tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post115807407825354472..comments2023-12-13T16:57:33.142-06:00Comments on Blogodidact: Fighting the Method of Intelligent StupidityVan Harveyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-1164195681607059902006-11-22T05:41:00.000-06:002006-11-22T05:41:00.000-06:00Well said, Van.I know what you meant, about Truth ...Well said, Van.<BR/>I know what you meant, about Truth being simple, but in another sense, Truth can be complex.<BR/>For example, the global warming (or, climate change, as many are now calling it) theory and supposed cause and how best to deal with it (or not).<BR/>Most who believe that man is the primary cause, and that it's going to have devastating effects, and that the best thing we can do is reduce Co emmissions drastically (even at great economic cost, higher taxes and loss of jobs),<BR/>don't consider all available and non-available data, or acknowledge that we don't know everything about GW or its cause, or if we even can reverse it, or if reversing it is a good thing, bad thing or both (as all climate is). <BR/>They ignore Complexity Theory, and even available data and history, and claim a world-wide "consensus", simply declaring the debate over.<BR/>Computer models that can't accurately predict weather days from now, are considered concrete proof in 10-50-100 year predictions.<BR/>Scientists that dispute the Algores claims are not taken seriously, and an attempt is made to discedit them. <BR/>When data is fed to the GW prediction computers, not all variables are entered, for a variety of reasons:<BR/>Incomplete data, unable to obtain data in a timely basis (such as temperatures/humidity/gas %/winds, etc. at various altitudes).<BR/>The entire GW thing is incredibly complex, but the left simplify it when they integrate it as an agenda, and complicate the lies they need to believe to counter the truth.<BR/>I agree with you that Truth's are simple, but Truth's are also complex in the expanding way that they relate to each other (affects).<BR/>As I said, you are right, but I thought I would throw this in there.<BR/>:^)<BR/>Excellent post, Van!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-1158326631001646442006-09-15T08:23:00.000-05:002006-09-15T08:23:00.000-05:00"BAck when the plane went down over Scotland, Amer..."BAck when the plane went down over Scotland, American and British armies did not invade the countries that gave birth to the suspected bombers."<BR/><BR/>Neither did we after 9/11, as far as I'm aware their birth nations were Egypt & Saudi Arabia, we went after the countries which sponsored them, and that is what I'm advocating. If a country as a matter of policy, supports, funds and helps to train terrorists - then they are its defacto commando's, and are responsible for them.<BR/><BR/>Lebanon and "Palestine" have elected members to their governments, who are avowedly from, and representing, terrorist organizations. That makes their Government an official party to those organizations, and legitimate targets of War.<BR/><BR/>I too don't count myself with any party, I tend to vote Republican only because they make me less sick to my stomach than the other options.<BR/><BR/>By the way, I lump the Leftist/Progressives/Socialists together because their core 'principles' are identical, but I don't equate them with Democrats, even though they make up the most vocal group in the party, but they don't compare to people like Leiberman (really wish there were more I could name).<BR/><BR/>I understand the desire to keep to a level of Police Work when dealing with Terrorists, and it applies to situations such as the IRA, or Earth First, but Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queada, operate under different principles & plans, and with these organizations that just won't work. To keep with the criminal analogy, it's the same difference as that between a local gang, and the Mafia. When Billy from the Sharks knocks over a liqour store, you put him in jail & watch the other gang members, but with the Mob, you don't just go after the hitman, but the mob boss & the entire organization that supports them.<BR/><BR/>I also fully get the difference between rhetorical 'fun' between like minded people in the blogs, and the moonbat fringe flamers from either side. I've noticed in your blogs comments that in disagreements you use reason & not flames, and I do respect that and enjoy it - please come around any time Dana – and “ah lieek da Marekin to!” ;-)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-1158237450029548062006-09-14T07:37:00.000-05:002006-09-14T07:37:00.000-05:00That sums it up well, Kant doesn't integrate, he o...That sums it up well, Kant doesn't integrate, he only disintegrates knowledge and makes understanding impossible.<BR/>Thanks for the link John p., I'll look into it.<BR/>(I like your icon)Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32362551.post-1158234506475187372006-09-14T06:48:00.000-05:002006-09-14T06:48:00.000-05:00I followed your link from One Cosmos and reading y...I followed your link from One Cosmos and reading your post(s) thought I would offer this.<BR/><BR/>Besides G.B's blog I like, maybe a little more, Kelley Ross's encyclopedic treatment of philosophical issues.<BR/><BR/>I offer this quote from one of his articles that might shed additional light on our friend Kant's statement that you focus on regarding knowledge and faith.<BR/><BR/>"The picture of the relationship of rational knowledge to existence that emerges is just the opposite of that postulated by Plato and Aristotle, who believed that the most real was the most knowable. Here, the deeper that we get ontologically, and so the closer to the most real, the less knowlable, or the less it can be rationally articulated, the matter is. This is the principal characteristic of Kantian philosophy. In the simplest terms, what this accomplishes is to separate religion from science, the former most concerned with ultimate meaning, the latter the most productive of rational knowledge. Thus, Kant himself said, "I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith"<BR/><BR/>The link for this page is: www.friesian.com/system.htm.<BR/><BR/>Apropros of nothing at all Dr. Ross and I are both graduates of U.T. Austin though I only got a B.A. (philosophy). He teaches philosophy in California and is running for state assemblyman as a libertarian for a second or third time. He is totally against statism, P.C., multiculti tripe, etc. You can see this in his web writings.<BR/><BR/>Good luck.John Hindshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05654010029465940318noreply@blogger.com