Either way we can make asses of ourselves.

Okay, I'm going to start responding to some of these posts.

First, Nutty writes,

This confirms to me that philosopher must test for crackpottery before they admit new members to their guild.<

Just for the record, we don't intentionally test for crackpottery; it's all accidental.

Also, I am thinking, you can start any proof with "Assume for a moment that the Underpants Gnomes have rearranged your dining room furniture without your knowing it..."<

Indeed, you can start any proof like that. And now would be a good time to talk about how philosophers use the word, "proof". By "proof", philosophers don't usually mean "an argument such that if you understand it, you have to accept it on pain of irrationality." Unless you get into logic, philosophers mean something like, "arriving at a fairly controversial conclusion using fairly uncontroversial premises". That is, something closer to what we call an inductive proof--i.e., something where the conclusion is, at best, probable--rather than a deductive proof--i.e., where the conclusion is necessary.

But, that's a huge assumption to make! Why on earth would I assume that? You've got to start with assumptions that people will accept, you know? There's "framing the debate", and then there is totally pulling stuff out of your butt and making like it's true just because you put it into the subordinate clause of an introductory sentence.<

You might assume it (i.e., "God exists") if (1) you're a theist; (2) you're an agnostic; or (3) you want to have some fun. There are all sorts of other reasons to assume things, too, like (4) someone has a gun to my head, which he threatens to fire unless I assume for the sake of argument that God exists; or (5) I get to rap with Jay-Z if I make the assumption, etc. Philosophy is fun!

But what about your claim, "You've got to start with assumptions that people will accept, you know?"? Let me ask you: What is your argument for that claim? What are the assumptions you have in the background that leads you to assume that you have to start with assumptions that people will accept? Because I doubt very much that I accept those assumptions.

I'm not just being persnickety, either (well, not just persnickety); most philosophers have abandoned the view of argument where you have to start with assumptions that everyone accepts in order to arrive at interesting conclusions. The fact is, for every assumption, there's almost always at least one intelligent, well-informed person who doesn't accept it. So we've scaled back our ambitions a bit.

Was that post too long?

Guess I'm gonna have to go...maybe if I charge enough for fanfic...

Just don't let Spuffy damage your sexual identity.

It might be too late.

By "proof", philosophers don't usually mean "an argument such that if you understand it, you have to accept it on pain of irrationality." Unless you get into logic, philosophers mean something like, "arriving at a fairly controversial conclusion using fairly uncontroversial premises". That is, something closer to what we call an inductive proof--i.e., something where the conclusion is, at best, probable--rather than a deductive proof--i.e., where the conclusion is necessary.

Oh, I didn't know that.

Was that post too long?

Remarkably short. I failed to explain that you didn't need a caret at the end of a quote, though; the hard return ends the quoting.

How do you define a conclusion as being interesting? In an argument I had with a lawyer who shall remain nameless (one of many (arguments, not lawyers (although there are many lawyers it's so not the point))), I said it was interesting if you could use a source text to "prove" something like Hamlet is Catholic.

You have your set of axioms (canon) and you're in your bubble world (the text), and go crazy!

However, I do take issue with stepping outside the bubble world and backforming the intentions of the writer, because then things fall apart.

Which is to say -- clear axioms give me traction, and make the conclusions interesting. There probably is a crapload that can be proved with the right axioms and a little elbow grease, so what makes one shine more than the other?

God, I love the Buffistas. Hide me from the wanky fannish arguments out there. Someone I loathe just agreed with me, and I'm trying not to freak.

Someone I loathe just agreed with me, and I'm trying not to freak.

Sorry about that. Won't happen again.

No, the length was fine, Bob. (You don't mind being called Bob?) ANd anyway, if it were too long, the code splits up long posts into two, now.

Also, welcome to the chatter. We never talk in excessive detail about you or other SOs, except when we do, which is always.

Also, I'm not sure what the point is of playing along if the hoops you jump through to get to the end are that OTT. I have a more-sensitive-than-most OTT-o-meter, but even so: underpants gnomes are never a valid step in an argument.

(I mean, I secretly don't understand what the point of much of philosophy is, because I am annoyingly practical that way. But I'll concede not being well-read in philosophy, so of course I wouldn't know the point if there were to be one.)

You hear me, people? Just say no to underpants gnomes!