Atheism's Burden of Proof

[DogmaHunter]

Well, don't assume that everyone who opens their mouth to say something "critical" is undertaking that same purpose and route of evaluation.

It's still not clear what your actual point was by bringing it up. Care to clarify it one of these posts?

Science has to include some ethics within it's methodological framework. If so, then how can it ONLY be about figuring out this or that explanation to serve as a model for scientific understanding (and hopefully) advancement?

That's what science is. It's figuring stuff out. The gathering of knowledge.
How that knowledge is used, is another thing.

Science figured out how atoms worked. Politicians then ordered to use that knowledge to build atomic bombs and then ordered the army to actually use them.

Why are you complaining about science, but not about politicians?
A scientist is not responsible for how other people apply the knowledge gathered by scientists.

And I'm still not clear what you REALLY are complaining about when it comes to science/scientists.

So what are you saying, really? Just spit it out already instead of running around in circles.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When science makes further discoveries, that may in fact update what science previously thought was likely accurate, are these updates discovered by philosophers, or is it typically other scientists, using scientific methods?

The discoveries themselves come from, and appropriately belong to, the field of science. However, when mistakes and a lack of accountability is discovered in the applied methodology of research and/or theory, this is open to the scrutiny of philosophers and is, in fact, appropriate for the field of philosophy.

Sure, sure, sure. We can talk all day about how 'ideally' scientists build this or that control into their experimental research, or apply for peer review, or claim that they are honestly reporting their findings.........................but the 'truth' of the matter is that all of these claims by scientists are pocked with inconsistencies, some of which I've already mentioned in various places here in this thread, but of which have heretofore remained un-examined (and unaddressed) by most of those who think they're so successfully scrutinizing (or really philosophically evaluating) what I'm saying here.

Sometimes, scientists do overstate their cases ...

 

[Silmarien]

I don't see how our fundamental physical / biological make-up would have to necessarily exclude concepts like consciousness and free will.

They don't have to, but a lot of naturalistic philosophy of mind ultimately does exclude these things. Then you end up with ideas like epiphenomenalism, where conscious thought is a byproduct of physical processes that has no causal power over your actions whatsoever. Which would put us straight into Cartesian demon territory because there would be no reason to assume that our conscious experiences had any connection to reality at all.

I'm fine calling free will / consciousness to being emergent properties of my physical brain.
I'm also fine with the idea that life, at bottom, is just an extreme expression of complex chemistry.

I would be fine with calling them emergent properties as well, but that is basically just a fancy way of saying "magic." If we're going to start importing Aristotelian ideas, I think it's better to reexamine all of our philosophical assumptions instead of limping forward with outdated Enlightenment thinking, but people seem emotionally attached to it.

In a very real sense, science was kickstarted by muslims.
While we in the west here were busy forbidding people to read all kinds of stuff and burning witches, muslims were developing things like algebra, astronomy, etc.

Islam's error seems to have been the occasionalist philosophy that eventually crept into its theology through the Ash'ari school--this is the belief that there is no cause and effect. The heat from the sun is not melting your ice cream; God is. There is debate over whether this particular theological understanding led to the decline of science in the Islamic world, but I certainly can't imagine it having a positive effect.

People weren't burning witches in the West during the Middle Ages, by the way. That didn't start until the 15th century as part of the Reformation craze. There were plenty of scientists in Oxford and Paris throughout the history of scholasticism--we just don't know about it because of the powerful anti-Catholic narrative we've all been fed.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

They don't have to, but a lot of naturalistic philosophy of mind ultimately does exclude these things. Then you end up with ideas like epiphenomenalism, where conscious thought is a byproduct of physical processes that has no causal power over your actions whatsoever. Which would put us straight into Cartesian demon territory because there would be no reason to assume that our conscious experiences had any connection to reality at all.



I would be fine with calling them emergent properties as well, but that is basically just a fancy way of saying "magic." If we're going to start importing Aristotelian ideas, I think it's better to reexamine all of our philosophical assumptions instead of limping forward with outdated Enlightenment thinking, but people seem emotionally attached to it.



Islam's error seems to have been the occasionalist philosophy that eventually crept into its theology through the Ash'ari school--this is the belief that there is no cause and effect. The heat from the sun is not melting your ice cream; God is. There is debate over whether this particular theological understanding led to the decline of science in the Islamic world, but I certainly can't imagine it having a positive effect.

People weren't burning witches in the West during the Middle Ages, by the way. That didn't start until the 15th century as part of the Reformation craze. There were plenty of scientists in Oxford and Paris throughout the history of scholasticism--we just don't know about it because of the powerful anti-Catholic narrative we've all been fed.

Well, there were the incidents involving the Alexandrean serapeum in AD 389, and later in a kind of related way, one with Hypatia in 415 AD, that don't look too good from the vantage point of passers-by.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In a very real sense, science was kickstarted by muslims.
While we in the west here were busy forbidding people to read all kinds of stuff and burning witches, muslims were developing things like algebra, astronomy, etc.

Probably, the term "hi-jacked" would be a more apt one here ...

None of it matters. How science originated has no bearing on what it is today.

So much for Isaac Newton's quip about "seeing further because he stood on the shoulders of those who came before him ..." Who was Isaac Newton, anyway? What were his qualifications for making such a philosophically inclined scientific statement? (Oh--Whatever is this world coming to? )

 

[bhsmte]

The discoveries themselves come from, and appropriately belong to, the field of science. However, when mistakes and a lack of accountability is discovered in the applied methodology of research and/or theory, this is open to the scrutiny of philosophers and is, in fact, appropriate for the field of philosophy.

Sure, sure, sure. We can talk all day about how 'ideally' scientists build this or that control into their experimental research, or apply for peer review, or claim that they are honestly reporting their findings.........................but the 'truth' of the matter is that all of these claims by scientists are pocked with inconsistencies, some of which I've already mentioned in various places here in this thread, but of which have heretofore remained un-examined (and unaddressed) by most of those who think they're so successfully scrutinizing (or really philosophically evaluating) what I'm saying here.

Sometimes, scientists do overstate their cases ...

All humans can overstate their cases, and this thread is a good example. My point is, that science tends to identify these overstatements, when left to it's own devices.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, there were the incidents involving the Alexandrean serapeum in AD 389, and later in a kind of related way, one with Hypatia in 415 AD, that don't look too good from the vantage point of passers-by.

How so? That was more a matter of political and religious unrest, not some sort of campaign against science in Alexandria.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How so? That was more a matter of political and religious unrest, not some sort of campaign against science in Alexandria.

Well, my inference was simply to the fact that as the Church of the early Byzantine era gained its political power, various persons within it tended to assert a more crusade-like way of taking care of the disagreements that at times broke out between Christians and Pagans. And in Hypatia's case, she was opposed by some persons in the Church for essentially adhering to a philosophical/scientific pagan view that centered on Neoplatonism. Basically, she was kind of like you, Sil. (Minus the "Christian Seeker" part of it.).

 

[Silmarien]

And in Hypatia's case, she was opposed by some persons in the Church for essentially adhering to a philosophical/scientific pagan view that centered on Neoplatonism. Basically, she was kind of like you, Sil. (Minus the "Christian Seeker" part of it.).

I've been reading about Hypatia, actually. She got along fine with the Christians in Alexandria and included some amongst her students until she got embroiled in a political feud between the new bishop Cyril and the prefect Orestes. Cyril's partisans waged a propaganda war against her and accused her of sorcery, but it was not really about the Neoplatonism at all. She had never actually gotten involved in the conflicts between Christians and pagans.

So basically... more Enlightenment "history."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've been reading about Hypatia, actually. She got along fine with the Christians in Alexandria and included some amongst her students until she got embroiled in a political feud between the new bishop Cyril and the prefect Orestes. Cyril's partisans waged a propaganda war against her and accused her of sorcery, but it was not really about the Neoplatonism at all. She had never actually gotten involved in the conflicts between Christians and pagans.

So basically... more Enlightenment "history."

Really? If it wasn't the neo-platonism, then what was Cyril's social and theological outlook that provoked him to have a "problem" with Hypatia?

 

[Silmarien]

Really? If it wasn't the neo-platonism, then what was Cyril's social and theological outlook that provoked him to have a "problem" with Hypatia?

It was her support of Orestes, with whom Cyril was having something of a tense political struggle. She was a very popular and influential figure in the city and got scapegoated because Cyril wasn't getting his way with the prefect. But Orestes was Christian too, so... it was a lot more complicated than Christianity vs. paganism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It was her support of Orestes, with whom Cyril was having something of a tense political struggle. She was a very popular and influential figure in the city and got scapegoated because Cyril wasn't getting his way with the prefect. But Orestes was Christian too, so... it was a lot more complicated than Christianity vs. paganism.

Yes, you're right. It was a lot more complicated than just Christianity vs. paganism. But we might also consider what historian Paul Johnson (1976) states in connection to Cyril [and his use of the parabaloni] and how this reflected the political (and theological/ideological) tensions of the times:

The murder of the pagan teacher Hypatia at Alexandria in 415 was only one example of the pressures and perils which faced non-Christian intellectuals. Many, like the poet Cyrus of Panapolis, became converts to escape vindictive treatment. The Christians do not seem to have been willing or able to present a cultural alternative at this level. They allowed the great classical universities to decline, then closed them down: Alexandria in 517, the school of Athens in 529. Some pagan analysts, like the historian Zozimus, were quite convinced that Christianity was wrecking the empire. What did the Christians have to say to this? Nothing. When they came to write secular history, as Procopius and Agathias did in Justinian's time, they left religion out of it, so dominated were they by pagan theory.

The story might have been different. There were elements in Christianity at the beginning of the fifth century striving to create a distinctive Christian higher culture on Originest lines. Their frustration and destruction was very largely the work of one man, in whom tendencies implicit in the work of Ambrose and Jerome were carried to a decisive stage further. Augustine was the dark genius of imperial Christianity, the idealogue of the Church-State alliance, and the fabricator of the medieval mentality. Next to Paul, who supplied the basic theology, he did more to shape Christianity than any other human being. (p. 112)
​

So, of course, this is just one view from one historian, a Catholic one I might add. There may be others (?)

Reference
Johnson, Paul. (1976). A history of Christianity. New York, NY: Atheneum.

 

[Silmarien]

So, of course, this is just one view of one historian, a Catholic one I might add. There may be others (?)

Yes, I think his Catholicism is showing since he seems to be ignoring the Byzantine Empire entirely. No mention of the Imperial University of Constantinople, founded in 425, where Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy, alongside medicine, geometry, astronomy, and so forth, were taught into the 15th century. Scholarship did not really dwindle and die in Byzantium--they were the point of transmission to the Islamic world. Also Augustine had very little influence on Eastern Orthodox theology, so calling him the second most important figure in Christianity after Paul is a little bit... odd.

I certainly would not deny that Christianity suppressed other religions after coming to power, but this particular treatment seems to be ignoring the entire backdrop of the fall of the Roman Empire. There was a cultural alternative in the East; the fact that there wasn't immediately one in the West probably has more to do with complete societal collapse than with Augustine. I'd blame him for the uglier parts of Catholic theology, but this seems a little bit extreme.

When I'm talking about Catholicism and science, though, I'm pretty much exclusively referring to the scholastic period, so 12th century. The Fall of Rome was catastrophic, but the Dark Ages were over well before the 16th century.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They don't have to, but a lot of naturalistic philosophy of mind ultimately does exclude these things. Then you end up with ideas like epiphenomenalism, where conscious thought is a byproduct of physical processes that has no causal power over your actions whatsoever. Which would put us straight into Cartesian demon territory because there would be no reason to assume that our conscious experiences had any connection to reality at all.

The point is, we experience life the way we do. We experience free thought, free will and personhood. If tomorrow we find out for sure that indeed everything is deterministic and that free will etc are actually just our brains tricking us... then what would it really change in your life? I say: nothing at all, because you will simply continue to experience reality just like you always did.

But all this is completely speculative.
As I said, it seems rather logical to me that these things are emergent properties of the brain.

Consider an AI engine that runs on a computer. It doesn't get much more deterministic then computers...

Saying that AI has "free will", might be stretching it. However.... the AI engine is not "programmed" deterministicly to make decision A or B. Instead, the programming of the AI is a code that gives the engine the tools to make decisions based on input and backed by "big data" to make informed decisions. Over time, its decisions get better and better thanks to "machine learning".

There's a reasoning process going on there. It looks at data, analysis it, considers the desired outcome and then decides which decisions need to be made to achieve that desired outcome. In essence, this isn't that different from what we humans do.

We gather input, process / analyse the input in our brain, have a goal in mind and then decide what the best way is to move forward, towards the goal we set out.

If a deterministic silicon chip that simply processes 1's and 0's can do that, why wouldn't our brains be able to do the same?

I would be fine with calling them emergent properties as well, but that is basically just a fancy way of saying "magic."

No, it's not. Because these things do not break / violate / suspend any natural laws - which is what magic is.

AI engines (as opposed to "dumb" batch algoritms) aren't magic either....

If we're going to start importing Aristotelian ideas, I think it's better to reexamine all of our philosophical assumptions instead of limping forward with outdated Enlightenment thinking, but people seem emotionally attached to it.

I think you are the only one here who's bringing emotions into this.....
The only real objection I'm reading between the lines here is "I wouldn't like a deterministic universe where our bodies are in fact fundamentally just carbon bags regulated by complex chemistry"

Islam's error seems to have been the occasionalist philosophy that eventually crept into its theology through the Ash'ari school--this is the belief that there is no cause and effect. The heat from the sun is not melting your ice cream; God is. There is debate over whether this particular theological understanding led to the decline of science in the Islamic world, but I certainly can't imagine it having a positive effect.

It matters not why Islam's golden age ended, to the point that I made.
You were implying that science originated in and was motivated by judeo-christian religion. Clearly, that's incorrect.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So much for Isaac Newton's quip about "seeing further because he stood on the shoulders of those who came before him ..."

Not sure how that is relevant to the point I made.

Who was Isaac Newton, anyway?

A genious. But also one who actually wrote more about alchemy then about physics.

What were his qualifications for making such a philosophically inclined scientific statement? (Oh--Whatever is this world coming to? )

I don't care. It matters not what Newton, or anyone else, believes.
Newton is remembered for his work in physics. If he hadn't written his famous work concerning gravity, laws of motion, etc and invented calculus, then nobody would remember him and his name would have been lost and forgotten in the pages of history.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not sure how that is relevant to the point I made.

...the point is that we have to value what came 'before' in order to appreciate what we've achieved now. Hardly anything important and useful is simply made, wholecloth, out of one's own head.

A genious. But also one who actually wrote more about alchemy then about physics.

...sometimes, quality is more important than quantity.

I don't care.

I think that is your basic problem.

It matters not what Newton, or anyone else, believes.
Newton is remembered for his work in physics. If he hadn't written his famous work concerning gravity, laws of motion, etc and invented calculus, then nobody would remember him and his name would have been lost and forgotten in the pages of history.

...actually, he is also known for independently inventing the Calculus (at about the same time as did Leibniz, also independently). But your response to that will probably be, "...meh!"

 

[DogmaHunter]

...the point is that we have to value what came 'before' in order to appreciate what we've achieved now.

Sure. But mere "value", is not what is implied here.
What is implied here, is that this somehow says something about the validity concerning what came "before", which is totally false. And, as I said, it's not even accurate that it was born out of judeo-christian religion or even culture. Before "the west" was the epicenter of scientific progress, that epicenter was found in Bagdad etc. In the islamic world.

Sure, Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants". But giants that were incorrect, which is why it took a Newton to correct or complete the ideas of those giants.

And Newton wasn't entirely correct either. Along came Einstein... standing on the shoulders of Newton and.... correcting him.

The further back we go, the more wrong it gets - no matter how innovative it was at that time.

EDIT: fun little side-fact... Concerning the Newton quote, Neil deGrass Tyson (who considers Newton to be one of the biggerst geniuses that ever lived) had this to say: "He might have said that he stood on the shoulders of giants... but I think that's not accurate. A more accurate way to phrase that, would be that instead of standing of the shoulders of giants... he just lived among midgets!"



I thought that was pretty funny

I think that is your basic problem.

It's not a problem to not care about what people believe, when it comes to science.
Au contraire, actually.... In science, what matters is what you can support / demonstrate. People can believe just about anything.

Indeed, take Newton. If what he believes is what matters, then his work in alchemy (which FAR outnumbers his work in physics) would be equally relevant. But it isn't. Most people aren't even aware that he put more effort into his alchemy beliefs then into his physics work.

If you would consider "the life work" of Newton, then his physics would be just a foot note.

But, as I said, the demonstrable is what is relevant. Not that which is merely believed.
This is why we know Newton through his work in physics and not his work in alchemy.

...actually, he is also known for independently inventing the Calculus (at about the same time as did Leibniz, also independently). But your response to that will probably be, "...meh!"

Maybe you should read the quote you are responding to. For your comfort, I'll pick the relevant sentence from that quote and put some emphasis on the part you seem to have missed:

If he hadn't written his famous work concerning gravity, laws of motion, etc and invented calculus, then nobody.....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure. But mere "value", is not what is implied here.
What is implied here, is that this somehow says something about the validity concerning what came "before", which is totally false.

No, not everything from the past is, or has been, false. That's a sheer misrepresentation of the history of science.

And, as I said, it's not even accurate that it was born out of judeo-christian religion or even culture. Before "the west" was the epicenter of scientific progress, that epicenter was found in Bagdad etc. In the islamic world.

So, are you implying that Christians everywhere, in Rome, in Constantinople, in Alexandria, among other places throughout the former Roman Empire, prior to the onset of Muhammed, were virtually "science-less"?

Sure, Newton "stood on the shoulders of giants". But giants that were incorrect, which is why it took a Newton to correct or complete the ideas of those giants.

"Incorrect" is a relative word. Incorrect can also imply "partially correct." Let's be careful with the connotations we're using so we don't overstep the extension in meaning.

And Newton wasn't entirely correct either. Along came Einstein... standing on the shoulders of Newton and.... correcting him.

That's right. Nobody, scientifically speaking, is ever "entirely correct," which is why we speak about conceptual 'models' in reference to the theory and application of science.

The further back we go, the more wrong it gets - no matter how innovative it was at that time.

...here you're doing the same flip-flop with language.

EDIT: fun little side-fact... Concerning the Newton quote, Neil deGrass Tyson (who considers Newton to be one of the biggerst geniuses that ever lived) had this to say: "He might have said that he stood on the shoulders of giants... but I think that's not accurate. A more accurate way to phrase that, would be that instead of standing of the shoulders of giants... he just lived among midgets!"



I thought that was pretty funny

Yes, I think I've heard that quip from Tyson. You're right; it is funny. (At least we know you have a sense of humor somewhere, tucked away in that labyrinthine brain of yours. )

It's not a problem to not care about what people believe, when it comes to science.
Au contraire, actually.... In science, what matters is what you can support / demonstrate. People can believe just about anything.

To some extent, belief is malleable...but there are limits.

Indeed, take Newton. If what he believes is what matters, then his work in alchemy (which FAR outnumbers his work in physics) would be equally relevant. But it isn't. Most people aren't even aware that he put more effort into his alchemy beliefs then into his physics work.

Does it matter how much alchemy Newton did in consideration of the quality of the work he did in physics and mathematics? I don't think we can impute much in the way of any negative influence extending from his alchemy to his physics and math.

If you would consider "the life work" of Newton, then his physics would be just a foot note.

But, as I said, the demonstrable is what is relevant. Not that which is merely believed.
This is why we know Newton through his work in physics and not his work in alchemy.

...on a local scale, his math works just fine.

Maybe you should read the quote you are responding to. For your comfort, I'll pick the relevant sentence from that quote and put some emphasis on the part you seem to have missed:

If he hadn't written his famous work concerning gravity, laws of motion, etc and invented calculus, then nobody.....

Ok. I see that. So, you included Calculus.

Did you include that it was essentially a religious brain that did this? (In fact, if we include Leibniz in on the religious brain part of it, he too, invented the Calculus. One would think that for all of their religiosity, they would have been mentally impeded from doing so ... . Or at least, that's the way many atheists seem to make it sound.)

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, not everything from the past is, or has been, false. That's a sheer misrepresentation of the history of science.

It's also a sheer misrepresentation of what I actually said.

Which was that, just because science could be said to have been motivated by the beliefs of religion X, in no way means that the beliefs of relgion X are valid.

So, are you implying that Christians everywhere, in Rome, in Constantinople, in Alexandria, among other places throughout the former Roman Empire, prior to the onset of Muhammed, were virtually "science-less"?

No. I am implying that the beliefs of those engaged in science (or those who kickstarted it), are irrelevant.

"Incorrect" is a relative word. Incorrect can also imply "partially correct." Let's be careful with the connotations we're using so we don't overstep the extension in meaning.

You should really start reading with more attention. Again you seem to have missed a few crucial words in the quote you are responding to. I'll help you out once more:

But giants that were incorrect, which is why it took a Newton to correct or complete the ideas of those giants

If those giants were completely correct, then there would have been nothing for Newton to come up with as it would have been known already. Seems rather obvious.........

That's right. Nobody, scientifically speaking, is ever "entirely correct," which is why we speak about conceptual 'models' in reference to the theory and application of science.

Sure. But now, we are completely losing track of the point that was actually being discussed: the idea that christian beliefs deserve some kind of "validity" or whatever, just because it could be said that "the first scientists" were christians. I don't even agree to that notion of the first ones being christians, but I'll go along with it for the sake of argument and to get back on track of that point.

If these people found motivation/inspiration in their christian beliefs to develop the scientific method, great. But, again, that doesn't mean that there christian beliefs were accurate or even valid.

...here you're doing the same flip-flop with language.

Really? Seems rather logical to me...
Science is an continous stream of improvement of ideas and expansion of knowledge.
It seems rather obvious that if you turn back time and track back on that "stream" that you'll only be resurecting the inaccurate models that were discarded and replaced by science further down the line.....

Yes, I think I've heard that quip from Tyson. You're right; it is funny. (At least we know you have a sense of humor somewhere, tucked away in that labyrinthine brain of yours. )

Comments like this are really uncalled for and counter productive.

Does it matter how much alchemy Newton did in consideration of the quality of the work he did in physics and mathematics?

Nope! The point exactly. The question is, WHY doesn't it matter?
Answer: because the alchemy thingy were just his mere beliefs. While his physics / math thingy were things he could actually demonstrate and support.

See? Beliefs are irrelevant in science!
If they weren't, his work in alchemy WOULD be relevant.

I don't think we can impute much in the way of any negative influence extending from his alchemy to his physics and math.

Not from his alchemy. But from his religious beliefs - YES.
Funny that you would bring this particular thing up, actually.

Indeed yes, his own religious beliefs, in a very real sense, blocked him at the end.
In his entire work, he doesn't mention god anywhere. UNTIL he hits a wall. There was something (don't remember what exactly, but not that important) about the orbital paths he could not explain. Strange, because he had all the info and math he needed in order to solve the problem. He just never came around to go that extra step. And that's the point where he suddenly invokes his god. He can't explain something and then says "...this is where I see the hand of god".

A century later, someone takes up the problem (LaPlace, I think) and actually solves it. No gods required.

Perhaps, if Newton wouldn't have had that showstopper belief, he would have cracked it as well.

And now that I'm on that point anyway.... this exact "show stopper belief" is also what plummethed the islamic world in its own dark ages, from wich it never really recovered. The Golden Age of Islam was a period of great advances of knowledge, of economic uplift, etc.
Along came Al-Ghazali. He is the one that came up with the essence of the Kalaam argument - the very definition of a showstopper argument, I'ld say.

After his philosophical ideas had spread through the islamic world, the golden age was over. Because suddenly, all problems had a default answer: "god dun it".

Did you include that it was essentially a religious brain that did this?

I tried to explain to you that a religious brain is not required to do that.
And that the person being religious isn't any more relevant to his accomplishments in physics then the person having a mustache.

Newton invoked God ONCE in his physics work: when he was stuck. He didn't know, so he then settled on "god dun it".

(In fact, if we include Leibniz in on the religious brain part of it, he too, invented the Calculus. One would think that for all of their religiosity, they would have been mentally impeded from doing so ... . Or at least, that's the way many atheists seem to make it sound.)

I have never witnessed any atheist claim that theists can't be good scientists.

But I have yet to see a single theistic scientist invoke god in his work and actually being correct about it.

 

[KCfromNC]

...I just presented a reason to (i.e. the video). So, if you don't "see" a reason, should I perhaps think that this is because you don't want to do the work that goes with "seeing"?

No. It is mainly all the empty rhetoric I'm seeing that seems designed to avoid actually discussing the main issue - the one where philosophy doesn't seem to actually provide knowledge.

Distractions such as this, for example :

I mean, why do you even come here to CF? You're presence here seems to be one akin to the student who shows up to class on the first day and promptly blurts out to the teacher that he won't do any work but still expects an 'A.' In such a fictional case, how seriously do you think the teacher (or even the other students) will take that person? Should we even call that person a 'student'?