Sartre's Contradiction

[David Sklansky]

"Plenty of bad work in both fields has been published in less illustrious settings, where refereeing is often non-existent or light."

Even if that is true about physics, which I tend to doubt, I'm pretty sure it isn't true about math. And when I said philosophers can avoid dealing with questions with indisputable answers, at the end of the day I'm talking about math.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
"I agree that most philosophy PhDs couldn't get a PhD from a top University in math or physics, for example. But I also think the following:

(1) most math and physics PhDs couldn't get a PhD from a top philosophy program."

I believe that a much higher percentage of math and physics Phd's could get a a Phd in Philosophy (or almost any other subject for that matter) from a top school than the converse. If I am wrong about this my whole point about philosphers is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the limiting factor in getting a Ph.D. is frequently going to be personality traits as much as intelligence. You need to be pretty well motivated to get it done. As such, it wouldn't surprise me if the percentages of people who could switch disciplines and still actually obtain a Ph.D is pretty small regardless of which way you swing it.

[David Sklansky]

"Even if that statement is correct it does not mean there is no god.


No, but it demonstrates that it is best to live as though there isnt one."

No it doesn't. It only maybe demonstrates that it would be preferable if there isn't one.

[David Sklansky]

How can you not see then that the existance of the God you have faith in totaly deystroys the ability for any given man or woman to be truely moral.

"Which of the following men is the most moral.

The man who is moral because he knows it is the will of God.

The man who chooses to be moral of his own free will and knowing that there is no transcendental justification or meaning in his actions. He is moral purely for the sake of being moral."

I made this exact same point when I wrote that the guy who doesn't commit a crime merely because of the legal system is no better than the criminal.

However when you use the word "moral" Not Ready is ready (despite his name) with a good rebuttal. Better you should say something like "behaves in a way that the great majority of people have historically believed is the right way to behave." That nullifies Not Ready's points.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

That nullifies Not Ready's points.


[/ QUOTE ]

It also nullifies the "oughtness" of morality, which basically nullifies morality.

The NotReady refers to my poker. Ain't never gonna be ready for this game.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
"I agree that most philosophy PhDs couldn't get a PhD from a top University in math or physics, for example. But I also think the following:

(1) most math and physics PhDs couldn't get a PhD from a top philosophy program."

I believe that a much higher percentage of math and physics Phd's could get a a Phd in Philosophy (or almost any other subject for that matter) from a top school than the converse. If I am wrong about this my whole point about philosphers is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your whole 'point' is that philosophy students are failed math and science students. The three disciplines are very closely related; the college I just graduated from is very heavy in all three disciplines, and usually the best math students made the best philosophy students and the best science students. But I'd guess that most will go to graduate school for philosophy when they do go. Some people's interests lie in different places.

[David Sklansky]

"Despite these selection effect interferences, I do think that if we required all math and all philosophy specialists to take the logic requirement, the math majors would do much better on average. But I think this fact is explained by the fact that the disciplinary boundaries are drawn in different ways. I posted about this elsewhere, but, in brief: "historians of physics" aren't members of physics departments, nor are historians of math members of math departments. Historians of philosophy are members of philosophy departments and their "technical skill requirements" are more in the direction of foreign languages and historical research methods, not the math/logic direction that the best non-history of philosophy philosopers are focused on."

If you are right about this then I am wrong about what I said. But I don't think I am. I don't even think its close. I wouldn't be surprised if mediocre mathmeticians, including Phds in the history of math and even those with only masters's degrees from half decent universites could, on average outperform all but the very best Philosophy Phds (not counting, obviously, the ones who have double majors in math as well) in any logic course.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

If the existence of God logically implies something that is impossible, it means there is definitely no God.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's true only if human logic is valid in an ultmate sense, which it isn't because we are finite.

[David Sklansky]

"It also nullifies the "oughtness" of morality, which basically nullifies morality."

OK fine. So what?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

OK fine. So what?


[/ QUOTE ]

So the substitution is pointless.