I told you time and again that I have no intention to teach someone who shows every intention of not wanting to learn. You simply repeated my words; I would hardly call that a prediction. However, while my unwillingness to lay forth my "tomes of knowledge" as you call them is understandable (and explicitly stated) in light of your stance, I can't see any good reason why you would still insist on not learning. I have told you that pretty much every thing you attribute to feminism is false, yet you have no interest in learning the actual claims. I cannot fathom why any person of intellect will only take pleasure in taking down arguments made by demented caricatures born of his misconceptions, while fearing to confront the actual arguments (which, he may find out, he actually agrees with!)
What you lack (and it's way more than just a claim at this point) is not wisdom (certainly not of some magical sort) but curiosity. I will match every bit of your formal reasoning, and you will enjoy the process -- I assure you. If mechanistic deduction is your only acceptable mode of thought, that is all that will be required. That brilliant Einstein/Russel paper was entirely written in first-order logic. Hardly a line of prose to it other than the somewhat dry introduction and the surprisingly droll conclusion, neither of which is essential (of course, you would have known that if you had bothered to try). An autistic robot would be convinced. However, a child would not, because as it turns out, children who are preoccupied with their own image have a hard time grasping even logic, formal as it is.
P.S.
I am a bit surprised, however, that you have brought up formal reasoning in this thread which discusses the philosophy of science. You surely know that regardless of how formal your methods are, short of logical inconsistencies, the results of your efforts largely depend on your axioms, which is what philosophy is (also) concerned with. I am not familiar with a formal method for deriving a set of axioms for humans, only informal ones.
I am a bit surprised, however, that you have brought up formal reasoning in this thread which discusses the philosophy of science. You surely know that regardless of how formal your methods are, short of logical inconsistencies, the results of your efforts largely depend on your axioms, which is what philosophy is (also) concerned with.
This is why good philosophers clearly state their axioms and then follow the logic to the bitter end.
But I'm sure that comparing me to a child will fool everyone here into thinking that you actually did state a clearly defined axiom somewhere.
> But I'm sure that comparing me to a child will fool everyone here into thinking that you actually did state a clearly defined axiom somewhere.
A non sequitur: I compared you to a child because you insist on arguing claims no one has actually made and insist on not trying to understand their claims; you insist on not listening. I have said over and over that I will not "state my axioms" in discussions with you because there is no chance in the world that you will in fact listen. You're not interested in a reasoned argument; you are interested in an argument against claims that you have made up. It is absolutely impossible to have a reasoned argument with someone who intends to misinterpret everything you say. Of course, I could be very, very precise as to reduce any chance of misinterpretation, but that would make my job very tedious and my comments far longer than they already are. I find discussions to be much more intellectually satisfying if each party tries their best to understand the others' arguments -- even if they vehemently disagree with them (of course, I'm not even sure you would disagree; you never bother to try and understand what those arguments are so you can't possibly even know whether or not you disagree with the actual claims). Otherwise, it feels more like third-grade taunts.
BTW, have you stated your axioms somewhere (other than the implied "axiom of the other's stupidity" which is implicitly used in every stage of your arguments like the axiom of choice from hell[1])?
> This is why good philosophers clearly state their axioms and then follow the logic to the bitter end.
If you ever try to actually understand what I'm saying (and that requires willingness and real curiosity) rather than try your hardest not to, I am certain you'll find that I follow this very path.
I will just say again that if the word "power" does not appear in an argument you attribute to feminism, then you can be absolutely certain that that is not the actual argument.
[1]: I would really suggest replacing it with the "axiom of the other's genius" (and I don't mean that the other side never makes mistakes; even geniuses do make mistakes). It is certain to make these discussions more challenging, interesting and intellectually satisfying. And hey, all parties involved (including passive readers) might actually -- god forbid -- learn something rather than just yell at each other!
What you lack (and it's way more than just a claim at this point) is not wisdom (certainly not of some magical sort) but curiosity. I will match every bit of your formal reasoning, and you will enjoy the process -- I assure you. If mechanistic deduction is your only acceptable mode of thought, that is all that will be required. That brilliant Einstein/Russel paper was entirely written in first-order logic. Hardly a line of prose to it other than the somewhat dry introduction and the surprisingly droll conclusion, neither of which is essential (of course, you would have known that if you had bothered to try). An autistic robot would be convinced. However, a child would not, because as it turns out, children who are preoccupied with their own image have a hard time grasping even logic, formal as it is.
P.S.
I am a bit surprised, however, that you have brought up formal reasoning in this thread which discusses the philosophy of science. You surely know that regardless of how formal your methods are, short of logical inconsistencies, the results of your efforts largely depend on your axioms, which is what philosophy is (also) concerned with. I am not familiar with a formal method for deriving a set of axioms for humans, only informal ones.