Is that a fact?

Cougar Allen

Cougar Allen

Buccaneer (ret.)
Joined
Oct 9, 1998
Messages
76,679
agnes2005043051723.gif

today's Agnes from www.ucomics.com
 

Attachments

  • Is that a fact agnes2005043051723.gif
    Is that a fact agnes2005043051723.gif
    37.1 KB · Views: 220
Today's Monty from www.comics.com
monty2005052441414.gif


Of course no one here would do that. We would just take the manufacturer's word for it....
 

Attachments

  • testing monty2005052441414.gif
    testing monty2005052441414.gif
    31.4 KB · Views: 186
Cougar,

There is a lot of epistemological relevance to those cartoons. In the "Agnes" cartoon, the first character is taking up the an indefensible method of holding knowledge, related (loosely speaking) to "logical positivism". The second character correctly attacks the first character's position by addressing one of the main weaknessess of logical positivism, known as "the problem of justification"--the issue that justifications "infinitely regress", i.e., a justification is always built upon a prior justification, without ever reaching a solid foundation.

In the "Monty" cartoon, the first character is adopting a more logically defensible methodology of holding knowledge, known as "pancritical rationalism".

It's too much to get into in any detail, here, but if you search the 'net looking up these terms (especially pancritical rationalism) you'll find lots of cool stuff.

Cheers,

--Mike
 
Evolute said:
Cougar,

There is a lot of epistemological relevance to those cartoons. In the "Agnes" cartoon, the first character is taking up the an indefensible method of holding knowledge, related (loosely speaking) to "logical positivism". The second character correctly attacks the first character's position by addressing one of the main weaknessess of logical positivism, known as "the problem of justification"--the issue that justifications "infinitely regress", i.e., a justification is always built upon a prior justification, without ever reaching a solid foundation.

In the "Monty" cartoon, the first character is adopting a more logically defensible methodology of holding knowledge, known as "pancritical rationalism".

It's too much to get into in any detail, here, but if you search the 'net looking up these terms (especially pancritical rationalism) you'll find lots of cool stuff.

Cheers,

--Mike
Click to expand...

Mike

To quote Skunk, "HUH!?"

Are these real word, or do you make them up out in the desert after eating the 'cactus candy'?

LOL Just yanking your chain man. Have a good shoot, enjoyed the pics.

Rob
 
FoxholeAtheist said:
Yeah, but Cliff would have his brother put the pants on first. ;)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't Cliff insist that the manufacturer make them from a more suitable material, (in his opinion of course), then tell us they should last for at least four days in the sun's photosphere?
 
Evolute said:
Cougar,

There is a lot of epistemological relevance to those cartoons. In the "Agnes" cartoon, the first character is taking up the an indefensible method of holding knowledge, related (loosely speaking) to "logical positivism". The second character correctly attacks the first character's position by addressing one of the main weaknessess of logical positivism, known as "the problem of justification"--the issue that justifications "infinitely regress", i.e., a justification is always built upon a prior justification, without ever reaching a solid foundation.

In the "Monty" cartoon, the first character is adopting a more logically defensible methodology of holding knowledge, known as "pancritical rationalism".

It's too much to get into in any detail, here, but if you search the 'net looking up these terms (especially pancritical rationalism) you'll find lots of cool stuff.

Cheers,

--Mike
Click to expand...
If you insist on introducing advanced philosophical concepts here you're going to destroy all the good arguments, especially the religion/anti religion ones over in the political forum. ;) :)
 
Cougar Allen said:
Today's Monty from www.comics.com
http://www.comics.com/comics/monty/archive/images/monty2005052441414.gif

Of course no one here would do that. We would just take the manufacturer's word for it....
Click to expand...

i've had them fail before... thats why you test a small part of the clothe thats not visible when you dye clothing... and hair... some clothing lines just like to lie to you about their product - especially the term "heavy weight" when it applies to t-shirts :grumpy: i have 11 "heavy weight" gildan t-shirts sitting in the corner of my closet in a box that are supposedly 11oz material... feels just like a damn fruit of the looms package t-shirt to me... (carhartt forever! (and hemptowns :D ))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top