Cyrus said:
I don't understand why you have some incessant need to talk about 'christian humility'. What does this thread have to do with christian values?
Why is it pathetic for me to look down on chemists, on the grounds that they have low mathematical sophistication? I agree that it seems arrogant, but why is this a bad thing?
One explanation (put forth not by me, but by great thinkers in modern times) for why arrogance carries a strong negative connotation is that we live in a culture that has long prized the christian virtue of humility. Even if you are not a christian, and you were not raised as a christian, as a member of western society you are still under the unconscious influence of christian values.
In other words, the reason I am questioning christian values in this thread is because otherwise anyone who chooses to hold the elitist (by definition) position of 'looking down on chemists' is going to be accused of being arrogant e.g. the sarcastic 'size of mathematical penis' remark a few posts ago and then the conlclusion of the argument depends on the audience association 'arrogant = bad', a deeply ingrained connotation which I claim is an obstacle to human progress.
Basically, you want to talk about philosophy because you think it makes you sound smart and knowledgeable. It's doing the opposite.
No, I am talking about philosophy because it is relevant (I forgive that your lack of education in this area prevents you from seeing that). As for what opinion you will form of me on this basis, I can honestly say that no thoughts of that kind ever crossed my mind.
Im also glad you use a comic strip to defend your position.
First of all, it is better than nothing, which you have presented.
Second, the fact that XKCD enjoys reasonable popularity is evidence that this joke makes sense to many of us, and my original point in this thread was that there is a common base notion of the elitist rankings of these professions, which agrees exactly with the aristotelian one (aside from philosophy which lately has fallen into a disreputable public perception, which you have tried to exploit several times in this thread against me; at least some forum members are too bright for these tactics).
Please restrict your posts to the philosophy section of PF. This pointless mumbo-jumbo you're posting is getting out of hand. You are using and abusing scientific disiplines and terms left and right while justifiying it by saying its due to "my inability to conform and be indoctrinated".
The real problem is that my posts are best read by an educated person who is willing to suspend judgement and read between the lines (i.e. think) to see that what I am posting is not nonsense.
When you accuse me of abusing 'scientific disciplines and terms' you are attempting to construe me as violating the rules of this forum, but I have only discussed matters of opinion and you will not se me contradicting any accepted scientific facts.
When I say that I was not indoctriated, I mean that I learned the facts without absorbing the thoughtless opinions of the drones who taught them to me.
The moment you stated you look down on chemists (with an ! mark none-the-less), invalidated anything you have to say on this subject.
Within the framework of a polite christian discussion I agree with you, but if you are willing to entertain that arrogance may be valid and even healthy, then I do not see why my opinion is automatically invalidated. What rule of coversation have I broken, if arrogance is fair game?
So chemistry is only trivial and unnecessary truths - right. Nice try.
This is rich --- you have either constructed a straw man, or you have demonstrated how low your perception is by your blatant error in attempting to negate a proposition.
By claiming that chemistry does not contain "non-trivial necessary and universal truths" I am claiming that all the truths of chemistry are either trivial, not necessary (in the sense of logic, as in "the conclusion necessarily follows", since I know you had the ordinary meaning in mind), or not universal. By the way, the trivial truths are things like "Liquids boil at their boiling point" i.e. this is necessary (follows necesssaily by definition) and universal but it is also trivial.
Your mistake is that the negation of a conjunction should be a disjunction, whereas you arrived at a conjunction (I concede it may have been a straw man attempt to waste my time).
Would you like to throw in some more plato mumbo jumbo to try and justify such an outrageous statement?
If that is how name-calling is played, then I have had enough of your Cyrus mumbo-jumbo.
