Would it be better if more scientists studied philosophy?

_{News
November 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Philosophy
Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Instead of ridiculing it, as Stephen Hawking did?

From a practical standpoint, philosophy requires clear, logical thinking. A person who has a degree in philosophy has therefore shown an ability to think — a useful skill in a world that too often doesn’t seem to do much of it.
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Remarkably, Lehewych actually notices a key reason many are skeptical of science:

Consider public health messaging during the pandemic, which consisted of a pattern of revelation and back-peddling. Worse, this pattern wasn’t even cohesive among scientists and medical experts: different experts in the same fields were simultaneously saying things about the pandemic that were contradictory and inconsistent. This only served to confuse the public and aggravate hyperpartisanship.
Philosophy, as an activity, can potentially mitigate these deleterious effects. Earning a philosophy degree entails filtering convoluted ideas into plain language. This skill can and ought to be used to aid scientists in pursuing a more scientifically informed public
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Lehewych interweaves these thoughts with discussion of the anti-philosophy views of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He suggests that scientists study philosophy so as to avoid sounding like “sanctimonious know-it-alls.”

Maybe. Of course, it would also help to be right more often, as that would at least lead to more consistent messaging.

You may also wish to read: At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.

Comments

O: It is your position that these things are aspects of a person. KF doesn’t agree with that.

WJM: No, he has agreed that sentient thought and language inescapably utilize appeals to truth and the principles of logic. He has also said that this implies “first duties” to truth and reason.
If “first duties” are inherent aspects of a person, if they are inescapable to a person, then how does imposing adherence to first duties by an authority—that is, the ‘government’ mentioned by Kairosfocus—make any sense? Enigmatically, according to KF, to be free and responsible implies to be morally governed.
KF: Duties are oughts, which though normative can be disregarded, but not without destructive consequences: to be responsibly and rationally significantly free is to be morally governed, at root through first duties.
Origenes_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT}

“Would It Be Better If More Scientists Studied Philosophy?” I don't know, but I think it would be better if evolutionary biologists studied engineering. --Ramram_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT}

WJM and Origenes In reading KF over the months, from what I can decipher, it would appear that he miscategorizes certain dependencies as "duty." I have a dependency on oxygen, but this does not mean I have a "duty" to oxygen. Likewise with logic, proper usage of words, and to "truth." It seems to me that KF has chosen to make this the hill he lives or dies on because he, apparently, needs to believe that we can “recognize” our first duties without any ontological commitments whatsoever. I suppose that is how he can accept that God can hold everyone responsible for doing their “first duties” regardless of their ontological presuppositions (worldview) implanted by culture, society, figures of authority, upbringing, etc. That’s why he doesn’t just answer (1) God, and (2) Hell. Yes, it really does seem to come down to that. His religion masquerading as objective truth. --Ramram_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

@JS #7 "Where the danger lies is when people use twisted philosophical arguments to counter sound scientific conclusions based on clear evidence because it goes against their world view. A prime example is the philosophical arguments/insistence that there are objective moral truths." Wait, science has soundly concluded that objective moral truths don't exist? When?KRock_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

As to: "Would It Be Better If More Scientists Studied Philosophy?" According to George Ellis, the answer is an emphatic, YES!, i.e. "Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say."
Physicist George Ellis on the importance of philosophy and free will - July 27, 2014 Excerpt: And free will?: ,,, if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options. I find it very hard to believe this to be the case – indeed it does not seem to make any sense. Physicists should pay attention to Aristotle’s four forms of causation – if they have the free will to decide what they are doing. If they don’t, then why waste time talking to them? They are then not responsible for what they say. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-george-ellis-on-the-importance-of-philosophy-and-free-will/
And then there is this beautiful quote from Neil Thomas, “This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity.”
How I Came to Take Leave of Darwin: A Coda Neil Thomas – November 15, 2021 ,,, Here I will make the attempt to drill down even further to the root causes of what appeared to be the Western world’s unprecedented rejection of tried-and-tested philosophers and scientists such as Aristotle, Cicero, Plato, and the physician Galen in a strange capitulation to “out there” philosophic fantasists like Epicurus and his Roman disciple, Lucretius. It was the would-be rehabilitation of those ancient materialist thinkers by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, in the late 18th century, coupled with the later Victorian crisis of faith and the sudden irruption into this already volatile mix of Charles Darwin which was to result in the particularly strange irrationalism which has stubbornly persisted right up to the present day. This abdication of normal canons of reason consisted in people forsaking traditional norms of philosophical common sense and (effectively) throwing in their lot with the ancient goddess of chance, Lady Fortuna (or Lady Luck as she was later to be called), that accursed personification of unreliability whom the ancient philosopher Boethius, Geoffrey Chaucer, and many others have arraigned since time out of mind for being incapable of any productive and dependable action on behalf of struggling humanity. https://evolutionnews.org/2021/11/how-i-came-to-take-leave-of-darwin-a-coda/
And then there is this example from Dr. Michael Egnor as to how philosophically inept some professors of philosophy are,
An Atheist Argues Against Reason And thinks it is the reasonable thing to do MICHAEL EGNOR - MAY 24, 2019 Excerpt: Think of the irony: a professor of philosophy, who is paid only to reason, uses reason to argue against reason. Welcome to the bowels of atheist metaphysics. It would be funny if it were not so dangerous to our culture and to our souls. https://mindmatters.ai/2019/05/an-atheist-argues-against-reason/
So apparently it is not enough to simply be educated in philosophy, one must also, apparently, be educated, and/or re-educated, in the 'common sense' that the uneducated general public has in spades over and above what some atheistic professors of philosophy have, so as to be able to discern nonsense from what is sensible.bornagain77_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PDT}

That’s why he doesn’t just answer (1) God, and (2) Hell.
My guess is that someone is losing an argument. But that is mind reading trying to understand absurd comments.jerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

So, Origenes, KF reveals why he will not just answer the questions about authority and consequences:
Further to which one may recognise the fact of a duty without solving the ontological roots of duties, as normal people do by hearing the voice of sound conscience and recognising that it is speaking truthfully about obligations.
What he is saying here is that he can recognize a duty without establishing (1) the presiding authority or (2) the consequences that will be enforced by the presiding authority. What is KF appealing to in order to make his case? He makes an irrelevant appeal to general bad consequences, but there can be general, bad consequences for all sorts of behavior, including truthfulness and moral behavior. These are not offered as the consequences enforced by the authority, so they are irrelevant to establishing an actual duty. Another appeal KF makes is:
as normal people do by hearing the voice of sound conscience and recognising that it is speaking truthfully about obligations.
Do I really have to point out just how flawed and circular this is? If anyone disagrees, they are either "not normal" or "not of sound conscience." How convenient.
As was outlined again above, in the normal course of argument and more pronounced in quarrelling, we see strong recognition of known first duties, in fact even objectors cannot but so appeal.
First, I'm not recognizing any such duty, so what is KF referring to? Is he claiming I am "recognizing" it subconsciously? Unconsciously? How can I "know" a duty I do not consciously know I have? Second, I repeat: a behavior one cannot help but engage in cannot be a duty or held as being in reference to any duty because all actual duties are necessarily decisional. It seems to me that KF has chosen to make this the hill he lives or dies on because he, apparently, needs to believe that we can "recognize" our first duties without any ontological commitments whatsoever. I suppose that is how he can accept that God can hold everyone responsible for doing their "first duties" regardless of their ontological presuppositions (worldview) implanted by culture, society, figures of authority, upbringing, etc. That's why he doesn't just answer (1) God, and (2) Hell.William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

Circular arguments,
Nothing circular about it. It begins and ends and then there is a new beginning but not coming back to the original. Nature of species => innate objectives (beginning point) => required behavior to reach objectives (duties) => full or partial accomplishment or even failure (ending point.) Then a new start at a new point. Aside: where does the nature of the species come from that causes certain objectives to be important? Also it is not just humans that have objectives. Aside2: the duties may be just to one self but often are to others because these lead to the objectives sooner and with more certainty. We have been all through this before more than once.jerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT}

JS, the implicit appeals happened again. The point is made. KF
Circular arguments, like true circles, do not have points.Joe Schooner_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT}

WJM, with all due respect your rhetorical threats do not impress. Just for record for onlookers who may not realise the "you are a mind reader" hyperskeptical tactic you have been using is fallacious: a rhetorical appeal is read from the performance and utterance not the mind, sometimes through "reading between the lines." As you already know full well. Duties are oughts, which though normative can be disregarded, but not without destructive consequences: to be responsibly and rationally significantly free is to be morally governed, at root through first duties. Further to which one may recognise the fact of a duty without solving the ontological roots of duties, as normal people do by hearing the voice of sound conscience and recognising that it is speaking truthfully about obligations. Where, one normally reasons from the clear towards the unclear or less understood so demanding solutions to major ontological issues before acknowledging realities of duty is a way to blunt the voice of conscience and the force of moral government. Those lacking in conscience or with distorted ones, of course, are to that extent morally dysfunctional. As was outlined again above, in the normal course of argument and more pronounced in quarrelling, we see strong recognition of known first duties, in fact even objectors cannot but so appeal. That is a strong sign of pervasive first principles at work. KF PS: I again note on the negative form of first duties:
Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature.
kairosfocus_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

a prediction doesn’t represent a fact.
It most certainly does when one thing flows from another automatically. I will take a pencil and it will fall to the ground. That is a prediction based on the laws of physics. Similarly the sun will rise tomorrow follows from the laws of physics. If you want to suspend the laws of physics to support your statement, which is what you have done, then what is foolish? Aside: if the sun does not rise tomorrow, we are all gone. Aside2: I personally have seen black swans. I have photos of them I took.jerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT}

Jerry, a prediction doesn't represent a fact. "The sun is rising where I am" is a fact (given that we refer to the observational experience caused by the Earth turning as the sun "rising" or "setting." I could have called that out, but that would have been petty IMO.) "Tomorrow, the sun will rise" cannot be a fact because it hasn't even happened yet. Perhaps some things you think are "foolish" really just represent the inadequacies or sloppiness of your own thinking.William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
07:37 AM
7
07
37
AM
PDT}

The sun will rise tomorrow. No, Jerry, that’s not a fact. Not even close.
This is the nonsense that one deals with here. Why would anyone take anything you say seriously Is the more interesting thing. PS: I was a mathematics/physics major in college and had courses in astronomy and the science of planet formation. Received fellowships for graduate study in math. So I know a little bit about the rising and setting of the sun and the physics involved in this phenomenon. The sun appears in the eastern sky every cloudless morning. This phenomenon is known as the rising of the sun. For anyone wanting to know about astronomy. Here is a 96 lecture series on it. https://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/understanding-the-universe-an-introduction-to-astronomy-2nd-editionjerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

I just realized that the behavior described by the duty must be decisional, meaning that it is possible to not do your duty, so this is a third necessary condition of any actual "duty." Inescapable behaviors are not decisional, and so cannot be used to make the case for any actual duty.William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Everyone has to use philosophy. Its just that some are not aware they use it. It might be a personal behavior to try and ignore formal philosophy. My lovely wife does this. Andrewasauber_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Origenes said:
It is your position that these things are aspects of a person. KF doesn’t agree with that.
No, he has agreed that sentient thought and language inescapably utilize appeals to truth and the principles of logic. He has also said that this implies "first duties" to truth and reason.
He holds that we are error-prone and need to be forcibly steered, by duties imposed by an external authority, towards truth and applying the fundamental principles of logic.
Again, nope. He agrees that our duties are applicable when our behavior is optional, i.e. not forced by inescapable reference to truth and logical principles.
1.God 2. Hell.
See how easy and obvious that was? Now ask yourself, why won't KF answer the same way?William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

William J Murray @20
Second, what is actually implicit in what I say is an appeal to truth and the fundamental principles of logic. This is an inescapable, necessary aspect of conscious, sentient thought and language.
It is your position that these things are aspects of a person. KF doesn’t agree with that. He holds that we are error-prone and need to be forcibly steered, by duties imposed by an external authority, towards truth and applying the fundamental principles of logic.
Third, “duties” are irreconcilable with inescapable, necessary behaviors; therefore nothing I say can be both inescapable or necessary AND represent any actual duties, which are always about optional behaviors.
Again, KF doesn’t agree with you that these behaviors are inescapable necessary aspects of a person. In his view they are not inherent aspects of a person. They are only inescapable and necessary to us because a superior external authority has imposed them that way on us.
Fourth, all actual duties require two conditions: 1. An authority that holds me responsible for the fulfilling of my duty, and: 2. Consequences for fulfilling/not fulfilling my duty.
1. God 2. Hell.Origenes_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Jerry said:
The sun will rise tomorrow.
No, Jerry, that's not a fact. Not even close.William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT}

Different facts: The sun will rise tomorrow. There is an asteroid the size of a small pebble about 300 million miles from earth. It has moved relative to earth more than 150 miles in the last 30 days. There were over 10,000 dead bodies near the sea after the tsunami. All are true. What is the difference? They are all facts.jerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

If one wants to continue living, are the necessary behaviors to do so expressed by the word “duty?” This assumes that not doing so will result in death or an very inferior way of existing. If one wants to thrive while living, are the necessary behaviors to do so expressed by the word “duty?” This assumes that not doing so will result in an inferior/undesirable way of life. In other words are duties just a way of expressing what is necessary to reach objectives? Are the objectives hence the duties built into the human species? Every species? Is what is going on, just semantics?jerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT}

KF said:
WJM, you have of course implicitly appealed to the first duties as intuitively accepted, showing yet again their pervasive, first principle character.
Do you really want to open this door again, KF? First, KF is attempting to read my mind by asserting what I am implying when I say what I say. His inference is not my implication. Second, what is actually implicit in what I say is an appeal to truth and the fundamental principles of logic. This is an inescapable, necessary aspect of conscious, sentient thought and language. Third, "duties" are irreconcilable with inescapable, necessary behaviors; therefore nothing I say can be both inescapable or necessary AND represent any actual duties, which are always about optional behaviors. Fourth, all actual duties require two conditions: 1. An authority that holds me responsible for the fulfilling of my duty, and: 2. Consequences for fulfilling/not fulfilling my duty. KF has been unwilling for months to name 1 and/or 2 above. Instead, he claims these duties are self-evident; but, they cannot be. Actual duties are known through the presence of those conditions. I cannot know I have an actual duty unless I am aware of those conditions; since I do not, I cannot be said to be implying duties I don't even know exist, that haven't even be shown to exist.William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT}

Jerry Science is about facts, nothing else.
Not really. Facts are about truth and truth about morality and morality about God and God about love.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

A couple things: Science is about facts, nothing else. It does not tell us the value of something. Facts tell us what is, not what ought to be except where one fact causes another. Then, we say given this fact, we ought to see this other fact. Philosophy is very much about the ought or value of something. Aside: there is most definitely objective moral laws but they lie in the value area. What is this area? Is it meeting common human objectives?jerry_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

F/N: It is an interestingly instructive happenstance of language that our term Science is a slightly modified form of the Latin for Knowledge. Revealing, that the goal and duty of the scientist is well warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) truth about our world. In this case, based on observation, inductive logic in the modern sense of argument by empirical support not demonstration, and a general pattern of inference to the best current explanation. Of course that draws out that support is open-ended not final. In that exercise much use is made of the logic of structure and quantity aka Math, which proceeds by an utterly different, non empirical method, in ideal form axiomatisation that fits with the body of established facts and allows elaboration by implication. Indeed, Math and Physics were not really separated until in the 1800's as axiomatisation emerged. Newton's Chair was Mathematical. That hybrid character should serve as a check. Logic, of course, is a main branch of Philosophy and the critical study of knowledge, epistemology, is another. Ethics of science -- currently painfully exposed through gross, culpable mismanagement of pandemic to the point that the Nuremburg Code of 1947 is relevant -- is an extension of the bigger half of Axiology, Ethics, again a big branch of Philosophy. Science and scientists, manifestly, would benefit from a more structured exposure and a fair reduction in the presumption of being top dogs that has led to many points of legitimate concern. KFkairosfocus_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

William J Murray LCD @13: Where have I criticized the use of philosophy?
In every single one of your messages and in those messages that you post under different name. ;)Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

WJM, you have of course implicitly appealed to the first duties as intuitively accepted, showing yet again their pervasive, first principle character. Not, oh merely self-selected or group seleected and enforced by ostracism, which is itself implicitly depending on our known duties of truth and right reason to have effect, implying by claim to be objective truth on matters of duty and right conduct etc, so self-defeating as is the general case of subjectivism, relativism, emotivism. My response has always been that of Epictetus, inescapable so inescapably true and self evident, thus objectively true to undeniable certainty. To try to deny is inadvertently to exemplify, as we have seen ever so many times. Indeed, branch on which we all must sit so let us not saw it off. KF PS: As ever, the negative form may well be helpful to those puzzled as to why the fuss:
Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law. The legitimate main task of government, then, is to uphold and defend the civil peace of justice through sound community order reflecting the built in, intelligible law of our nature.
I find it revealing on the sad -- and in my view now suicidal -- state of our civilisation that there is such a fuss and bother on this.kairosfocus_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

LCD @13: Where have I criticized the use of philosophy?William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

William J Murray And so we have someone unwittingly (apparently) expressing his philosophy about science, philosophy and reality as if he isn’t doing exactly the same thing as those he is criticizing.
...as if you are not doing exactly the same thing.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
03:04 AM
3
03
04
AM
PDT}

Joe Schooner said:
Seversky, scientists with a sound grounding in philosophy are a good thing. But they are scientists first.
And:
Never had much respect for philosophy. Always seemed to be an attempt to use linguistic [manipulation] to support a world view that can’t be supported by the evidence.
And:
The expectation/hope that people will respond truthfully and with a smidgen of reason is a societal expectation. It is a reciprocal expectation, as are so many other expectations. They are behaviors that people start learning in the first year of life. If they are duties, they are self-imposed, not fundamental to our existence. The fact that you are not comfortable with the consequences of this reality does not make it any less real.
And so we have someone unwittingly (apparently) expressing his philosophy about science, philosophy and reality as if he isn't doing exactly the same thing as those he is criticizing.William J Murray_{November 16, 2021
November
11
Nov
16
16
2021
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

I think scientists could gain something from philosophy, but most should go back to learn the basics of science they so quickly forget. If something is not witnessed and cannot be replicated, it is not a theory, but hypothetical only.BobRyan_{November 15, 2021
November
11
Nov
15
15
2021
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply