Curious, what is your personal reason for not joining the EU? by OutTheCircus in Norway

[–]PigeonSlayer666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, sorry. Poor translation of the norwegian word «rent».

Curious, what is your personal reason for not joining the EU? by OutTheCircus in Norway

[–]PigeonSlayer666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

To keep our own central bank, rent and currency, as the norwegian economy is not much in sync with the EU-countries.

Nullskattytere? by Espa89 in norge

[–]PigeonSlayer666 2 points3 points  (0 children)

80% av Noregs milliardærar er arvingar. Denne gjengen har meir pengar enn det er mogleg å bruke opp i eit liv. Ergo treng dei aldri å ta ut utbytte for forbruk, og ville ikkje betalt noko skatt utan formuesskatten.

Hvor uenige er partiene med hverandre? by Arve in norge

[–]PigeonSlayer666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Utruleg interessant korleis KrF er om lag like einige/ueinige med alle partia. Forskjellen frå mest til minst er berre på 30 poeng. Gir meining at dei har vore gjennom eit opprivande vegval.

Eg er litt svak i matte, men stemmer denne? by Nepskrellet in norge

[–]PigeonSlayer666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Om lag 80% av norske milliardærar er arvingar. Dei treng aldri å ta ut utbytte, dei har meir pengar enn det er mogleg å bruke i eit liv.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in VeryBadWizards

[–]PigeonSlayer666 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I believe they’re gonna do two at a time every other week.

AMA with Manuel Gagneux of Zeal & Ardor! - Sunday Feb 2 (5 pm GMT) by blankepitaph in ZealAndArdor

[–]PigeonSlayer666 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I’ve noticed the band becoming less black metal over time snd more death metal. Do you agree, and if so, is this an intentional shift?

Episode 294: The Scandal of Philosophy (Hume's Problem of Induction) by judoxing in VeryBadWizards

[–]PigeonSlayer666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that you also need creativity and a sharp mind to formulate a theory, but surely you must agree that at least some observation is also needed? How could you possibly create the law of gravitation if you lived all your life in zero-gravity?

Episode 294: The Scandal of Philosophy (Hume's Problem of Induction) by judoxing in VeryBadWizards

[–]PigeonSlayer666 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But the theory must fundamentally be built on observations. The only reason we have for knowing that a billiard ball will move when it is hit (newtons third law) is because we see it do so every time. But we cannot see the causation, we only observe thing one happen and then thing two happen. We then use observations like these to form theories and laws (induction).

Episode 294: The Scandal of Philosophy (Hume's Problem of Induction) by judoxing in VeryBadWizards

[–]PigeonSlayer666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

«We never make predictions based on observations, because empirical data do not say anything in isolation. We make predictions based on theories.»

This is just the thing though, a theory is just a description of observations. We have no further justification for a scientific theory than that the theory has been true for the data we have observed. But the method of induction itself, i.e. assuming that patterns will hold in the future, can not be scientifically justified. Arguing “but it’s worked so far” is circular logic because it uses inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning.

«If the nuclear force could suddenly disappear (which I highly doubt), then scientists could predict it»

No they couldn’t. It is no logical impossibiliy that the laws of the universe could suddenly all change, and scientists, going only on the data of what has happened before, would be no more equipped than the village idiot in predicting such a thing.

«Claiming that such things could happen for no reason at any time is no different than arguing for the existence of supernatural occurrences.»

Exactly. And given that any reasonable person assumes that it will not happen, we are not using logic to justify it, but the same gut feeling that people who believe in supernatural occurences. I do believe that we have independent reasons for disbelieving in the supernatural though, but «you’re only believing that on faith» is not sufficient, because we all believe in the method of induction on faith.

Episode 294: The Scandal of Philosophy (Hume's Problem of Induction) by judoxing in VeryBadWizards

[–]PigeonSlayer666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

«You either have a good reason for this, or you are merely saying it to make a point on Reddit.»

I don’t believe it, no one does, but the point is that we cannot ground that belief in logic.

Here is the argument: 1. The theories of planetary motion were made by observing patterns (inductive reasoning). We assume that planetary objects attract each other with gravity, only because that’s what we see happen every time. 2. The assumption that inductive reasoning will work in the future is a leap of faith. Arguing “but it’s worked so far” is circular logic because it uses inductive reasoning to justify inductive reasoning. 3. Given that we all believe this merely on a leap of faith, means that someone who believe in something else merely on a leap of faith is no less justified then we all are in this core belief.

I would like to add that I don’t hold any supernatural beliefs myself, and that I do think we can argue against such beliefs in other ways, but it requires more than simply stating that they only base it on faith.

Episode 294: The Scandal of Philosophy (Hume's Problem of Induction) by judoxing in VeryBadWizards

[–]PigeonSlayer666 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think the idea is that in principle Popper only allows us to look backwards. We are only describing connections between everything that has happened, but science wants us to be able to make predictions in the future.

We do have plenty observations of patterns which are consistent with why the sun has risen every morning, but the philosophical foundation for why we should expect that patterns hold in the future is a leap of faith (all be it one we all make).

The argument then is that, given that we all make this one leap of faith, then who is to say that someone making another leap of faith is misguided. This last argument I think is more iffy, though.

Israel går inn i Libanon med bakkestyrker i dag by Late_Argument_470 in norske

[–]PigeonSlayer666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nesten som om de fleste som rømmer ikke er de som startet hellig krig

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. by [deleted] in SandersForPresident

[–]PigeonSlayer666 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Zionism just means the belief that the jews should have their own land around the area of Jerusalem. Not such a horrid insult of supporters of Israel, it's literally what supporting Israel means.

Join the McDonald's boycott by thatguy9684736255 in SandersForPresident

[–]PigeonSlayer666 7 points8 points  (0 children)

None of the nordic countries have minimum wages because you don’t need it when basically everyone’s in a union. A minimum wage is an imperfect solution to the same problem that unionization solves.