memla

As i said, i don't really want to argue weather that is math or philosophy, especially when i see statements to the effect that affirming the consequent was once philosophy but math "swallowed" it so now pointing out that fallacy means you're doing math and things like that. Talk about imprecise and meaningless right there.

No it doesn't. You've formalized it incorrectly.

Doesn't matter, i might as well have said that the argument is affirming the consequent and we'd still have a problem since there is a deeper issue here. What you're saying is that the simple acts of either formalizing your arguments or precisely defining your premises somehow turns it into math and precludes it from being philosophy. Yet philosophers do exactly that all the time.

Is that the point you want to argue? Cause i am neither convinced or interested in pursuing it. It would seem to me like a pointless argument about definitions.

On a theoretical level, this is true for every discussion in every discipline. On a practical level, how would you know that this is a special problem in philosophy if you admit that you haven't studied any?

>>That's the problem. Nearly every word is packed with meaning, which must be unraveled and argued for with... more words.

Just for the record. I did say that arguments are required and of course those arguments are composed of words (and symbols) but i never said that those arguments are about the meaning of words.

What if i point out that it commits a modal scope fallacy?

What data do you have to refute the statement: "A statement can be refuted without data"?

So, what you're saying is that the problem of philosophy is that someone could derail a discussion concerning ethics by simply asserting meta-ethical subjectivism and that would be uninteresting or bad in some other way...

I don't quite understand this objection. Not to mention that this is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to find in a philosophical debate. The whole point of the discipline is that every position must be argued for and questioned and not just asserted. That of course includes subjectivism.

If you're trying to claim that only scientific ideas are worth entertaining, then the problem is that that claim itself is not scientific.

The commenter you're responding to does not even understand the problem if he thinks science can solve it, as others have pointed out.

Since the point was to show what kind of code you'll be looking at depending on the choice of your language/framework i think that the examples are appropriate. Which application implements better design patterns is a discussion that goes a little beyond the point of this thread.

I agree about the python code that it is reasonably readabale, but i still think it's ugly. Those two things are not the same.

[1]: https://packagist.org/

    $topic = $this->get('model.Topic')->find($topic_id);
    $this->get('guardian')->ensureVisible($topic);

    $topic = Topic::find($topicId);
    Guardian::ensureVisible($topic);

[1]: https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/master/src/Illumin... [2]: https://github.com/reddit/reddit/blob/master/r2/r2/controlle...

True, descriptive ethics is almost entirely composed of various facts about human psychology and sociology, but no normative claim can be deduced from these facts alone.

Can i get a source on this?

The docs clearly explain that your bundles go to the "bundles" directory, controllers go to the "controllers" directory, views belong in "views" and so on. And your whole application resides in a directory called... "application". You'd actually have to be pretty advanced and amazingly stupid at the same time to make a functional app in the framework core folder and than destroy it by overwriting.

Rails docs don't tell me to unzip the framework and start hacking, but they do instruct me to run "gem install rails", wait a couple of hours till it's done, then run "rails new blog", "cd blog" and then start hacking. Neither set of docs tell me how to setup version control before i begin my work, and they shouldn't. That's not the job of the framework docs.

And of course you're gonna hack your application directly on the server, albeit a local one, as PHP applications are typically developed. This in no way prevents you from using version control and proper deployment techniques.

For what it's worth, PHP 5.4(without APC) performed better than both Python and Ruby on that language shootout page: http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/which-programs-a...

You would upgrade your Laravel framework with composer, which runs on Git. And it'll most likely just work without any "Gem hell" that i've come to experience with some other languages.