https://medium.com/@alexanderdougla s/the-art-of-the-ego-rev

You allow incessant Memerson threads and this is what you get... Molyneux's dead blobfish face staring at you.

Slippery slope confirmed.

This review takes "imagine being this guy" to new . Kek at molyneux in tge comment section

Stefan Molyneux is a retard
This guy is a retard

who's side should I be on?

File: masterpiece.jpg (195KB, 676x1004px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 676x1004px

holy fuck is this real life, am I really reading this right now

people are criticizing BASED Steffy Molymeme and his BASED Art of the Not An Argument?!?!

um sweetie do you not understand that this is western civvy's last stand? jesus!

>>10010156
When you face a choice between to jesters, indulge them turn about, that they might understand their foolishness.

>no discernible arguments

File: ENHANCE.jpg (237KB, 598x792px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 598x792px

>>10009838
>>10009853
>>10009929
>>10010156
>>10010164

>>10010181
that wasnt an argument candy ass, is a fact.

heho huhu anarchocapitalism is stupu

Damn he's toasted.

>These hopeless demands breathe bile into your impotent rage, which soon turns rancid and bitter.

lol

post your favorite cliches, from molyneux or this hack

>'There is another category called abductive reasoning that draws a tentative hypothesis from disparate data, but which is related to some sort of testable hypothesis, rather than the reaching of a specific conclusion'

>Now, many people don’t know what abduction is. Nothing wrong with that. And you might find yourself in an exam, where you’re asked to define abduction, and maybe you missed that lecture, or you drifted off, or you just can’t remember. Then you might just write some bullshit, hoping to get a few marks. Perfectly acceptable behaviour. But if you’re writing a book on reasoning, and you remember that abduction is a form of reasoning but you can’t quite remember what it is—can you imagine in that circumstance just writing down some bullshit and hoping to get a few marks? Wouldn’t you just google it or something? Imagine being so devoid of intellectual humility.

Except that's actually a pretty good one sentence summation of abduction. What's missing is the teleological element in the abductive gesture, as well as the necessity of a background of inherited assumptions that make abductive leaps possible. BUT, again, it's a single sentence, and it gets the basic point across.

wtf i am no longer deFOOing

>socialist shits all over a libertarian
Wow

>>10009838
That's some damn good writing. it appears a philosophy prof wrote it, though.

>>10010249
>BUT, again, it's a single sentence
In a book about basic reasoning written for people with no philosophical education.

Ffs, you guys will justify pretty much anything.

>>10010432

How would you define abduction?

>>10009838
I'm sure that this guy makes some interesting points. But because I keep seeing him memed so much I refuse to read him. Kinda like the LDS edition of the bible.

Molyneux is a genius. The most influential living philosopher around...

>>10010490
Like when you take something and stuff

>>10010358
the shift from strict rationalist ethics to irrationalist, anti-ethical morality is endemic to modern conservatism generally. while things are going well, they will insist on 'arguments' and proof; in times of near-catastrophe they begin to speak like pseudo-Nietzscheans

>>10010249
> BUT, again, it's a single sentence
Wouldn't you think, though, that a book claiming to be an introduction to logic/reasoning would have more to say about this topic than just one sentence? And if he were going to only write one sentence about it, that sentence should at least make an attempt at gesturing to the larger context?

It's like if you wrote a book on "The Beauty of Biology" and then put one sentence in there saying that "Another type of animals are mammals, which do not lay eggs and can actually regulate their own body temperature." I mean, yeah, that's not necessarily wrong but it fails to offer any insight to the reader on your purported topic.

Seriously, the book is under 200 pages long. Was there really no room to just say "I'm not going to talk about this in detail, but this has been an area of interest for over 100 years and it will likely become more important as learning algorithms, etc. become more prominent. If you're interested, here are a few sources..." In my mind that's got to be the base level of engagement with your topic. If he's going to bring it up at all, he should make some attempt to deal with it rigorously, given that the whole point of his book is to treat arguments with unbending rigor.

>>10011899

look, i don't give a fuck about molyneux, but 1) he's basically right about what abduction is and 2) his book isn't about hypothesis formation, but rather deductive arguments. Abduction is specifically NON-DEDUCTIVE, so to treat it 'rigorously' would be beside the point of the book.

>>10011593
>implying this is a bad thing
>implying we are in times of near catastrophe

>>10009838
you just know an article is going to be good when you ctrl + f white men and get 3 results

>>10012200
perhaps you are correct

File: hqdefault.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>10010193
>heho huhu anarchocapitalism is stupu

>>10009838
>Lecturer in Philosophy
So the reviewer doesn't know shit then. Few academic philosophers actually know anything about philosophy.

>>10009838
I laughed a stately, plump laughter reading the first few paragraphs of that.

Unfortunately the review then degenerated into typical progressive whimpering complete with complaints about white men, commentary on rape culture, and other stuff brainless liberals say.

>>10009838
Fuck logic, fuck drumpf and fuck white people

>Imagine that
If you think this is an acceptable way to start a sentence kys now.

>>10012589

Imagine being that arrogant..
I'll tell you I don't believe mainstream economics is close to correct, but I'm not going to deny that academic economists know all about their economics..