What constitutes a methodology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Minutes of the National Association of materialist Union of barrel bottom scrapers

The chair thanked Comrade Hillside for his speech on arguing zeitgeist consensus in a post zeitgeist consensus world.

After the committee reminded him about unpaid subs. Comrade Vlad called upon the Very Reverend Nearly Sane to explain what constituted a methodology.

The chair thanked the cleaners for mopping up the bluster that has previously attended this topic............


So much for the humour.........now thr £64000question...........

What constitutes a methodology?

[floo]

Did you have a night on the tiles last night, Vlad? You seem a little out of sorts if your new threads are an indication of your state of mind!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Did you have a night on the tiles last night, Vlad? You seem a little out of sorts if your new threads are an indication of your state of mind!

Thanks.........now, to get back to the thread......what constitutes a methodology?

[jeremyp]

Did you have a night on the tiles last night, Vlad? You seem a little out of sorts if your new threads are an indication of your state of mind!

I think of this as more a return to the real Vlad following his brief foray into lucidity on the subject of Brexit.

[SusanDoris]

I think of this as more a return to the real Vlad following his brief for into lucidity on the subject of Brexit.

It has been really nice to read Vlad's posts on all the referendum topics. Long may it continue!!

[Sebastian Toe]

I think of this as more a return to the real Vlad following his brief for into lucidity on the subject of Brexit.

Can we now expect a return to rabid anti-secularism, OCD mentions of RD and turds? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can we now expect a return to rabid anti-secularism, OCD mentions of RD and turds? 

You know you love it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Did you mean "methodology" or "method"?

Either way, Wiki is as good a place as any to explain these terms to you. (It would serve you well to look up, "philosophical materialism", "scientism", "category error" etc while you're there by the way). If on the other hand you're just throwing yourself under the "going nuclear" train again, here again is the Stephen Law essay that tells you where you're going wrong:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

PS "Humour"?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Did you mean "methodology" or "method"?

Either way, Wiki is as good a place as any to explain these terms to you. (It would serve you well to look up, "philosophical materialism", "scientism", "category error" etc while you're there by the way). If on the other hand you're just throwing yourself under the "going nuclear" train again, here again is the Stephen Law essay that tells you where you're going wrong:

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/going-nuclear.html

PS "Humour"?

I put methodology Hillside. I see you are still using the tactic of muddying the waters by attempting to introduce an element of confusion.

But since you are here perhaps you can say what constitutes a methodology.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I put methodology Hillside. I see you are still using the tactic of muddying the waters by attempting to introduce an element of confusion.

But since you are here perhaps you can say what constitutes a methodology.

Actually you were, albeit unwittingly, because I suspect that what you actually meant was "method".

Either way though, why do you think it's the job of others to educate you on the meanings of these terms?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the Law article starts with an argument which has been picked apart.

That is why it's mention in context with what you or others have done.........is not appropriate.

If you disagree outline your successful counter arguments here and now.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think the Law article starts with an argument which has been picked apart.

Then you think wrongly. If you really think that though, by all means show us that unpicking.

That is why it's mention in context with what you or others have done.........is not appropriate.

It's entirely appropriate because you keep attempting the hopeless going nuclear option. It's like watching a fly endlessly bang its head against a window when the one next to it is wide open.

If you disagree outline your successful counter arguments here and now.

How can I offer a counter-argument when you've offered no argument to counter? Just asserting "I think the Law article starts with an argument which has been picked apart" is not an argument - it's just an assertion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Then you think wrongly. If you really think that though, by all means show us that unpicking.

It's entirely appropriate because you keep attempting the hopeless going nuclear option. It's like watching a fly endlessly bang its head against a window when the one next to it is wide open.

How can I offer a counter-argument when you've offered no argument to counter? Just asserting "I think the Law article starts with an argument which has been picked apart" is not an argument - it's just an assertion.

You misunderstand. Law starts with An argument which has been picked apart.
That has got to be the ultimate question beg.

But I can see why such an article might appeal to some.

Other than that. The ultimate questions and preferred answers to them are the philosophical equivalent to total war even nuclear, Laws wanting to equate them with the quotidian not withstanding.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You misunderstand. Law starts with An argument which has been picked apart.
That has got to be the ultimate question beg.

No, you misunderstand. Just claiming that an argument has been "picked apart" tells us nothing. What did this supposed "pickng apart" consist of? Tell us that, and I'll respond. So far at least though all I have is your unsupported claim.

But I can see why such an article might appeal to some.

So can I, if by "some" you mean those capable of rational thought.

Other than that.

Other than what?

The ultimate questions and preferred answers to them are the philosophical equivalent to total war even nuclear, Laws wanting to equate them with the quotidian not withstanding.

Sadly your use of language is so inaccurate and your sentence construction so incoherent that I can't even guess at what you're trying to say here.

Try again, only perhaps read what you've typed for sense before posting it this time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, you misunderstand. Just claiming that an argument has been "picked apart" tells us nothing. What did this supposed "pickng apart" consist of?

No you misunderstand Laws starts by proposing an argument that has been picked apart!!!!

In Laws piece this argument is new age belief.

So not only does Laws beg the question by not saying how the argument was unpicked and the whole article is thence based on that assumption but he may be guilty of argumentum ad ridiculous for suggesting that new age beliefs are pick able.

I have nothing to do with your boy Laws begging the question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No you misunderstand Laws starts by proposing an argument that has picked apart!!!!

In Laws piece this argument is new age belief.

Oh dear. You really are lost to reason aren't you. He merely gives an example of someone attempting a belief (it happens to be "new age", but which belief it is matters not a jot for his purpose) who - on finding that he has no argument for it - resorts instead to the "OK, I'm guessing but as everything rests on axioms then so are you, therefore we're evens" line - ie, he "goes nuclear" as Law puts it. That's precisely what you've attempted - "OK, I'm guessing but so are you" - so Law's rebuttal of it applies equally to your attempt at the same thing that the new age believer attempts.

Good grief man - could you least try to keep up?   

So not only does Laws beg the question by not saying how the argument was unpicked...

Flat wrong. Again. It doesn't matter how (or even whether) it was "unpicked". All that matters is that the new age proponent tries to go nuclear, just as you have done.

...and the whole article is thence based on that assumption but he may be guilty of argumentum ad ridiculous for suggesting that new age beliefs are pick able.

Stop digging! It's based on no such thing. What it's actually based on is the counter-argument to the going nuclear effort that the new age chap and you alike have attempted.

Blimey O'Reilly Vlad. Even for you this is desperately misguided stuff.   

I have nothing to do with your boy Laws begging the question.

But you have everything to do with the straw man you just attempted. Law "begs" nothing - he merely rebuts the "going nuclear" effort that you and new age guy alike attempt.   

Perhaps the sun has got to you today or something?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. You really are lost to reason aren't you. He merely gives an example of someone attempting a belief (it happens to be "new age", but which belief it is matters not a jot for his purpose) who - on finding that he has no argument for it - resorts instead to the "OK, I'm guessing but as everything rests on axioms then so are you, therefore we're evens" line - ie, he "goes nuclear" as Law puts it. That's precisely what you've attempted - "OK, I'm guessing but so are you" - so Law's rebuttal of it applies equally to your attempt at the same thing that the new age believer attempts.

Good grief man - could you least try to keep up?   

Flat wrong. Again. It doesn't matter how (or even whether) it was "unpicked". All that matters is that the new age proponent tries to go nuclear, just as you have done.

Stop digging! It's based on no such thing. What it's actually based on is the counter-argument to the going nuclear effort that the new age chap and you alike have attempted.

Blimey O'Reilly Vlad. Even for you this is desperately misguided stuff.   

But you have everything to do with the straw man you just attempted. Law "begs" nothing - he merely rebuts the "going nuclear" effort that you and new age guy alike attempt.   

Perhaps the sun has got to you today or something?

Sorry but let's skip Law's begging the question, argumentum ad ridiculum and straw men arguments and get back to the thread,

What constitutes a methodology?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Sorry but let's skip Law's begging the question, argumentum ad ridiculum and straw men arguments and get back to the thread,

Law does none of these things. If you can't grasp (let alone rebut) the argument that undoes you, so be it.

What constitutes a methodology?

Look it up.

As we both know the game you're playing - "any definition rests on axioms, all therefore is guessing, therefore my guesses are as valid as any other" - I'm not sure why you're bothering with going nuclear still as that fox has long since been shot by me and, as you just ignore or lie about that rebuttal, then for shorthand purposes by Stephen Law too. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Law does none of these things. If you can't grasp (let alone rebut) the argument that undoes you, so be it.

Look it up.

As we both know the game you're playing - "any definition rests on axioms, all therefore is guessing, therefore my guesses are as valid as any other" - I'm not sure why you're bothering with going nuclear still as that fox has long since been shot by me and, as you just ignore or lie about that rebuttal, then for shorthand purposes by Stephen Law too.

Your the one playing a game pal.....This is the What constitutes a methodology thread. If you start another thread we can deal with ''The Law'' there..

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Your the one playing a game pal.....This is the What constitutes a methodology.....if you can't shit get off the pot and start another thread.

So I tell you what "methodology" means, you say, "hang on, isn't that based on axioms?", I say, "yes", you say, "aha! OK, I'm guessing but so are you too so we're even", and I do another face palm and point you yet again to the Stephen Law essay you don't comprehend.

Sadly for you Vlad you're not nearly bright enough to pull it off, so I'll leave it to those who may want to indulge in your juvenilia.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So I tell you what "methodology" means, you say, "hang on, isn't that based on axioms?", I say, "yes", you say, "aha! OK, I'm guessing but so are you too so we're even", and I do another face palm and point you yet again to the Stephen Law essay you don't comprehend.

Sadly for you Vlad you're not nearly bright enough to pull it off, so I'll leave it to those who may want to indulge in your juvenilia.

I think that's going to be better than your non sequiturs.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think that's going to be better than your non sequiturs.

Excellent - finally you've managed to spell "non sequitur". Well done indeed.

OK, next step. Are you ready for this? Good.

Right-oh - next you have to find out what it means.

Go on fella - you can do it. I have confidence in you. Might be a bit of a blow when you realise that I haven't actually committed any mind you, but I think the upside in your net education will be worth the cost of your brief embarrassment about that. I'm getting quite excited by this - once you've finally got "non sequitur" under your belt who knows what worlds of meaning could open up to you - "begging the question", "philosophical materialism", "scientism", you name it - it's all there just waiting for you to discover it!

Good luck mon brave, good luck...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Excellent - finally you've managed to spell "non sequitur". Well done indeed.

OK, next step. Are you ready for this? Good.

Right-oh - next you have to find out what it means.

Go on fella - you can do it. I have confidence in you. Might be a bit of a blow when you realise that I haven't actually committed any mind you, but I think the upside in your net education will be worth the cost of your brief embarrassment about that. I'm getting quite excited by this - once you've finally got "non sequitur" under your belt who knows what worlds of meaning could open up to you - "begging the question", "philosophical materialism", "scientism", you name it - it's all there just waiting for you to discover it!

Good luck mon brave, good luck...

I'm sorry but this is the What Constitutes a methodology thread....You'll find the showboating department on the third floor.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm sorry but this is the What Constitutes a methodology thread....You'll find the showboating department on the third floor.

Except of course it isn't is it. You could readily look up the meaning of this term if you wanted to. What it actually is is an incompetent attempt to go nuclear using your desperate, "Aha! So a methodology is based on axioms then is it. So that means that even if I'm guessing then so are you. See, we're both guessing so that means our claims are evens-stevens."

You've been corrected on this nonsense countless times and either lied about or just ignored those corrections, so for shorthand I just point you now to the Steven Law essay that does the job too. That you dismissed it with a series of lies doesn't change that - you're not nearly bright enough to argue your way out of the going nuclear hole into which you insist on throwing yourself. 


 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Except of course it isn't is it. You could readily look up the meaning of this term if you wanted to. What it actually is is an incompetent attempt to go nuclear using your desperate, "Aha! So a methodology is based on axioms then is it. So that means that even if I'm guessing then so are you. See, we're both guessing so that means our claims are evens-stevens."

You've been corrected on this nonsense countless times and either lied about or just ignored those corrections, so for shorthand I just point you now to the Steven Law essay that does the job too. That you dismissed it with a series of lies doesn't change that - you're not nearly bright enough to argue your way out of the going nuclear hole into which you insist on throwing yourself. 


 

I haven't gone nuclear all I've done is ask "what constitutes a methodology.