In a message dated 4/21/08 4:21:50 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Here we go again. Cheerskep is teaching lesson one in philosophy, the lesson that brings criticality to "naive realism".
"Re Einstein, he was a theorist. Today we call it theoretical physics. "Cheerskep. Please! -- WC" That's a bad response, William, a graceless flight from all the posting's valid questions and criticisms that apply to you. E.g. you use the word 'art' repeatedly while evading all efforts to get you to describe what you have in mind with it; you use 'science' without having thought it through; you do think of your dispute with Derek as not just about whether or not to CALL something "art" or "science", but whether or not it IS art or science. Which is to say you do believe there is a metaphysical fact-of-the-matter concerning whether xxx "IS" art or yyy "IS" science, which entails there are somehow mind-independent metaphysical standards somewhere that a work must satisfy to BE art or science. You do demand Derek reveal his standards, but you steadfastly refuse to state yours. You take the position that you needn't respond to such charges as mine because they are mere "philosophy". You don't appreciate that logic and philosophy of language have been developed solely to help us think more clearly. You dismiss philosophy in a tone that would suggest you know what you're talking about: " Cheerskep is teaching lesson one in philosophy, the lesson that brings criticality to "naive realism"." But the subject my posting addressed was far from "naC/ve realism". As Casey Stengel said, "You could look it up." Meantime I guarantee that what I've been "teaching" on this forum about language, metaphysics, and philosophy of mind is equally far from "lesson one". I wrote that your view of "science" "would push William into the uncomfortable position of asserting that Einstein was not doing "science" when he came up with his special theory of relativity -- without ever testing it himself. Indeed no one didb&" In a reply apparently aimed at conveying you would not be discomfited at all to find yourself claiming Einstein was not doing "science" at that time, you remark, "Re Einstein, he was a theorist. Today we call it theoretical physics." Certainly this connotes that theoretical physics "is" not science. In case you want to reconsider your comfort I refer you to something from an internet site I suspect you've already consulted: "Albert Einstein ( March 14, 1879 - April 18, 1955) was a German-Jewish theoretical physicist widely regarded as the most important scientist of the 20th century and one of the greatest physicists of all time." I save 'ad hominem' for remarks that are irrelevant to the argument at hand. I don't think it's ad hominem to say again, William, you're too damn angry much of the time. Especially when you apparently take damage to your arguments as damage to your ego. I say "apparently". I can't know what it is, but I'm sure it distorts and untracks your reactions. ************** Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car listings at AOL Autos. (http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)
