Jeremy Stangroom on Twitter: "So the mathematics is different? Different rules? No agreement about fundamental axioms? If so, that's interesting, but I don't think not knowing that, or thinking it's different from the difference between say Tim Williamson & Heidegger, is a matter of rejecting rationality.… https://t.co/iQGgEsplXi"

Country	Code	For customers of
United States	40404	(any)
Canada	21212	(any)
United Kingdom	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brazil	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Ireland	51210	Vodafone, O2
India	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italy	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» See SMS short codes for other countries

Jeremy Stangroom‏ @PhilosophyExp Mar 7

Report Tweet

Jeremy Stangroom Retweeted Erik Angner

Every time Dawkins dumps on religion, my feed is full of people patiently explaining to him how he gets it wrong. And yet he keeps doing it. Is it too much to ask that a proponent of science and rationality should rationally update his beliefs in light of new evidence? Ah...https://twitter.com/ErikAngner/status/1103604440970469376 …

Jeremy Stangroom added,

Erik Angner @ErikAngner

Every time Dawkins dumps on philosophy, my feed is full of people patiently explaining to him how he gets it wrong. And yet he keeps doing it. Is it too much to ask that a proponent of science and rationality should rationally update his beliefs in light of new evidence? https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1103342127721992193 …

Show this thread

1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes

Struan‏ @StruanCurtis Mar 7

Report Tweet

Replying to @PhilosophyExp

How is philosophy equivalent to religion though?

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Jeremy Stangroom‏ @PhilosophyExp Mar 7

Report Tweet

Replying to @StruanCurtis

It isn't, but the relevant point is its difference, and it's utility, not the fact that lots of people are patiently explaining why he's wrong. Argumentum ad populum.

2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

Erik Angner‏ @ErikAngner Mar 7

Report Tweet

Replying to @PhilosophyExp @StruanCurtis

Yeah this misses the point. The point is that Dawkins makes error of fact and logic; people provide him with that information; yet his beliefs don’t update.

2 replies 0 retweets 1 like

Erik Angner‏ @ErikAngner Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @ErikAngner @PhilosophyExp @StruanCurtis

And there is in fact an analogy with religion: if Dawkins is presented with solid evidence that contradicts his stated beliefs about religion, then rationality requires him to update those beliefs too. Right?

1 reply 0 retweets 1 like

Jeremy Stangroom‏ @PhilosophyExp Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @ErikAngner @StruanCurtis

Yes, but that's question begging. The suggestion, I think, is that Dawkins is betraying his commitment to rationality by not updating his beliefs. My view is that's not true if he doesn't consider the evidence to be persuasive (even if he's actually wrong about that).

2 replies 0 retweets 1 like

Erik Angner‏ @ErikAngner Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @PhilosophyExp @StruanCurtis

Erik Angner Retweeted Richard Dawkins

Example! Consider the way he ridicules the concept of continental philosophy: https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/334656775196393473 … https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/898918753014091776 …https://twitter.com/richarddawkins/status/1027987434674552834 …

Erik Angner added,

Richard DawkinsVerified account @RichardDawkins

Am I alone in finding the very idea of “Continental Philosophy” ridiculous? What would we think of a university that appointed someone to teach Continental Chemistry? Continental Algebra? Does it tell us something about philosophy as an academic discipline?

5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

Erik Angner‏ @ErikAngner Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @ErikAngner @PhilosophyExp @StruanCurtis

Every time he does this people point out that the concept of continental philosophy is no more ridiculous than the concept of a Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. You'd think somebody who celebrates science and rationality would get it.

3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

Jeremy Stangroom‏ @PhilosophyExp Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @ErikAngner @StruanCurtis

But is that true? Do physicists disagree about what would count as evidence in assessing the merit of particular theses? Do they disagree about what counts as proper modes of argumentation? Maybe they do... I'm not sure.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Erik Angner‏ @ErikAngner Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @PhilosophyExp @StruanCurtis

Absolutely. Arguments about string theory, for example, are wild.

1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes

Jeremy Stangroom‏ @PhilosophyExp Mar 8

Report Tweet

Replying to @ErikAngner @StruanCurtis

So the mathematics is different? Different rules? No agreement about fundamental axioms? If so, that's interesting, but I don't think not knowing that, or thinking it's different from the difference between say Tim Williamson & Heidegger, is a matter of rejecting rationality.

1:15 AM - 8 Mar 2019

0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

Tweets

Jeremy Stangroom

@PhilosophyExp

Tweets

Loading seems to be taking a while.

false

Saved searches

Tweets

Jeremy Stangroom

@PhilosophyExp

Tweets

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

Promote this Tweet

Block

Tweet with a location

Your lists

Create a new list

Copy link to Tweet

Embed this Tweet

Embed this Video

Preview

Why you're seeing this ad

Log in to Twitter

Sign up for Twitter

Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

Confirmation

Welcome home!

Tweets not working for you?

Say a lot with a little

Spread the word

Join the conversation

Learn the latest

Get more of what you love

Find what's happening

Never miss a Moment

Loading seems to be taking a while.

Promoted Tweet

false