Recent comments in /f/philosophy

OceanicLemur t1_itx4u0j wrote

Reply to comment by coyote-1 in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

“The problem with being a critical thinker of this variety, however, is that it can come at the expense of other intellectual virtues. For instance, one important intellectual virtue is that of humility: one needs to be able to recognize what one knows and is capable of finding out, and not try to tackle problems one does not have the training or capacity to meaningfully contribute to. While it is, of course, worthwhile to learn new things, part of being intellectually humble means recognizing when one needs to listen to others.”

I’d say the author disagrees with you saying there’s nothing wrong with Rodgers thinking of himself as a critical thinker.

15

SovArya t1_itx44sd wrote

Reply to comment by MaxTheAlmighty in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | October 24, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

We are animals is not wrong. Animals has levels of intelligence is not wrong. Example. Ants do what they are programmed to do, and react based on instinct. However smarter animals like dolphins are able to appreciate pleasure. Smart still are killer whales who are able to discern not to bother humans.

If evolution is not wrong or whatever process came about where we are able to picture what we do outside of mere program pattern reaction to stimulus, then free will is exercised the moment we stop doing something we think is not proper.

2

mirh t1_itx2fmi wrote

Reply to comment by SleepingAudi in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

This so much.

I get wanting to have different views, but this isn't even trying to be edgy. It's just absolute contrived bullshit for (from?) people trying to fuel the anti-scientific circlejerk.

It's not just wrong in the very typical sense of the field that of course everything is going to have more than one interpretation, it simply makes up words out of thin air. It's false, a fabrication, a lie.

It blows my mind that rationalism is somehow put in opposition to it, and that they couldn't even be arsed to follow the name of the movement till the '50s.

5

RaindropsInMyMind t1_itx17al wrote

Reply to comment by gouldilocks123 in Aaron Rodgers, “Critical Thinking,” and Intellectual Humility by ADefiniteDescription

If Rodgers was indeed being honest when he talked about it then it was at some point some actual doctors who he talked to who reinforced a lot of his thoughts on the vaccine. Those people obviously should know better but I do believe he got some other opinions of people that he believed to be professionals at some point.

−3