Amongst us, there are a number of rare thinkers indeed; and none moreso than the anomalous Nah. Nah is a poster disposed to making unabashedly fantastic claims, covering the breadth of the world’s intrique, and who usually reinforces his positions on foundations excavated with nothing short of the most exacting critical support. He’s clearly a man of experience; experience and science. This is a thread to carve out and examine just one such of Nah’s insights. Full disclosure: I do not have a fully developed epistemology, or settled convictions on the topic to follow—and thus I hope things for me will become clearer as the discussion proceeds.
Nah has claimed to prove that Santa Claus exists.
We’ve been given first hand testimony, physical evidence in the form of pictures (one cited below), and heresay. The following is presumably a rendering of his likeness from someone who has seen him as well.
This case would be decisive, if it were not for one feature that leads me to suspicion…
According to legend, old Father Christmas is one man. So, I wonder if these people had not seen someone dressed as Santa Claus, rather than Santa Claus himself. Were this the only issue, I would still think that the evidence gives us overwhelming reason to think Santa Claus exists. To use the line of reasoning that is Gobbo’s trademark: “Surely one of these people must be right”.
There’s only one thing missing—and that’s evidence of transportation that can exceed the speed of light, even while pulling a portly man, landing on rooftops, and pulled by reindeer to boot. Reindeer who fly. In the absence of this, I’m considering suspending judgment.
This should be good. This thread and the politics=epistemology thread remind me of something an old guy said to me once…he said, in law school, evidence is the hardest class because most people have no ability whatsoever to determine it without some guidance". And I think he’s right. It’s like when people think they’re being reasonable, just because they listed a reason no matter how absurd it might be.
I don’t recall talking about ‘selves’ that don’t exist and are illusory. I can’t imagine why I would have. Anyways…
What of the speed of light, sir? Or flying reindeer. ‘Illusory’, that’s fine… but my illusory self comes packaged in a particular body, which (commonsensically) is at a time and place and not multiple of both together.
The flying reindeer are a clue - they are highly improbable so it clearly points to Santa using an Infinite Improbability Drive for transportation. Seems to also explain the red suit.
David Lewis did a good paper on when skepticism can be properly ignored. I can’t remember the name. I’d bet if you googled, “when skepticism can properly be ignored” that it’d show up. Just a guess.
Lewis is small-town. A nobody. —I’ve got bigger fish to fry than how to interpret and formalize a conditional statement. There’s more pressing issues, as you can see from the OP. The question of when radical skepticism is not appropriate is an entirely simple one to answer… when it endangers your life, endangers your progress, or endangers your chance of having sex. That’s it. Paper read. Lewis is my bitch. Context, brethren.
Am I a man of “science” to you?
How did you get that intriguing idea?
Sure I make a fantastic claim like we are all stupid and insane.
So, I can understand if you are writing about intricate hallucinatory insight of yours.
As you’ve quoted, I said “I can establish that Santa-Clause exists, very easily.”
I’m not sure if it’s the same thing as what you wrote, here.
Mo_, you disappoint me.
Is that the only one you pick when I was showing pages and pages of photos and videos.
Also, I have shown female version, too.
I understand if you don’t like female photos, but you picked the old looking nearly redneck version…
Or are you letting google to track your taste and getting only this picture out of many pages others can see?
I don’t mind if you love old guys and not interested in all other types including charming females.
But please log out from your google account, delete all cookies, and tray again. Or use another machine that isn’t restricted by evil google.
You will get far better exacting experience and fully disclosing picture(s) of what I’m saying.
Do you believe legend?
I heard one of them answering to kids (and adults) that he was Santa Clause.
Was he lying to kids (and adults)?
I don’t think I often reason like that. Not that I hate Gobbo. He is now fighting against Python.
Well, if you want the evidence so badly, why don’t you think that the appearance of many Santa Clause all over the world is the clear indication that transportation is exceeding the speed of light?
We can often see the magical Reindeer without any motion, as if suspended in the time, near Santa Clause, too.
I haven’t seen them flying, but I guess it’s normal. As they are exceeding the speed of light (according to Mo_), probably we can’t get clear picture of them in motion. We can only see them when they pop out of flying mode and land at the center of mall, most probably.
Read again my entire post, not just the part you cut out and brought here.
If you were a good boy, Santa Clause may tell you all you want to know. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=169165&start=175#p2374984
Without question you are a man of science and the empirical method. I deduced this by looking no further than your proof of the existence of Santa Claus. The first hand testimony and material support that you had amassed and brought to bear on the topic could leave no doubt in my mind.
Quotation accuracy is essential. But in this case, I would imagine that “establishing the existence of Santa Claus” is the same thing as “proving that Santa Claus exists”, wouldn’t you? —And don’t be tempted by any low-hanging fruit, at a half-way distance of what your googled evidenced is suited for.
Not only are you a man of science and the empirical method, but apparently also you are a master rhetorician. It took only my slightest skepticism and now I am reeling at the force of your words, questioning my sexuality, calling me to examine the notion that Santa Claus may be a woman. But surely the testimony diverges among people on this question…
By jove, why would he?
I’m not sure which I find easier to believe: (1) that many dress up as the character of Santa Claus, or (2) that deep in the bosom of the North Pole, Santa has a labratory that far exceeds the best of our current science and technology, so much so that he has built a device that can exceed the speed of light, while parking on rooftops.
In any case, I think we now have good cause to refute the out-right naysayers as too hasty in judgment.
non Responsive, are you taking this seriously? The best way to argue against your general philosophy is not with words, but to ask others to take notice how you pick and choose your arguments as if you couldn’t apply your “objectivity” to all of them.
Oh, you are talking to Mo_ (VR).
Probably he is busy watching other pics and videos of Santa-Clause.
Also, you may have to repeat several times before he realize certain things.
But don’t you think talking about moral, especially with Mo_, is as silly as talking about Santa-Clause?
I mean, at least some of us got gifts from Santa-Clause. Did moral give you anything?
Is moral as sexy as some of female Santa-Clause?
I’m not attracted by moral, god, or some other things.
