I think it’s better to say that everyone’s guesses are just as valid or invalid as yours!
I found what you said interesting- your ideas and comments at the beginning certainly seemed to be discussing the larger number of masculine nouns in the language.
I don’t think you did say anything about solipsism- I think Howlsedhes brought that one up himself.
I’m often to be found hiding under tables! 
“Owain”, just for future reference. 
I wish the philosophy I did was as fun as what you describe!
It was endlessly breaking down both arguments generally and language with and/or/not gates, describing in tortuous detail what you are using the words you are using to mean- closing these things down to understand and explain the argument, rather than spiralling off.
There are times I would have killed for some spiralling off and flights of fancy!
Or perhaps Howlsedhesservices “spiral out of control” was actually referring to closing things down?
I don’t know. Perhaps it was. A sentence like that could mean different things! You would have to ask him!
A case in point of defining what you mean 
But I found the definition of terms and breaking down an argument logically to be something quite useful in many situations, and surprisingly rarely done, even with people with an educated (scientific as well as not) background.
Whether that means any particular degree is a useful one is another matter, of course!
Sorry I was just having a play around with a bit of ontology
I got my head stuck the last time I did that.
Last time I got my head stuck, I put some milk in it and a couple of sugars and it tasted alright after that.
I’m sorry to hear you had that experience.
Oh, yes, absolutely - Logic is a large part of philosophy. And certainly logic is entwined with maths, and maths with computer circuits, and computer circuits with logic.
(Though I only did maths as a subsidiary subject, I found myself having to study some of the exact same things in two subjects!)[quote=“HowlsedhesServices, post:80, topic:5778”]
Clearly you should have studied literature
[/quote]
No, I like reading too much. I wouldn’t have wanted that to be killed off!
Nope. I’ve never heard of it, I’m sorry!
(Or if I have, I’ve forgotten about it. That’s happened a lot!)
Looking (very superficially) into it, it seems to be something which would be more talked of in psychology than philosophy, so you would be better placed to understand what it is going on about than I would
Mae fy mlog i wedi bod mor anhwylus â’i hawdures y misoedd diwetha’ ma, yn anffodus, ond mae’r egni’n dychwelyd nawr a dwi’n gobeithio dechrau ysgrifennu eto’n fuan.
Should not clutter Forum, but do I gather you were at a streamed Comp? I realised the 11+ was totally flawed before I even took it, because we could improve our so-called Intelligence with practice. I thought Comprehensive with streaming the best option, but if they made decisions like ‘only bright kids learn Latin’, not much improvement over the way Grammar School worked!! (I was told, on moving and needing a new school, that I couldn’t go in the top stream because I hadn’t done German and I couldn’t pick up a whole year’s work, so I’d best go in the Science stream. “No Physics? Never mind, you’ll pick it up!”)
Oh, and, by the way, nothing you put made me feel bad!! I only feel bad if I upset people, which I do all too often by mistake! (I’m quite good at doing it on purpose, but I don’t do that on the Forum!)
I saw mention above somewhere about the history of science, which I found greatly over-rated. We got too much of it and not enough logic! It doesn’t matter who had which wrong theories when, what matters is the best current explanation for the known data and what experiments could be done to try to test it. I worked mainly with biologists, medics, the odd biochemist… I muttered about lack of numeracy, never mind logic!! And don’t get me going on the subject of ‘biological error’ - used to explain every failed experiment ever done by some people!
I don’t like the way that school children are taught about science as something that can be embraced in simple boxes - as if all ideas and subsequent experimentation are conducted using a sort of standard “scientific method”. They have a really narrow way of looking at science and focus on narrow ideas about scientific experimentation- presenting science as something that is too logical and all about doing controlled experiments etc to prove or disprove “an idea”, shying away from seemingly complicated words, like postulate, hypothesise etc, which focus on the really creative side of science and all the “off the wall thinking” that goes on - they use bizaare and very narrow terminology for teaching about experimentation using words such as independent variables, control variables and dependent variables and it’s very mechanical and matter of fact and completely out of touch with reality.
I think pupils should be enthused about science and shown that it is something for the logical mind and the creative and it isn’t one or the other. They should study a bit of history around the debates between Einstein and Bohr and all the others from that era, which were really very philosophical debates on all of these things.
Mae’n ddrwg 'da fi! Dyma fe: http://www.letstalkwelsh.com/the-blog
(Does dim byd newydd arno fe nawr, yn anffodus, ond bydda i’n rhoi rhywbeth newydd arno fe’n fuan.)