. Our family crest was two dead French men crossed over a giant pile of dead French men." -- Pissy the Ant

The following words and phrases may not be used in a cadence: Budding sexuality, necrophilia, I hate everyone in this formation and wish they were dead, sexual lubrication, black earth mother, all Marines are latent homosexuals, Tantric yoga, Gotterdammerung, Korean hooker, Eskimo Nell, we've all got jackboots now, slut puppy, or any references to squid.