Follow
Most philosophers are idiots, who cannot distinguish between a nickname of a concept, and it's full and compatible understanding.
To just say: Read Dawkins... Will not explain your problem, and will fail miserablely at explaining your position. And at this point, I am so tired of idiots who think so.
@LukeAlmighty Read Siege!
@LukeAlmighty Most Philosophers are not "Philosophers" this is extremely prevalent, these people are not thinkers of any kind because they just absorbed beliefs.
even if they are actually well read they still have the problem of not thinking.
you see this often, sometimes they will throw words around that they heard, offensively, they will often integrate ideas into their brain, remember them, but they won't actually synthesize them, leading to them contradicting themselves, sometimes in the same debate too...
an offensive one someone has thrown onto me was that Epistemic Humility is actually not needed with Bayesian Probability, the contradiction stems from the impossibility of logical omniscience, which was the main source of the argument, he simply used a smart word to try to throw me off.
aka the reason i told him "the absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence"
anyways i was so angry at that i specifically went to study it, i did enough research that i just decided i will submit this as my finals paper fuck it bro.
i will also post it to him when i am done with it, literally so much bullshit i have to make a PDF, heres a draft so far, will be changed a good amount but fuck it
even if they are actually well read they still have the problem of not thinking.
you see this often, sometimes they will throw words around that they heard, offensively, they will often integrate ideas into their brain, remember them, but they won't actually synthesize them, leading to them contradicting themselves, sometimes in the same debate too...
an offensive one someone has thrown onto me was that Epistemic Humility is actually not needed with Bayesian Probability, the contradiction stems from the impossibility of logical omniscience, which was the main source of the argument, he simply used a smart word to try to throw me off.
aka the reason i told him "the absence of Evidence is not the Evidence of Absence"
anyways i was so angry at that i specifically went to study it, i did enough research that i just decided i will submit this as my finals paper fuck it bro.
i will also post it to him when i am done with it, literally so much bullshit i have to make a PDF, heres a draft so far, will be changed a good amount but fuck it
:gondola_head: 
@themilkman @LukeAlmighty
>literally so much bullshit i have to make a PDF
You need more energy to counter bullshit that it was needed to be created.
>literally so much bullshit i have to make a PDF
You need more energy to counter bullshit that it was needed to be created.
@themilkman @LukeAlmighty
I'll add that this can go far back as Aristotle's theory of truth if not further.
I'll add that this can go far back as Aristotle's theory of truth if not further.
