@ rabidkitten => "(H)e uses more logic in his arguments than most other people I come in contact with put together."
Given your above opinion, then how do you explain the conspicuous lack of empirical, peer-reviewed evidence to support Boghossian's "XYZ-fb process = delusional/cognitive sickness" claim?
According to Boghossian's own epistemic logic for acquiring *true* beliefs, wouldn't believing such a claim, absent the sufficient level of empirical scientific evidence Boghossian demands of others making extraordinary claims, imply that you're delusional?
Like his idol Christopher Hitchens with his weaponized rhetorically intemperate interpersonal style and sideline cheering for the bloody confrontations of others, Boghossian positions himself as just another tool of right-wing extremism.
@ Rich Bachelor = Better to be "crazy" like a fox, "Thennn" dumber and lazier than an ox, "Quelqu'un comme toiavec tu".
PS:(Puff, pufff, exhale. Ahhhhh! These delusional philosophy cultists are such a gas!)
@That's Rich, Bitch => One question: Please provided the published journal citation for Boghossian's peer-reviewed naturalized epistemic evidence to support his claim "XYZ-fb process = delusion/cognitive illness"?
PS: (Puff, pufff. Exhale. Ahhhhh. Man, got to love a good cigar)!
You can nitpick grammar until the cows come home, mate. And you can bow to your corner and promenade. But all that high-falutin' two-steppin' still doesn't makeup for the fact that Boghossian has not supplied a shred of naturalized epistemic evidence to support his case.
Consequently, according to PB's own logic, to believe his claims without sufficient evidence is to be *delusional.*
PS: (Scratch, light, pufff-puffff! Ahhhh! Nothing like a good cigar.)
"Not pretending to know things that you don't know is a virtue."
Maybe this Professor of Controversy should try taking a big dose of his own medicine instead of hypocritically brainwashing more of the tragically hip sheeple who reflexively believe that which conspicuously lacks the naturalized epistemic evidence Boghossian insists is otherwise necessary for acquiring *true* beliefs.
For according to Boghossian's own naturalized epistemic process: Anyone who buys his "XYZ-fb belief = delusion/cognitive sickness" claim is at present basing their belief in such fatuous rhetoric on faith, not scientific evidence.
Therefore, by definition, Boghossian's sheeple are...tah dah...*delusional*.
(Like taking candy from a baby. Au revoir les enfants)
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |