ktcgx Wrote:

ashman63 Wrote:し----------> ʃ (okay not technically English, but close enough; at least it shows that this

Actually, the IPA symbol comes from the older English form of "s". You'll see it quite often in texts even up to the late 1800s/ early 1900s. For some reason English decided to have two slightly different forms of "s" running around at the same time. Printed forms of the ʃ character usually look more like an "f".

That's absurd. Obviously ashman63's interpretation is the correct one.

Tzadeck Wrote:I know my argument isnt valid, but I use it anyways! u cant tell me what to do! u think ur the police?

Excellent.

JimmySeal Wrote:

ktcgx Wrote:

ashman63 Wrote:し----------> ʃ (okay not technically English, but close enough; at least it shows that this

Actually, the IPA symbol comes from the older English form of "s". You'll see it quite often in texts even up to the late 1800s/ early 1900s. For some reason English decided to have two slightly different forms of "s" running around at the same time. Printed forms of the ʃ character usually look more like an "f".

That's absurd. Obviously ashman63's interpretation is the correct one.

I also like his better.

On valid rebuttals and outright dismissal:
I think Tzadeck is correct to see no need to carefully address absurd claims. Imagine if Einstein spent his time responding to every crackpot's ideas. Clearly, as Tzadeck said, responding to such ideas is a waste of time.

Nonetheless, instead of dismissing the absurd as stupid or whatever appropriate term, I think the best response is no response at all. Ignore it. That way we avoid accusations of committing an ad hominem fallacy and also give the absurd claim the inattention it deserves. Of course, we won't be able to avoid the crackpot from replying "Your lack of response is proof that my argument is better!" Nonetheless, that person would be speaking within a vacuum, ignored by one's peers.

I think this is the best way to take an idea off the table, so to speak. Carefully responding to it is a waste of time, and dismissing it outright often provokes supporters of the absurd ideas as well as the "Guardians of Reason." (I admit, though, that there are cases where dangerous ideas cannot be ignored, e.g. global warming, creation science, etc.)

P.S. @ryuudou: do you think your mockery of Tzadeck's post is a valid argument?

I wasn't making an argument — by that point it had already been finished. As you said simply reacting emotionally and calling it stupid only benefits the one making and supporting the Hebrew argument. This is partially why I pointed it out. It doesn't deserve any support.

Haych Wrote:Did anyone besides the Chinese even have contact with Japan in the middle of the 1st millennium AD when the katakana started popping up?

There is evidence of Persian and Greek influences in the etchings and designs of some Asuka/Nara temples. This probably came indirectly through Chinese sources.
However, there seems to be more and more evidence (from numismatics, dna, Dun Huang discoveries etc.) that the trade along the Silk Road brought people from further afield into far more frequent contact than official written records would suggest.

vileru Wrote:On valid rebuttals and outright dismissal:
I think Tzadeck is correct to see no need to carefully address absurd claims. Imagine if Einstein spent his time responding to every crackpot's ideas. Clearly, as Tzadeck said, responding to such ideas is a waste of time.

Nonetheless, instead of dismissing the absurd as stupid or whatever appropriate term, I think the best response is no response at all. Ignore it. That way we avoid accusations of committing an ad hominem fallacy and also give the absurd claim the inattention it deserves. Of course, we won't be able to avoid the crackpot from replying "Your lack of response is proof that my argument is better!" Nonetheless, that person would be speaking within a vacuum, ignored by one's peers.

I think this is the best way to take an idea off the table, so to speak. Carefully responding to it is a waste of time, and dismissing it outright often provokes supporters of the absurd ideas as well as the "Guardians of Reason." (I admit, though, that there are cases where dangerous ideas cannot be ignored, e.g. global warming, creation science, etc.)

P.S. @ryuudou: do you think your mockery of Tzadeck's post is a valid argument?

An even better solution would be to use rational argument. And to be humble enough to acknowledge that the cranks have sometimes (although not very often) been correct. (Who in the 19th Century would have believed that time is relative and can switch "places" with mass).

A case of apophenia, maybe even pareidolia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

ryuudou Wrote:I wasn't making an argument — by that point it had already been finished. As you said simply reacting emotionally and calling it stupid only benefits the one making and supporting the Hebrew argument. This is partially why I pointed it out. It doesn't deserve any support.

But vileru pointed out there was some validity to my position of dismissing absurd claims, and then went on to explain why calling a claim dumb may be misguided nonetheless. A good post. You, on the other hand, mocked my post by rephrasing it with poor grammar, trying to take away any validity my thinking might have had. In a rather cheap way too.

(I guess I should say that I've had this argument on this site not too long ago, and that may be why I'm being a bit curt here. I pointed out then that I was a philosophy major, I've done formal debates, and I've taught formal debate (albeit to non-native speakers). I know that mentioning credentials like this is a bit silly, but I hope I can use it to show that I understand pretty well how formal and semi-formal arguing works. I think there's a time and place outside of academia and publications to ignore those guidelines and rules. Here I'm not really worried about the other side gaining proponents because of my misdeeds, largely because I don't think there's really a chance of many people taking this seriously.)

Tzadeck Wrote:I pointed out then that I was a philosophy major, I've done formal debates, and I've taught formal debate

Argumentum ab auctoritate.

raharney Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:I pointed out then that I was a philosophy major, I've done formal debates, and I've taught formal debate

Argumentum ab auctoritate.

You do realize you're not attacking his actual argument, you're attacking his explanation for why he's being curt?

Vempele Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

Tzadeck Wrote:I pointed out then that I was a philosophy major, I've done formal debates, and I've taught formal debate

Argumentum ab auctoritate.

You do realize you're not attacking his actual argument, you're attacking his explanation for why he's being curt?

He then said, "I know that mentioning credentials like this is a bit silly, but I hope I can use it to show that I understand pretty well how formal and semi-formal arguing works."
So he is justifying his curtness on the grounds that he has privileged knowledge in this area which grants him the right to a curt manner of expression. So his grounds are being based on his "authority".

raharney Wrote:He then said, "I know that mentioning credentials like this is a bit silly, but I hope I can use it to show that I understand pretty well how formal and semi-formal arguing works."
So he is justifying his curtness on the grounds that he has privileged knowledge in this area which grants him the right to a curt manner of expression. So his grounds are being based on his "authority".

No, actually, I'm just trying to get him (and now, you) to understand that I know what you're trying to do when you say things like my declaration was not an argument or that appeal to authority is a fallacy, so that you can talk to me like an adult. I'm not defending my position based on a silly philosophy degree. Who gives a damn about a philosophy degree? For all you know I got it from a community college.

Or, in short, yes, I was explaining why I was being curt.

Tzadeck Wrote:No, actually, I'm just trying to get him (and now, you) to know that I understand what you're trying to do when you say things like my declaration was not an argument or that appeal to authority is a fallacy, so that you can talk to me like an adult. ...Or, in short, yes, I was explaining why I was being curt.

But we were talking like adults, having a merry chat about eccentric ideas to be found on a fairly think-outside-the-box website. Curtness can come across as teenager-ish sometimes.
(I said "can " not "does". NOT accusing you. Just suggesting what could have been shaping the interpretations that have been emerging here).

Anyway, I'm sure your philosophy training fine. (No sarcasm there). I have to sleep. Good night.

raharney Wrote:But we were talking like adults, having a merry chat about eccentric ideas to be found on a fairly think-outside-the-box website. Curtness can come across as teenager-ish sometimes.
(I said "can " not "does". NOT accusing you. Just suggesting what could have been shaping the interpretations that have been emerging here).

Anyway, I'm sure your philosophy training fine. (No sarcasm there). I have to sleep. Good night.

You misinterpreted my mention of my degree as being a justification of my position. It wasn't, so I pointed it out. Simple as that.

What I mean by not treating me like an adult is responding to my posts simply with a latin phrase. That's 'puerile' in my book.

All I can say is WTF.

[Zgarbas]

I love conspiracy theorists.

Also guys, your argument is amazing.

[s0apgun]

Learn how to win any argument with this one guys simple trick!

Philosophers HATE him. CLICK HERE!

Soapgun: Learn how to win any argument with this one guys simple trick! Philosophers HATE him.
Socrates: Tell me, who was this guy. What did he do?
Soapgun: He was an ancient Greek philosopher.
Socrates: So, he was a philosopher. All philosophers hated him. Did he hate himself?
Soapgun: No.
Socrates: So this is not verily the case. Not all philosophers hated him.
Soapgun: Yes, fair Socrates, that is true. You have spoken well.

raharney Wrote:Soapgun: Learn how to win any argument with this one guys simple trick! Philosophers HATE him.
Socrates: Tell me, who was this guy. What did he do?
Soapgun: He was an ancient Greek philosopher.
Socrates: So, he was a philosopher. All philosophers hated him. Did he hate himself?
Soapgun: No.
Socrates: So this is not verily the case. Not all philosophers hated him.
Soapgun: Yes, fair Socrates, that is true. You have spoken well.

(I am only teasing you Soapgun, of course.)

raharney Wrote:

vileru Wrote:On valid rebuttals and outright dismissal:
I think Tzadeck is correct to see no need to carefully address absurd claims. Imagine if Einstein spent his time responding to every crackpot's ideas. Clearly, as Tzadeck said, responding to such ideas is a waste of time.

Nonetheless, instead of dismissing the absurd as stupid or whatever appropriate term, I think the best response is no response at all. Ignore it. That way we avoid accusations of committing an ad hominem fallacy and also give the absurd claim the inattention it deserves. Of course, we won't be able to avoid the crackpot from replying "Your lack of response is proof that my argument is better!" Nonetheless, that person would be speaking within a vacuum, ignored by one's peers.

I think this is the best way to take an idea off the table, so to speak. Carefully responding to it is a waste of time, and dismissing it outright often provokes supporters of the absurd ideas as well as the "Guardians of Reason." (I admit, though, that there are cases where dangerous ideas cannot be ignored, e.g. global warming, creation science, etc.)

P.S. @ryuudou: do you think your mockery of Tzadeck's post is a valid argument?

An even better solution would be to use rational argument. And to be humble enough to acknowledge that the cranks have sometimes (although not very often) been correct. (Who in the 19th Century would have believed that time is relative and can switch "places" with mass).

I'm not sure if this is your view, but I don't think it's productive to entertain every idea with rational argument. Only plausible ideas are worthwhile. Of course, we ought to ask what makes an idea plausible, but such a question cannot be adequately discussed here.

Anyway, relativity wasn't even close to a crackpot idea. Yes, it was famously controversial, but that's because it subverted classical mechanics. It was controversial because it was an actual challenge, not because it was a crackpot idea. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with its initial controversy. It makes sense to be skeptical towards such an idea until it has withstood sufficient criticism. We see the same skepticism today directed towards the various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The same pattern holds with various other revolutionary theories, including Copernicus' heliocentric model. In fact, the heliocentric model was inaccurate, and the then-dominant Ptolemaic model predicted the movements of heavenly bodies with far greater accuracy. The heliocentric model was more or less dismissed until Kepler repaired it by positing elliptical orbits, thus finally offering a model that still made accurate predictions and was much simpler than the Ptolemaic one.

In contrast to these initially controversial but now accepted theories, Tesla had some wild ideas about electromagnetism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these ideas didn't generate a storm of controversy because no one took them seriously. The scientific community found his ideas implausible, and thus ignored them.

Rational inquiry, including science, does not involve subjecting every possible idea to the scrutiny of rational argument. To do so would be unproductive and inefficient. It would be a silly waste of time if the scientific community wrote book length works attacking Flat Earth Theorists and their ilk. Responding to an idea with a rational argument isn't always the most rational response. In the case of a crackpot idea, the most rational response is to ignore it.

Anyhow, I don't want to get caught up in a debate here, but I recommend reading works by the following authors if you're interested in how rational discussion proceeds: Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyeraband (Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is especially relevant).

vileru Wrote:

raharney Wrote:

vileru Wrote:On valid rebuttals and outright dismissal:
I think Tzadeck is correct to see no need to carefully address absurd claims. Imagine if Einstein spent his time responding to every crackpot's ideas. Clearly, as Tzadeck said, responding to such ideas is a waste of time.

Nonetheless, instead of dismissing the absurd as stupid or whatever appropriate term, I think the best response is no response at all. Ignore it. That way we avoid accusations of committing an ad hominem fallacy and also give the absurd claim the inattention it deserves. Of course, we won't be able to avoid the crackpot from replying "Your lack of response is proof that my argument is better!" Nonetheless, that person would be speaking within a vacuum, ignored by one's peers.

I think this is the best way to take an idea off the table, so to speak. Carefully responding to it is a waste of time, and dismissing it outright often provokes supporters of the absurd ideas as well as the "Guardians of Reason." (I admit, though, that there are cases where dangerous ideas cannot be ignored, e.g. global warming, creation science, etc.)

P.S. @ryuudou: do you think your mockery of Tzadeck's post is a valid argument?

An even better solution would be to use rational argument. And to be humble enough to acknowledge that the cranks have sometimes (although not very often) been correct. (Who in the 19th Century would have believed that time is relative and can switch "places" with mass).

I'm not sure if this is your view, but I don't think it's productive to entertain every idea with rational argument. Only plausible ideas are worthwhile. Of course, we ought to ask what makes an idea plausible, but such a question cannot be adequately discussed here.

Anyway, relativity wasn't even close to a crackpot idea. Yes, it was famously controversial, but that's because it subverted classical mechanics. It was controversial because it was an actual challenge, not because it was a crackpot idea. Furthermore, I don't see any problem with its initial controversy. It makes sense to be skeptical towards such an idea until it has withstood sufficient criticism. We see the same skepticism today directed towards the various interpretations of quantum mechanics.

The same pattern holds with various other revolutionary theories, including Copernicus' heliocentric model. In fact, the heliocentric model was inaccurate, and the then-dominant Ptolemaic model predicted the movements of heavenly bodies with far greater accuracy. The heliocentric model was more or less dismissed until Kepler repaired it by positing elliptical orbits, thus finally offering a model that still made accurate predictions and was much simpler than the Ptolemaic one.

In contrast to these initially controversial but now accepted theories, Tesla had some wild ideas about electromagnetism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, these ideas didn't generate a storm of controversy because no one took them seriously. The scientific community found his ideas implausible, and thus ignored them.

Rational inquiry, including science, does not involve subjecting every possible idea to the scrutiny of rational argument. To do so would be unproductive and inefficient. It would be a silly waste of time if the scientific community wrote book length works attacking Flat Earth Theorists and their ilk. Responding to an idea with a rational argument isn't always the most rational response. In the case of a crackpot idea, the most rational response is to ignore it.

Anyhow, I don't want to get caught up in a debate here, but I recommend reading works by the following authors if you're interested in how rational discussion proceeds: Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and Paul Feyeraband (Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is especially relevant).

Kuhn's point about paradigm shifts is that they involve a sudden new thinking of what was previously unthinkable. This is in contrast to Popper who believed that science progressed through measured progressive steps informed by unvarying rational rules, which is more what you are arguing. Arthur Koestler also has a book on this whole Copernican thing. I think you are retrospectively romanticizing how seamless and happy the shifts in paradigms in science have been.
Anyway, your argument might have import if we were a Congressional committee deciding where to invest our R&D funding. But we are not. We are simply a general online forum and as such crackpot ideas and challenging ideas (which you, lucky you, feel are always easily distinguishable) can emerge and be debated for our intellectual joy without fear and upset.

Wow, this thread's still going!

Don't you people have anki reviews to get on with!? ;-)

I don't think anyone gave thought to hebrew being influenced by kana/kanji yet.

Here is my evidence, just compare the similarities! http://jamesjpn.net/2010/06/10/japanese-...th-hebrew/

Helltrixz Wrote:I don't think anyone gave thought to hebrew being influenced by kana/kanji yet.

Here is my evidence, just compare the similarities! http://jamesjpn.net/2010/06/10/japanese-...th-hebrew/

Looking at the Hebrew alphabet chart linked below, there is only one letter that is in anyway similar, the one for "K" which is like コ (not カ、キ、ク or ケ). One letter similar. This is the same rate as the old Gaelic alphabet whose "t" is uncannily similar to て (in hiragana). So, most probably coincidence.

Here is the Hebrew chart.
http://biblescripture.net/Hebrew.html

By the way, check out the Georgian Asomtavruli Script at this site. I can see て、ひand し already.

http://rustaveli.tripod.com/language.html

Helltrixz Wrote:I don't think anyone gave thought to hebrew being influenced by kana/kanji yet.

Here is my evidence, just compare the similarities! http://jamesjpn.net/2010/06/10/japanese-...th-hebrew/

Actually, in all seriousness, thanks for this website. It's comedy gold if you go to the homepage and look at the other articles.

"The Fourth Reich – A Continuation of the Roman Empire"
"WASHINGTON IN THE LAP OF ROME"
"The Gospel Story in the Zodiac"
"Oklahoma Monster Tornado caused by HAARP?"
"Former Canadian Cabinet Minister Testifies to the existance(sic) of Extraterrestrial beings visiting Earth"