No - well I mean, yes, this is the whole point. There is obviously going to be more, so a proper knowledge base for science - in other words a general conception going into more specialized areas of study - should include talk of the occult in the sense that it is like the minor leagues for upcoming scientific theories. And if that is the case, then we should look to the occult for possibilities of theories than can make the transition.
After all, don’t you all want to be involved with the discussion of a theory like that when such a thing happens? I mean isn’t that sort of the excitement that philosophers all dream of when thinking of how to be a part of a meaningful conceptual change in a given point in history? Or do we not care about that?
That’s why I am always looking to conspiracies. Black ops projects. That allows one to see the science that we will see before it happens. But at a theoretical level what I’m saying still applies to just the occult in general. If you don’t have this component that whatever knowledge base you build isn’t really dynamic. It’s just a static collection of some theory but it doesn’t really paint the picture of how it is that the scientific enterprise actually lives and breathes.
The best policy when you really don’t care about what someone says, as far as the good use of your own time is concerned, is not to engage the person in a conversation, or have done so countless times in the past. I take it as an odd comment, on your part----knowing how much you’ve talked to him----to declare that you don’t care what he says. Perhaps it’s better to declare that you don’t agree with what he says.
I read Gobbo because I am a river, and I reach all places.
As if it has to be one extreme or the other.
Resounding agreement or blanket rejection.
I’m not completely rejecting the occult. I’m rejecting the idea that it’s a good idea for a ‘base knowledge’ thread in the science and math forum. You can make all the occult threads you want in the science forum, as long as it’s reasonably related to science. I’m not disallowing it, I’m not saying they’re all incorrect. I’m saying it’s not something I’m going to put in that post.
There’s a base knowledge thread, and there’s A LOT of material that is not going in there. I’m not planning on putting anything about Quantum Physics in there, Physics in general probably. Nothing about Computer Science. Nothing about Neuroscience.
I’m trying to keep ‘base knowledge’ to a bare minimum – mostly on topics that come up with great frequency. Evolution comes up all the time (and is, I dare say, more frequently than not misunderstood by the people talking about it, so that pretty much needs to be there), maths and probability come up all the time. Quantum Physics comes up sometimes, Occult Science almost never.
You think occult science is good science? That’s great. Would people having a basic understanding of it improve the conversations in the science forum? I really don’t think so. I think that one could go ones’ entire life without hearing the term ‘occult science’ and still have plenty to say about non-occult science – which is incidentally the vast majority of science-related conversation here.
I clarified this. I care what he says in the sense that it can be interesting and entertaining. I don’t care so much about his judgments - you know, what he thinks about me, you, or whatever else. I can laugh at some of it, learn from other bits, etc; but overall I could take or leave most of what he writes. This isn’t unique to just Gobbo, to be sure. Your initial response, given the context, made it seem like you were saying you care what Gobbo thinks of FJ. Why? What bearing does that have on your life? I’m not asking why you read what he writes, which is what I’m guilty of myself, but rather why you care what he thinks about someone else.
Also, I don’t get this fascination of yours with telling people how they should behave or spend their time. I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong in your recommendations. I just don’t get the motivation.
If the criteria for inclusion is the degree in which it’s misunderstood, the occult should be a shoe-in. But I think I see what you are going for. Specific topics as opposed to what I thought, which was more of a conceptual foundation in the sense of, “Ok, this is how evolution, occult, and the rest all relate to science, and from here we can advance from this foundation” type thing. So that’s my fault for getting ahead of the game, I guess.
I imagine you do get a ton of shit from people. In fact, I know you do. I’ve had a few exchanges with you that I somewhat regretted later. Not in the sense that I found out you were right, but because I was being hard headed and rather closed minded in retrospect. I like to watch how people behave - it’s what I do. It’s fascinating to me. Sometimes a person’s behavior can disgust me to the point that conversation is no longer viable. I think not taking yourself too seriously is a good thing.
As for the confirmation bias thing, I think you do sort of like the concept of conspiracies and mysticism because it spices things up. It makes the world more interesting and mysterious, while giving you a sense of being ‘in the know’. I think you feel privileged by it.
I suppose, but learning about anything makes you feel in the know. That would apply to learning about sewing. I feel privileged by any information. That’s why I am a libra INTP who devours all information. What is interesting (for me) are the people who behave in the opposite way. They don’t like to feel like they are not in the know, so they discredit that which they know they don’t know as not worth knowing.
Nope. The context wasn’t about what Gobbo thinks of a person, it was about what he thinks makes someone intelligent. In this case, I pretty much agree with him. I usually don’t. I do think that, if you are a mod, you would care what people think about you. It shouldn’t be your only care, but certainly one of them.
The motivation to do what? Can you quote me, and I’ll tell you why I said what I said. If you’re just talking about some vague general thing about how people should behave, and why I’m talking about it… then I don’t mind telling you that it’s called fucking “ethics”. —It is to philosophy what chemistry is to science. In other words, people who philosophize are likely to be fucking doing it. It’s about the Good Life. I don’t think Socrates talked about much else. Frankly, I talk about all areas of philosophy.
You consider your advice to me in this thread or your railing against FJ because of what he said to some dude two years ago doing ethics? I don’t see it.
I’m very happy with the moderator of the philosophy section. Only_Humean’s at least in the top 3 thinkers on this forum in my judgement, and I’ve no shame in saying he’s almost certainly more philosophically knowledgeable than I am (I think he’s potentially a lot more interested in historical philosophies than I am – for example I couldn’t care less about Plato, as jarring as that may be to some readers here, and I think that they deserve a mod who has the background and interest in historical philosophies to complement what’s actually being discussed there, something which I don’t have).
Quote me. Quote me as “railing against FJ…”. He wanted to know why I didn’t like him, and I simply told him. That’s it. That’s all. What’s with the bs-ing?
Quote me. Quote me as having given you advice. If I gave you any justification of that advice, about how you ought to act, then yes… that’s just what ethics fucking is. You know what ethics is, right? —it’s about how you ought to fucking act. You know what philosophy is, right? —it’s about engaging with reasons why you think what you do. Fucking put them together, please. Philosophical ethics is about giving reasons for how you ought to act. Period. That’s fucking ethics. Period. That’s what ethics fucking is.