Newsflash: Time May Not Exist - Page 2

Rhinoqulous · 01-29-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

Yes, because that analogy is totally relevant. Because belgian waffles are comparable to science in that they are fields of study, academic tracts, etc.

"Beligian waffle" is also a way to look at the world, like science. And like philosophy. So that analogy is fucking perfect.

Wait, is philosophy comparable to science, or an antonym of science?

My "belgian waffle" comment was an attempt to show you how idiotic it is to define something by what it is not. Defining philosophy as "not a science" is as insightful as defining Professor Chaos as "Not a grape smoothie".

Professor Chaos · 01-29-2008, 07:55 AM

Fuck you, you self-important cocksucker.

Rhinoqulous · 01-29-2008, 07:55 AM

Somebody's grumpy today.

Professor Chaos · 01-29-2008, 07:59 AM

Somebody's being a fucking asshole today. Seriously, you're a dick. You started, in post #9, by being a dick. You continued being a dick, increasing your dickitude.

Suck my balls. Lick them, suck them, and chew on their hair, you fucking twat. It's possible to have a conversation with someone that disagrees with you without being a fucking tool.

Kate · 01-29-2008, 07:59 AM

Did you have breakfast, Prof?

Rhinoqulous · 01-29-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

Somebody's being a fucking asshole today. Seriously, you're a dick. You started, in post #9, by being a dick. You continued being a dick, increasing your dickitude.

Seriously, clean the sand out of your vagina. It's making you grumpy.

Quote:

Suck my balls. Lick them, suck them, and chew on their hair, you fucking twat. It's possible to have a conversation with someone that disagrees with you without being a fucking tool.

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, as long as it's not presented as a pithy response that's more bumper sticker slogan than rational thought. Or were you hinting at something insightful by pointing out that indeed, philosophy is not a science?

Professor Chaos · 01-29-2008, 08:10 AM

One more attempt at civil conversation.

Quote:

Rhinoqulous wrote

Wait, is philosophy comparable to science, or an antonym of science?

My "belgian waffle" comment was an attempt to show you how idiotic it is to define something by what it is not. Defining philosophy as "not a science" is as insightful as defining Professor Chaos as "Not a grape smoothie".

What's the opposite of up? Down.

Up & Down = Directions (comparable. Same category.)

I was defining Philosophy as "not science" in that philosophy's concerns and science's concerns are antithetical. In a nutshell, science requires empiricism, philosophy does not.

If you think I'm wrong, if you disagree, how about let's have a conversation about it that doesn't involve "Did you pull that out of your ass" or "Did you wake up on the stupid side of the bed?"

Professor Chaos · 01-29-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Rhinoqulous wrote

Seriously, clean the sand out of your vagina. It's making you grumpy.

1998 called. It wants its "sand in the vagina" joke back.

(Got to go now. 1996 is on the other line wanting its "1998 called" joke back.)

Professor Chaos · 01-29-2008, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Rhinoqulous wrote

\

I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, as long as it's not presented as a pithy response that's more bumper sticker slogan than rational thought. Or were you hinting at something insightful by pointing out that indeed, philosophy is not a science?

Try, "Prof, can you clarify?", "Prof, what are you talking about?", etc, etc. No need to be such a raging sphincter.

Rhinoqulous · 01-29-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

One more attempt at civil conversation.

Cut the bullshit. Call me a cockwrangling douchewizard and quit being a pansy.

Quote:

What's the opposite of up? Down.

Up & Down = Directions (comparable. Same category.)

I was defining Philosophy as "not science" in that philosophy's concerns and science's concerns are antithetical. In a nutshell, science requires empiricism, philosophy does not.

Philosophy and science are doing the same thing: studying the nature of reality (remember, science began as a sub-set of philosophy, and "empiricism" is a philosophical term). The methods used may differ, just like the methods of handling a ball in football and soccer differ, but the goal is still the same. Pretty much all (respectable) philosophy of science is based 100% in scientific findings. Philosophy of Physics is concerned with studying methods used in physics research, the nature of causality, the nature of time, the nature of quantum events (Many Worlds vs. Copenhagen is pretty much straight up philosophy), etc., all based in science, and all theories confirming with scientific findings.

Rhinoqulous · 01-29-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

1998 called. It wants its "sand in the vagina" joke back.

(Got to go now. 1996 is on the other line wanting its "1998 called" joke back.)

Professor Chaos · 01-29-2008, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Rhinoqulous wrote

Philosophy and science are doing the same thing: studying the nature of reality (remember, science began as a sub-set of philosophy, and "empiricism" is a philosophical term). The methods used may differ, just like the methods of handling a ball in football and soccer differ, but the goal is still the same. Pretty much all (respectable) philosophy of science is based 100% in scientific findings. Philosophy of Physics is concerned with studying methods used in physics research, the nature of causality, the nature of time, the nature of quantum events (Many Worlds vs. Copenhagen is pretty much straight up philosophy), etc., all based in science, and all theories confirming with scientific findings.

Nice post, you cockwrangling douchewizard, and one that would likely avoided this nonsense when I asked the original question. Pretentious ass-rimming arrogant cockmunching fucktard.

Kate · 01-29-2008, 08:34 AM

Now you're just being redundant.
Have some juice.

nkb · 01-29-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Rhinoqulous wrote

The methods used may differ, just like the methods of handling a ball in football and soccer differ, but the goal is still the same.

Oh no, my friend, the goals are distinctly different. Soccer has a rectangle on the ground with a net attached (with a goalie in front of it), while football has an elevated goal, with no net (unless you count the net that keeps the ball from going into the stands).

Unless, of course, you're comparing the English "football" with soccer, in which case the goals are the same, but then the methods don't differ.

<ducks>

Rhinoqulous · 01-29-2008, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Professor Chaos wrote

Nice post, you cockwrangling douchewizard, and one that would likely avoided this nonsense when I asked the original question. Pretentious ass-rimming arrogant cockmunching fucktard.

No problem, and in the future I'll keep in mind you have the delicate sensibilities of a little girl and get all weepy when called an ar-tard.