@Klartext. Are you serious? I think @jupp53 has kindly answered taken care of this point for me. Just to be clear I will concentrate only on scientific evidence which can be defined as: empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with the scientific method. There are other forms of evidence some more reliable than others. The important thing is that for me to give any serious thought or credence to a serious proposition then evidence is essential. I think this is tied in with the concept of existential import. Without this I simply don't see anything to discuss, as the conversation would simply degenerate into a parade of begging the question fallacies at the very least. Pointless arguing is not my cup of tea. Electrons can and have been detected and I think it's true that the technology we are both using now depends on an understanding of these things, amongst other things. Have a nice day!
For me, chess is not about defeating somebody else, about exploiting his/her weaknesses and conquering position after position. It’s not about humiliating my adversary.
For me chess is about helping others to grow, helping others to win, helping others to overcome their challenges.
I enjoy teaching chess, seeing my student getting better, understand the game more, getting more confident about themselves and their abilities. I enjoy solving chess puzzles with my friends and analyse games with them.
I find author's view of memorization and creativity in chess absurd and ignorant.
I have my doubts that the author of the article knows how our real world works. Without competition in a capitalist system, our food, technologies, housing, services... would be much, much harder to get and it would be much more expensive. Competition is one of the main reasons why life is easier for us, compared to our ancestors.
The best resource I found online that objectively discusses religious matters and claims not backed up by evidence is Atheist Experience - http://www.atheist-experience.org/
For me chess is about helping others to grow, helping others to win, helping others to overcome their challenges.
I enjoy teaching chess, seeing my student getting better, understand the game more, getting more confident about themselves and their abilities. I enjoy solving chess puzzles with my friends and analyse games with them.
I find author's view of memorization and creativity in chess absurd and ignorant.
I have my doubts that the author of the article knows how our real world works. Without competition in a capitalist system, our food, technologies, housing, services... would be much, much harder to get and it would be much more expensive. Competition is one of the main reasons why life is easier for us, compared to our ancestors.
The best resource I found online that objectively discusses religious matters and claims not backed up by evidence is Atheist Experience - http://www.atheist-experience.org/
I think if we were to go by the logic of this article basically everything is sinful. I feel that if I were a god I would just be happy that people were playing chess (and other sports etc) instead of butchering eachother. I don't play chess because I want to humiliate people, I just want to have fun and (hopefully) improve.
@Oxytocinblb Not to defend the article in any way, but I will defend @Klartext . Materialism cannot be taken for granted, nor can you simply wave away problems of epistemology by invoking science. Nor can you ignore ignore the dependence of logic, and therefore science, on ultimately unprovable maxims (see Godel). I don't think Klartext meant to defend the article, either, by the way.
Thanks @PizzledSwibble that would have been my point.
@PizzledSwibble
As I have said, pointless arguing is nonsensical. No-one is taking anything for granted but I like to keep things grounded in evidence. I am aware of Kurt Godel, Turing etc and what they say about proof. However, asking for evidence is not the same as asking for proof. Basing conclusions on evidence makes sense to me because without evidence of an event or an object we are literally talking about nothing.
There is a difference between logic and science. Science is based on observations and seeks to understand detectable phenomena. Logic is a very useful process of thought which science uses. It is only a tool. Science, as I am sure you know, makes no comment about anything outside its jurisdiction. However, the scientific method is the best tool for dealing in as unbiased way as possible with falsifiable, verifiable and determinable - is that a word? - evidence and provide realistic and probablistic predictions.
Observation provides a way out of dealing with the problems of how we know what we know by insisting on evidence to start the conversation. It also shows that ontological problems can be dealt with by simply asking for evidence. No evidence, no conversation.
A great thing about science is that it can train a person to seek out evidence in other areas of life before prolonging discussions which turn out to be little more than word games. For example, you realise that your partner loves you not because they say so but because of the things they do for you that they wouldn't do for anyone else. Evidence based reasoning in action outside science.
Also evidence based reasoning does not pretend to certainty or to perfection. It has no time for fallacies of ignorance because it is always improving and correcting itself. By deferring conversations until such time as we have evidence to process for a particular claim, the door is always kept open. Bring the evidence start the conversation. If appropriate processing of the evidence shows that a well established conclusion is wrong, change your mind!
No point having a mind if it can't be changed, but what changes it matters immensely.
The question isn't about materialism or epistemology or ontology. The question is simple do you reason using evidence or go with meaningful sounding chunterings based on nothing but fresh air and a profound sense of disatisfaction with something not yet experienced.
I agree that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy, but lets's wait for evidence before deciding what those things are.
By the way, apologies to @klartext if he feels that I demeaned him or his ideas in any way. That is never my intention. However, as the saying goes, my mind is always open, but no so open that my brains drop out.
As I have said, pointless arguing is nonsensical. No-one is taking anything for granted but I like to keep things grounded in evidence. I am aware of Kurt Godel, Turing etc and what they say about proof. However, asking for evidence is not the same as asking for proof. Basing conclusions on evidence makes sense to me because without evidence of an event or an object we are literally talking about nothing.
There is a difference between logic and science. Science is based on observations and seeks to understand detectable phenomena. Logic is a very useful process of thought which science uses. It is only a tool. Science, as I am sure you know, makes no comment about anything outside its jurisdiction. However, the scientific method is the best tool for dealing in as unbiased way as possible with falsifiable, verifiable and determinable - is that a word? - evidence and provide realistic and probablistic predictions.
Observation provides a way out of dealing with the problems of how we know what we know by insisting on evidence to start the conversation. It also shows that ontological problems can be dealt with by simply asking for evidence. No evidence, no conversation.
A great thing about science is that it can train a person to seek out evidence in other areas of life before prolonging discussions which turn out to be little more than word games. For example, you realise that your partner loves you not because they say so but because of the things they do for you that they wouldn't do for anyone else. Evidence based reasoning in action outside science.
Also evidence based reasoning does not pretend to certainty or to perfection. It has no time for fallacies of ignorance because it is always improving and correcting itself. By deferring conversations until such time as we have evidence to process for a particular claim, the door is always kept open. Bring the evidence start the conversation. If appropriate processing of the evidence shows that a well established conclusion is wrong, change your mind!
No point having a mind if it can't be changed, but what changes it matters immensely.
The question isn't about materialism or epistemology or ontology. The question is simple do you reason using evidence or go with meaningful sounding chunterings based on nothing but fresh air and a profound sense of disatisfaction with something not yet experienced.
I agree that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy, but lets's wait for evidence before deciding what those things are.
By the way, apologies to @klartext if he feels that I demeaned him or his ideas in any way. That is never my intention. However, as the saying goes, my mind is always open, but no so open that my brains drop out.
@WildTiger
Yes, that site is very good. It helps that the main presenter is an ex-believer who thinks in such a sane and humane way. I like the way he prevents them from dragging everything into their interminable, circular arguments by shutting down the conversation. The way he uses Exodus 21 as a God is morality deal breaker is nothing short of inspired, and sadly, relevant.
Yes, that site is very good. It helps that the main presenter is an ex-believer who thinks in such a sane and humane way. I like the way he prevents them from dragging everything into their interminable, circular arguments by shutting down the conversation. The way he uses Exodus 21 as a God is morality deal breaker is nothing short of inspired, and sadly, relevant.
@General-__-Advance
Unfortunately, you are not a God, merely human like the rest of us. I'll still play chess for fun and improvement though. Those who are obsessed with sin will have to remain that way, sadly.
Unfortunately, you are not a God, merely human like the rest of us. I'll still play chess for fun and improvement though. Those who are obsessed with sin will have to remain that way, sadly.
"my mind is always open, but no so open that my brains drop out"
good point @Oxytocinblb - does that mean that people with a bigger brain can open their mind wider without losing it?
good point @Oxytocinblb - does that mean that people with a bigger brain can open their mind wider without losing it?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.