bohm

Joined

• started 191 topics
• posted 7,847 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by bohm

• 
  9

  What's in the secret rooms beneath Chelmsford:

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the basement.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  The basement.
  
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Let me try to make the distinction very clear:

  If we ask simply as a matter of definition, "what things are true on Rorty island?", and the answer is: "those things that people agrees upon are true for them", I think there might be a chance of some circularity but I don't really find that all too disagreeable as a working definition.

  The central issue is how they figure out what is true on Rorty island or rather, how they ought to find out what is true.

  For instance you could say: "They have decided as a matter of practice to hold courts where evidence is brought before the jury and then the jury goes to a room and decide what is true", then I think this is evidentialism in a poor disguise.

  If on the other hand you answer that there can be no "how they ought to find out what is true" on Rorty island because this is too much like evidentialism, then whatever practice is held before or during a trial on Rorty island is arbitrary, so is it just as rational (or irrational) to hold proper trials, present evidence which is real (as opposed to fabricated), etc.

  I don't think Rorty holds that view but I don't know..
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Would they just gather up a jury and asked them:

  "This man is accused of a crime. Go to a room and make up your mind if he did it or not. Then it becomes true for us"

  or would he *perhaps* fall back to some sort of evidentialism where evidence played a role?
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  SBF: But the reason community agrees is because the community define truth by some sort of common-sense agreement to what has happened in the real world so I do not think it is reasonable to draw to much on what the community says. I am talking about how Rorty establishes what is true in his world-view, if we are on Rorty island, how would the police go about solving a crime for instance?
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  SBF: Useful to who?

  So if it is useful to me that you owe me a million, and it is useful to you that you don't, is that really all that can be said on the matter in your mind?
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  Carrier... damn... what a train wreck. So let me get this straight: He cheats on his wife for 17 years (hope he used a condom), then sorta kinda makes it out as if she has mental or physical issues on his blog to explain it... then goes on the make what appears to be a common midlife crisis into a sexual orientation (oh aren't you special snowflake!)

  classy. just suuuper classy.

  Imagine if this was WLC or some other christian who did that.
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  SBF: Correct me if I am wrong, but your disagreement with science has more to do with the method for how truth is acquired (the criteria for when something can be accepted as more likely true than not) and not so much about the definition?

  Is Rorty really entirely uncommitted in terms of how truth corresponds to reality? For instance, suppose two of my friends agreed his house belonged to us, would he then say that was an equally well-founded true as his opinion on the matter and when he called the police, we would be right in saying he was violating our property right?
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  At the conclusion. Sorry fighting a non english spell checker on an ipad
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  I meant did carrier really write that about his wife or is it trolling?
• 
  62

  Richard Carrier debunks Christianity using Science and History.

  by Island Man in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ez2kgjk4jo4

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  bohm

  But do you KNOW he made consessions?

  empiricism is self-refuting as a general statement about all knowledge. This does not mean we cant use our senses to revise and inform our beliefs about the world, which is the important part. For instance, did you use your senses in the process of arriving to the conclusion rorty made consessions?