|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 12th, 2006 06:39 PM | ||
| Archduke Tips | That depends on what the definition of "is" is. | |
| May 12th, 2006 06:07 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | Who can really say what is dumb? | |
| May 11th, 2006 11:39 PM | ||
| BlueOatmeal |
Quote:
|
|
| May 11th, 2006 10:31 PM | ||
| Archduke Tips | If you are not willing to eliminate any possibilities, then it is time to accept that you know nothing. | |
| May 11th, 2006 10:09 PM | ||
| Preechr | Please, keep going. | |
| May 11th, 2006 09:56 PM | ||
| Emu | What the fuck are you talking about? He loves da ladiez. | |
| May 11th, 2006 09:53 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
 I believe it's evident that you are quite gay. |
|
| May 11th, 2006 06:12 PM | ||
| BlueOatmeal |
I enjoy watching myself "do the deed" with myself in the mirror. P.S. You suck OAO. I mean really bad. Its not the kind of suck that you can just ignore and hope it will go away. Your suck is something so disgusting, so putrid that I wish your mother would have aborted you or maybe left you in an ally or "lost" you on the highway. Anything to have kept you from becoming what you are today. |
|
| May 11th, 2006 03:18 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | I doubt that, considering that these sorts of arguments are what I enjoy passing my time contemplating. | |
| May 11th, 2006 10:39 AM | ||
| mburbank |
No! No! FAR too dignified for OAO, even post funny incestous Woody Allen. Read it aloud to yourself in your own voice whie looking in a mirror. Think of it as a reverse affirmation. My plan is that after you have seen and heard your own ridiculous drivel you will find yourself unable to post it. |
|
| May 11th, 2006 09:53 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | And do it in a Woody Allen voice. | |
| May 11th, 2006 09:27 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Yeah, so did Popeye and he was a cartoon too. Seriously, OAO how can you even stand to be in the same room as yourself? I insist that from now on your read your posts aloud to yourself before pressing the 'submit' button. |
|
| May 11th, 2006 01:28 AM | ||
| DeadKennedys |
Quote:
|
|
| May 10th, 2006 10:27 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | That's a possibility. | |
| May 10th, 2006 09:13 PM | ||
| Archduke Tips |
At each subsequent instant there is nothing worth knowing. Do you think that everything just fell together? |
|
| May 10th, 2006 06:49 PM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Wow. Within three words, induction told me "HALT! SELF-INDULGENT DOUCHEBAGGERY ALERT!" and I stopped reading. Gotta love irony. |
|
| May 10th, 2006 05:48 PM | ||
| mburbank |
"So, I've come to reject induction as a valid form of reasoning. " OH MY GOSH, OH MY GOODNESS, NO, NO, NONONONONO!! WHATEVER SHALL YOU DO NOW?! "Can anyone save me from this labyrinth of analysis?" Absolutely. Stop being such a psuedo intellectual self impressed douchebag and try living. A whole llot of people seem to manage it. Granted, they're not as fabulously intellectual as you, but somehow they manage to get along. If you can't stop being such a jerk you will always be miserable and annoying. Grow up. |
|
| May 10th, 2006 04:27 PM | ||
| Emu | Yes, I can: Stop thinking about it. | |
| May 10th, 2006 04:08 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
My philosophical crisis. So, I've come to reject induction as a valid form of reasoning. Why? It's circular. In order to give validity to induction, one must assume that the universe follows consistent regularities; however, just because the universe has done so in the past, there is no reason to believe it will continue in the future. One could induct that conclusion, but then we return to what we are trying to prove. After rejecting induction, I read a little on Popper's principle of "falsifibility." According to this theory, scientists do not induct, but rather constantly test theories to see if they can be disproven. Theories which sustain criticism and have the most explainatory power then become adopted. As Popper said, no amount of observation can ever give validity to a theory, but it only takes a single example to disprove one. For a short time, I adhered to my own variation of this form of logic, but now I find it flawed. While falsifibility does avoid the pitfalls of induction, it cannot evade an assumption of regularities in the universe. Theories are either timeless are applicable to certain time periods; specific instances, however, are limited to the points they occur in. Although a theory might be shown false in a given circumstance, this does not imply that the theory will be false any time in the future. The rigor which a theory sustains falsification at various times says nothing about its future truthfulness. A critic might here counter that the theory has been fully refuted if a counterexample in an applicable era can be found. To that extent, the critic would be correct. What I am saying, however, is that does not suggest anything about the accuracy of the theory if redrafted to only address future occurances - and if it doesn't, then what's the point? There is only one logical conclusion which I can arrive to: I can only know my instantaneous experiences, and I cannot state anything about the probability of future events whatsoever. Can anyone save me from this labyrinth of analysis? |
|
