Einstein's studies is already proving to be a waste a time. But then someone hasta be the guinea pig.
Einstein discovered some of the laws that govern the entire Universe. You could argue that nuclear power and weapons are a waste of time, but few would say the same of GPS, and that system needs Einstein's laws to work.
And who are the supposed "guinea pigs"?
Odd for Einstein to be so illogical, since if he played chess only to relax from his exhausting work in physics, then chess was by definition not a waste of time for him, since relaxation is valuable!
For me, chess has been quite beneficial. Now, this may not be accurate for everyone or even a large number of people, but, in my experience: chess has taught me to think more deeply about things, to evaluate appropriately without making impulsive decisions, to take into account the perspectives and views of others and consider them when doing something - whether that be saying something or just thinking about how my actions can effect others.
It mainly has helped me with activities or situations involving others, or simply learning to think about things more deeply and be more analytical about certain things, and the benefits of that (in my opinion) are paramount.
Oh, I don't believe in other universes. Either they are part of THE universe or else it's impossible to get evidence for them.
You realize you just said the opposite (and played 1. d4) in another Universe?>
No, I didn't realise that. You know, this fantasy about multiple universes is like the fantasy about God. Once people get it in their minds, they can't escape from the idea. It's also like determinism, which is the theory that people believe in things like multiple universes because they're inescapably caused by previous events in the universe to do so. But ..... in which universe?
I can assure you that I do not exist in another universe, however.
What's the matter if it was einstein who said that, every one has his point of view (50%TRUEVS50%FALSE)
Has anyone identified a location and specific quoted sentence for this wasted-time thing?
@MindControl116
>"Random metaphors such as "poisoning the well" don't help to clarify discussions or ideas. They tend to add more layers of obfuscation."
Err, it's not just a random metaphor. I get the impression you think I just made up that phrase. I didn't. It's an established rhetorical / logical term and refers to attempts to discredit a person, or group of people, by presenting unfavourable information about them (false or otherwise, I'd assume), such as when conspiracy theorists say that their detractors are really just corporate shills , or "saying what they want you to think" or something like that.
"Arguments from authority can be indicated whenever conspiracy theory is used to try to discredit observations by others, simply because there are assumptions, correct or incorrect, that the conspiracy theorist should carry the day due to his accusation that others are conspirators (because such accusations are wrongly assumed to carry weight)."
So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that there's implicit appeals to authority behind conspiracy accusations because any such accusation implies that the accuser is an authority on who is or isn't conspiring, is that correct?
Because if that's the case, can't we frame any claim where the claim maker expects to be believed as an appeal to authority? After all, when someone makes a claim they generally assume they have some competence in the topic at hand.
Anyways, going back to detail with which I originally took issue, won't you at least concede that conspiracy accusations attack the accused's credibility more overtly than the way in which they might be bolstering the accuser's authority?
Calling someone a corporate shill, for instance, says in rather clear terms that the person is being disingenuous, that's what a shill, is, after all. It's part of the denotation, the direct meaning, of what's being said. In order to make that same statement out to be an ad verecundiam, though, we have to assume things about how the accuser assumes others will perceive them. It seems kind of far fetched to me... And as I said already, it seems that if that's an ad verecundiam, pretty much everything is an ad verecundiam.
[>"Random metaphors such as "poisoning the well" don't help to clarify discussions or ideas. They tend to add more layers of obfuscation."
Err, it's not just a random metaphor. I get the impression you think I just made up that phrase. I didn't. It's an established rhetorical / logical term and refers to attempts to discredit a person, or group of people, by presenting unfavourable information about them (false or otherwise, I'd assume), such as when conspiracy theorists say that their detractors are really just corporate shills , or "saying what they want you to think" or something like that.]
I find it impressive that some people are literally unable to read basic English sentences and be honest about their damn pathetically bad arguments. You do realize that the one who called it "random metaphor" is Optimissed and not me, correct? Learn how to damn read.
["Arguments from authority can be indicated whenever conspiracy theory is used to try to discredit observations by others, simply because there are assumptions, correct or incorrect, that the conspiracy theorist should carry the day due to his accusation that others are conspirators (because such accusations are wrongly assumed to carry weight)."
So, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that there's implicit appeals to authority behind conspiracy accusations because any such accusation implies that the accuser is an authority on who is or isn't conspiring, is that correct?]
Again, I was not the one who said this. Optimissed said this, and then I RESPONDED to this.
[Because if that's the case, can't we frame any claim where the claim maker expects to be believed as an appeal to authority? After all, when someone makes a claim they generally assume they have some competence in the topic at hand.]
I already said what I needed to say regarding your answers to the claims I never made.
As long as he did not have to play it in Copenhagen.>>
Personally, I think that Copenhagen is a description and not an interpretation so he may have been relatively ok.
It is neither, it is a hypothesis, and a currently untestable one, at it.
Oh, I don't believe in other universes. Either they are part of THE universe or else it's impossible to get evidence for them.
You realize you just said the opposite (and played 1. d4) in another Universe?>
No, I didn't realise that. You know, this fantasy about multiple universes is like the fantasy about God. Once people get it in their minds, they can't escape from the idea. It's also like determinism, which is the theory that people believe in things like multiple universes because they're inescapably caused by previous events in the universe to do so. But ..... in which universe?
I can assure you that I do not exist in another universe, however.
You can assure it? Do it then. I would love to see you present a formal logic proof to demonstrate that you do not exist in another universe. I will be waiting here.
It really depends on one’s opinion of chess; one individual might find it beneficial to life, whereas their counterpart may think of chess as nonsense. Like, for example, some people may believe that extraterrestrials exist, while others may not. I personally do not have the same opinion as Albert Einstein, but perhaps he was quite preoccupied during his life.
Look, there is a huge flaw with this discussion: you have to define what it means for something to be a waste, and we need to establish whether that's objective or subjective. The discussion is not productive or meaningful otherwise.
Nevertheless, I still have an unwavering and great respect for Albert Einstein.
Very good point.
have you tried looking in a dictionary ?
I'm talking about precise, operational definitions. It's literally impossible to determine anything useful about the wastefulness of things using the vague dictionary definition of the word waste. Do I need to break that down for you?
no, but a waste is a waste if you get the idea.
That doesn't say anything about whether chess is a waste or not, and it cannot say anything about whether chess is a waste or not, because it doesn't make any reference to any properties that need to be satisfied in a way that can be determined through reasoning.
To be fair, the dictionary does provide a simple and straightforward definition to those who are looking for a simple, straightforward definition.
here is a definition for you: you needing a definition of waste is a waste of time.
I wonder how dense you must be or how many friends do you actually have in real life.
However, for individuals looking for more complex and in-depth answers, the dictionary’s information may be a little too primitive for that task.
To be fair, the dictionary does provide a simple and straightforward definition to those who are looking for a simple, straightforward definition.
I don't understand what is so difficult to comprehend about one simple claim that I've already explained multiple times here: we're not looking for a straightforward definition here. I could not care less about straightforwardness or simplicity here. It's not useful for discussion. My original claim ALL ALONG was in context to discussion and nothing else. I hate repeating myself, so if none of you undertand such a simple concept, then I'm not going to waste my time.
Oh, I don't believe in other universes. Either they are part of THE universe or else it's impossible to get evidence for them.
You realize you just said the opposite (and played 1. d4) in another Universe?