Foot in Mouth Award : 2003 : Rumsfeld

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 56
    I don't know, the statement Rummy made makes sense logically to me. But as a real answer... It's not. It's evading the question completely. It's like in stats: you never prove the null hypothesis. It's a failure to reject the null hypothesis.



    But if you're looking for real answers, this administration is not the place to find them.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 22 of 56
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell



    I think the point is that it was probably utterly unresponsive to whatever the specific question was. What was the question to which he was responding?




    Its one of those darn unknown unknown



    Or rather we know it was a question. Does that make it a known unknown. Or is that a unknown known?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 23 of 56
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    Or rather we know it was a question. Does that make it a known unknown. Or is that a unknown known?



    Wait a minute. Are you trying to win this award for yourself?!



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 24 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    I know you've all gone unknowingly mad.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 25 of 56
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    I know you've all gone unknowingly mad.



    That would be an unknown unknown, right? Or would it be a known unknown? Or perhaps a known known?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 26 of 56
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Known unknown...



    That's better...my head doesn't hurt anymore now
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 27 of 56
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Well Rumsfeld missed a whole class of unknowable knowables, as well as knowable unknowables.



    But I give him a special mention prize for ontological arguments... the most famous of which is Rene Descartes.." I think therefore I am "



    Either way,



    Rumsfeld as Segovius noted....would have made a great poet...



    Or in my opinion....a Jedi Knight using Yoda speak...8)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 28 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!



    OMG, don't do that when I'm drinking coffee, I about got a nasal caffeination.



    Oh the *imagery*! *hee*







    (Waiting for the first SW fan to take offense at comparing Rumsfeld to a Jedi... hee)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 29 of 56
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Grand Moff Tarkin would have been more appropriate.



    "Evacuate Now? On the brink of crrrussshing the rebellion?"
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 30 of 56
    fishdocfishdoc Posts: 189member
    Don't ontological arguments have to be used to prove the existence of God or a higher being? I thought that Descarte's ontological argument was one that proved the existence of God, not his own existence.



    Could be wrong though...philosophy classes were a few years ago...maybe I should google before I hit "post"...nah, too lazy....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 31 of 56
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fishdoc

    Don't ontological arguments have to be used to prove the existence of God or a higher being? I thought that Descarte's ontological argument was one that proved the existence of God, not his own existence.



    Could be wrong though...philosophy classes were a few years ago...maybe I should google before I hit "post"...nah, too lazy....




    Ontology has to do with reasons for existence. Descartes's argument "Cogito, ergo sum" essentially means that the only thing he can prove is that he exists, since if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to wonder whether or not he existed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 32 of 56
    fishdocfishdoc Posts: 189member
    OK, now you have forced me to actually google



    Well, one cannot trust google as the ultimate arbiter, but a search on "ontological arguments" gives you page after page of statements about the ontological argument being related to proving the existence of God, e.g., "One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Or from Stanford: "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."



    But perhaps there is a broader use of the term which is not so popular, and therefore less googleariffic. I recall only hearing it in a religious context, but that does not mean it could not also be more general. Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.



    Fish
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 33 of 56
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by midwinter

    Ontology has to do with reasons for existence. Descartes's argument "Cogito, ergo sum" essentially means that the only thing he can prove is that he exists, since if he didn't exist, he wouldn't be able to wonder whether or not he existed.



    Yes.



    And Fishdoc is right too..



    It's all about the ultimate unknowable knowables & the proofs therein.



    Putting Rumsfelds' speech into to latin terms would lead to "Incognito Cognito"



    Rumsfeld is a philosophical giant & he doesn't even know it....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 34 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Jedi Rummy. *hee*



    *snort*
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 35 of 56
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fishdoc

    Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.





    Try the encyclopedia britannica or a dictionary.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 36 of 56
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Jedi Rummy. *hee*



    *snort*




    DARTH RUMSFELD
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 37 of 56
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by fishdoc

    OK, now you have forced me to actually google



    Well, one cannot trust google as the ultimate arbiter, but a search on "ontological arguments" gives you page after page of statements about the ontological argument being related to proving the existence of God, e.g., "One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument" (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Or from Stanford: "Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world ? e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists."



    But perhaps there is a broader use of the term which is not so popular, and therefore less googleariffic. I recall only hearing it in a religious context, but that does not mean it could not also be more general. Still, I would appreciate any references one could provide that specifically talk about ontological arguments *outside* of the realm of god.



    Fish




    I think you're talking about two different terms: The "ontological argument" is the name of a specific argument for the existence of God, "ontology" is a branch of philosophy that deals with existence of things in general.



    And I think Descartes' "I think therefore I am" business was really an epistemological argument, about what you can know to be true, rather than an ontological one. And so was Rummies', for that matter. I wonder about Cheney, though - epistemologist or ontologist? This could be a new game show.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 38 of 56
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    DARTH RUMSFELD



    Naw, it's funnier to imagine him as Yoda. Short, green, furry ears...



    *hee*



    Blast! The Yoda translator won't take more than a few words at a time.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 39 of 56
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Arguing that links and evidence exists... when it doesn't... what's the Term for that kind of argument?



    "God exists... we have eveidence."... "Intell from our Allies says so."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 40 of 56
    aquafireaquafire Posts: 2,758member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kickaha

    Naw, it's funnier to imagine him as Yoda. Short, green, furry ears...



    *hee*



    Blast! The Yoda translator won't take more than a few words at a time.




    " Always with you there is doubt hrrmmm..there is only know or unknow " Yoda Rumsfeld



    8)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.