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!

Here's another thing from the Netscape article:

The probably of God's existence is one in two. That is, God either exists or doesn't.

That's not it at all! To say the probability of God's existence is one in two means only that we have as much evidence for the existence of God as against the existence of God.

Look, even if the probability of God's existence is 1/10^180, it still follows that God either exists or doesn't. "God either exists or doesn't exists" is a tautology; that is, it's a statement that's always true. Even if God doesn't exist, it's still true, because all it says is: "A or Not-A".

Very bad on Netscape.

I am annoyingly practical that way

Wait -- aren't you the cheetah bester? That smacked of some philosophy-type logic to me.

Sorry about that. Won't happen again.

If only it were you. Sigh. You're scary and can kill with your pinky, but you're not psychotic.

underpants gnomes are never a valid step in an argument

I think I have a new tag. Thanks, Nutty!

Very bad on Netscape.

I've always thought Netscape's philosophy was suspect.