Philosophy basically has only one rule. No outside references allowed. The argument to be presented MUST use it's own reasoning as the base.
Philosophy doesn't use Holy Links.
WRONG. It is not accepted by me. That means it is not a valid source just on that point alone. It sound like gfm might be of a similar opinion. I'll let him speak for himself, should he choose to do so.
Philosophy is not a dictionary.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all science is.
No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word. Dictionaries standardize spelling and punctuation, and provide examples on the use of a word. No dictionary is authoritative on the definition of any word.
Inversion fallacy.
Yes it does. Argument of the stone fallacy. Denial of philosophy.
...followed by Mantra 12. Normally I delete these on sight. I kept this one intact for educational purposes only.
because you declare it so? Laughable
:mrgreen::giggle1:
Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this, NOT me.
That is not what the 'Argument of the Stone' fallacy is. An Argument of the Stone is when one dismisses an argument (usually as "absurd") without providing any counter-argument. The fallacy you were looking for here was 'Argument by Repetition', but you are the one who has been committing that fallacy, NOT me. That's another Inversion Fallacy on your part. My having to repeatedly correct your incorrect assertions is NOT an Argument by Repetition. YOUR making the same incorrect assertions time and time again (after I have already corrected them), acting as if repeating them somehow makes them correct, IS the Argument by Repetition fallacy, however.
This assertion outright denies what philosophy is (the study of how and why we reason).
I have an Associates Degree in Accounting. That's it. I have no degrees in philosophy or science or religion or anything else.
I was. "Philosophy doesn't make use of any outside references" is a quite precise assertion. Philosophy doesn't appeal to Scientific American, nor does it appeal to Wikipedia or an Oxford Dictionary, nor does it appeal to any other outside source.
You are denying what philosophy is. You are asking me to support a philosophically rooted definition with an outside source, even though philosophy doesn't make use of any outside sources. That doesn't "compute"...
Practically apply the philosophical definitions that have been offered... You will see that they make much more sense than the "false authority" definitions you have been offering up... I already destroyed your "method" of how science works, and showed you why science actually works in the way that philosophy has defined it.
So works "lack all meaning" whenever you choose to deny them? Interesting... "Philosophy does not make use of outside references." Which word(s) "lack all meaning"? I can define each and every one of them for you if you'd like...
It examines how and why we reason.
No idea what you're trying to say here...
False. I noted that the source was a false authority, I noted WHY it was a false authority, and then (out of the goodness of my heart) I even went so far as to pick apart the false authority's definition of science line by line...
Maybe... maybe not... I don't know which "other sources" you speak of, nor does it matter.
False. I noted that the source was a false authority, I noted WHY it was a false authority, and then (out of the goodness of my heart) I even went so far as to pick apart the false authority's definition of science line by line...
Philosophy doesn't have a dictionary.
?????????
Argument of the Stone.
Cool observation.
It will never make any sense to you as long as you keep making Arguments of the Stone instead of attempting to understand viewpoints which oppose your own.
He understands dictionaries just fine, as do I.
There sure are.
To say that is to understand what a dictionary actually is. Sure, dictionaries include sample sentences and sample word definitions regarding how words might be used, and those examples might be helpful, but dictionaries do not own nor do they define any word. Dictionaries are a collection of words. The mere act of collecting words should be enough of a tell that dictionaries are not the source of any word nor its definition.
Bigotry. Hasty Generalization Fallacy. Composition Fallacy.
Argument by Repetition Fallacy.
That would be because gfm makes original arguments, such as gfm's above argument concerning phenomenology. gfm seems to possess much more understanding of philosophical matters than devildavid does.
Strawman.
False. "Outside sources" means anything outside of reasoning. That would include Wikipedia, Scientific American, Oxford Dictionaries, CNN, FOX, and even The Bible.
The mere action of practicing philosophy supports my claim.
Philosophy is an open functional system. That type of system does not have the power of proof.
The mere action of practicing philosophy supports my claim.
