Topic: Empiricists
S started this discussion 9 years ago #59,456
You are wrong!
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 8 minutes later[^] [v] #756,574
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 25 minutes later, 34 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #756,578
facts, like, just get in the way of truth man -- some fuckin hippie
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #756,581
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,594
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 9 years ago, 19 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,596
MC 900 Ft. Jesus observed this phenomenon years ago, in 1990: Truth is Out of Style
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vgDpI8kU98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vgDpI8kU98
brie !kGoudaMCFA joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,597
The empire loves their damn lists.
S (OP) replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,630
An assertion or dismissal nevertheless needs to be logically sound irrespective of fulfilling or falling short of a requirement for evidence.@756,574 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY replied with this 9 years ago, 2 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,643
@previous (S)The dismissal without evidence of something unsupported by evidence is logically sound, Christopher.
S joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 1 hour later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,654
@previous (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
Supporting an argument entirely on the basis of empircal evidence disbalances it away from a solely logically supported emphasis and risks tipping it towards the irrationally demagougical.
And this isn't necessarily Autphag shit, any half-decent amateur philosopher will tell you.
Supporting an argument entirely on the basis of empircal evidence disbalances it away from a solely logically supported emphasis and risks tipping it towards the irrationally demagougical.
And this isn't necessarily Autphag shit, any half-decent amateur philosopher will tell you.
The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY replied with this 9 years ago, 5 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,657
@previous (S)> Supporting an argument entirely on the basis of empircal evidence disbalances it away from a solely logically supported emphasis and risks tipping it towards the irrationally demagougical.
> And this isn't necessarily Autphag shit, any
Fixed.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 4 hours later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,736
@756,654 (S)
I would argue that empirical evidence is the substructure on which a logical argument ought be woven.
I would argue that empirical evidence is the substructure on which a logical argument ought be woven.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 9 years ago, 19 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #756,755
@756,574 (The Doctor !7MHPahvoGY)
> What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, Christopher Hitchens
Nice plagiarism, nonceboy.
> What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, Christopher Hitchens
Nice plagiarism, nonceboy.
