Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Spectrum wrote: As far as my thesis on why Islam is Contributing to SO Much Evil, I have already presented my thesis in general, i.e. reducible to two main proximate root causes, i.e....
If your thesis is supposed to be empirical, describe an actual state of affairs, then it must involve objective (and accurate) measurement. In other words, it must be testable. Your scores for 'evil' must be objective in that everybody, no matter what their personal opinions, would agree that 'talking with your mouth full' is 8.5% evil.

That measurement cannot be simply a matter of mutual agreement, or convention, because we also need another measurement to relate it to, a measurement of what you call 'the cause'. 'Two main proximate root causes' will not do - you have to be precise. Again, we need something we can objectively measure. For example, we can use an electron microscope on the DNA and observe that some base is, or isn't, present. But as it stands, you have not identified what we are measuring, let alone how we would do so.

If you could identify the two, then your thesis would describe the relationship between the two numbers, using symbols (a formula, like F=kX.) (So strictly speaking it does not describe a 'cause' but a relationship). And again remember, it must be falsifiable.

Is that clear? You need two empirical objective measurements, and to assert a mathematical relationship between them. This must be testable. That is science.

We don't have to do science. We can discuss ethics, or aesthetics, or whether we prefer beer or wine. But when we do so we understand that this isn't science, ultimately this is just subjective opinion, no particular view is either verifiable or falsifiable.

I think you are doing the second. You do not like Muslims and you are simply expressing your opinion. That is OK, but there is no 'thesis'.

Just to be clear, of course we can collect statistics about opinions; we can draw correlations as in; '50% of football players prefer beer to wine' But these are different; we cannot express them in formula because they are descriptive. They do not describe a rule, fixed relationship between objective measurements of 'football playing-ness' to 'beer prefereing-ness'. It does not say this must be the case. Also, the correlation does not say that 'one football player contains 50% of a wine preference'. This last is something you seem to be stuck on.
I am very surprised of your lack of knowledge re Pure and Applied Statistics.
The principles of the Bell Curve is based on a study of variables of large samples.
Samples of what? As I explained, if you are doing science your samples have to be of something objective and quantifiable (so not 'evil'). And if your thesis is scientific it won't involve a bell curve. Hooke's law (F=kX) describes the physics of springs; it applies exactly like that, in every case. There is no 'bell curve'; it doesn't apply in varying degrees, i.e. some springs conform strongly to the law, others only a little bit, around a 'mean' figure.

Once again, we could take samples of opinions about 'evil', but then we have only described those; opinions. We have not shown that those opinions are 'true' or 'meaningful'. We could then display our results in the form of a graph, which might - or might not - resemble a bell curve. But it would tell us nothing about 'evil', any more than creating a graph of 'how much people believe in unicorns' would tell us a fact about unicorns.
I gladly welcome criticisms. I am preparing a serious thesis which I had improved from others and reflected widely and deeply, if you can reveal holes in it which are justified rationally, I will surely appreciate it and give you much thanks.


You are welcome.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

Lucy -

[quote]Confabulation is well known in brain injury- the condition of the mind filling in gaps of understanding in order to try to create a coherent sense of the world.[/quote

Where lesions are present the person doesn't necessarily notice any difference. Their perceptions may have been reduced from our perspective, but to them the way the see the world is not "missing" anything.

There are such cases where patients have had the entire left field of vision removed due to injury. They don't notice anything out of the ordinary, because to them their field of vision is all that it should be (because the whole region of the brain that gave that sense of space is gone so they literally don't know what they're missing.)
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Lucylu »

Burning ghost wrote:Where lesions are present the person doesn't necessarily notice any difference. Their perceptions may have been reduced from our perspective, but to them the way the see the world is not "missing" anything.

There are such cases where patients have had the entire left field of vision removed due to injury. They don't notice anything out of the ordinary, because to them their field of vision is all that it should be (because the whole region of the brain that gave that sense of space is gone so they literally don't know what they're missing.)
Thank you for your reply, Burning Ghost. It is fascinating what the brain does for us and it's a comfort to know that the person affected may be relatively unaware of the brain damage, just as we are all relatively unaware of our ignorance. I've heard of cases where the brain reroutes around injured areas, effectively building a bypass of neural pathways. But of course the older we get, the less plasticity it has; in brain terms, even a 40 year old has on 'old' brain which will not recover in the same way as a young brain would. I wish they wouldn't keep people alive if there is little hope of recovery.

I know that there is the B.R.A.I.N initiative in the US and the Human Brain Project in Europe which are plowing millions, if not billions, in to discovering the workings of the brain, probably due to the weight of the dementia crisis! There is interesting work with injecting stem cells in to injured parts of the brain. So there's hope for us yet. It would be nice to have some people live forever, but perhaps not others!
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:
Spectrum wrote: As far as my thesis on why Islam is Contributing to SO Much Evil, I have already presented my thesis in general, i.e. reducible to two main proximate root causes, i.e....
If your thesis is supposed to be empirical, describe an actual state of affairs, then it must involve objective (and accurate) measurement. In other words, it must be testable. Your scores for 'evil' must be objective in that everybody, no matter what their personal opinions, would agree that 'talking with your mouth full' is 8.5% evil.
Note my basic hypothesis is easily proven with evidences, i.e.
  • 1. DNA wise all humans [including Muslims] are potentially evil and 20% are born with an active evil tendency.

    2. The Quran has tons of evil laden elements.

    3. The above combine to create terrible evils and violence.
The above hypothesis is easily proven with the current glaring EMPIRICAL evidences around the world, i.e.
  • a. Terrible evils and violence are committed by SOME Muslims all over the world at present.
    b. I can predict with my 'hypothesis', where there are sufficient numbers of Muslims, there will definitely be evils, terror and violence of various degrees wherever there are Muslims or locations where Muslims just want to spread terror.
Based on the above there is already some obvious credibility to my hypothesis, say 60% confidence level.
Now what my thesis provide is merely specifics and precision.
If you don't like the term 'evil' we can agree use the word 'bad', elsewhere I will use the term evil, define evil with a taxonomy and notes.
In the specifics and precision I will present it as objective as possible to correlate with the real terrible evil, terrors and violence committed by SOME Muslims who are evil prone.
You bet for every major variable within my main thesis, I will present a sub-thesis to justify and support each premise.

As for premise 2 above, I have done extensive research to conclude Islam [a major part] is inherent evil or bad [very very bad] as supported by evidence from the Quran - the core doctrinal text of Islam.

-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 10:50 pm to add the following --
[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:That measurement cannot be simply a matter of mutual agreement, or convention, because we also need another measurement to relate it to, a measurement of what you call 'the cause'. 'Two main proximate root causes' will not do - you have to be precise. Again, we need something we can objectively measure. For example, we can use an electron microscope on the DNA and observe that some base is, or isn't, present. But as it stands, you have not identified what we are measuring, let alone how we would do so.
Note at present there are tons of research and findings out there that are based on what is observable.
It is not difficult to link the terrible evils and violence to the verses in the Quran and Ahadiths, i.e. the core text of Islam.
My point on the precision re DNA and neural connections is based on my optimism of the potential of the Human Genome Project [completed] and Human Connectome Project [re brain and this is progressing fast]. With this scientists will be able to map out the whole chart of how evils, terror and violence is manifested.
If you could identify the two, then your thesis would describe the relationship between the two numbers, using symbols (a formula, like F=kX.) (So strictly speaking it does not describe a 'cause' but a relationship). And again remember, it must be falsifiable.
Is that clear? You need two empirical objective measurements, and to assert a mathematical relationship between them. This must be testable. That is science.
I am well aware of this “y = f(x)”.

Note my project is based on a complex set of thesis, sub and sub-thesis. It will be something [not exactly] like studying the weather with a complex set of two-linkage variables.
As I had stated I will subject my thesis to various stress test to determine the weakest link that is likely to lead to failure [falsifiability].

-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:07 pm to add the following --
Londoner wrote:We don't have to do science. We can discuss ethics, or aesthetics, or whether we prefer beer or wine. But when we do so we understand that this isn't science, ultimately this is just subjective opinion, no particular view is either verifiable or falsifiable.
I expect my thesis to be as objective as possible resulting in either
  • 1. we do something with Islam [the ideology] and its inherent evil or
    2. tweak the DNA or brain wiring.
Theoretically it is so easy, get rid of Islam then there will be no more Islamic-related evils, terror and violence because those SOME Muslims who commit evils always refer to their religion and Allah.
Practically it is not easy because there are psychological consequences as a trade off.
So we have to deal with this psychological issue as well.
Note I have another project and thesis to hypothesize the root of Islam and Allah [as with all other theistic religions] is reducible to human psychological not on a God that is illusory.
I think you are doing the second. You do not like Muslims and you are simply expressing your opinion. That is OK, but there is no 'thesis'.
This is an expression of 'evil' from you accusing me of hating humans [Muslims] rather than the ideology.
Note morally all humans has a basic human dignity to be respected.
I raised a relevant OP, i.e. DO NOT BASH MUSLIMS [even the evil ones] but unfortunately not approved. But the such accusing like yours is raised very often because people conflate the ideology with the believers.

Expressing my opinions??
Kant has 3 categories of what is held to be truths, i.e.
  • 1. opinion [totally empty of subjectivity and objectivity].
    2. beliefs [high subjectivity, low on objectivity - insufficient consensus]
    3. knowledge [[high subjectivity, high on objectivity]
What I have presented are perhaps beliefs, i.e. high personal objectivity [subjective] but lack consensus [not yet].
So my point and task it to present my thesis as objective as possible to gain greater objectivity from greater consensus. I am confident my thesis is convincing when presented in full. I have not presented my thesis in full [only partly] here to avoid plagiarism.

I have told you many times, my hypothesis started with my concern [re adopted Bodhisattva's vow] when there is so much terrible evils, terror and violence that has been committed around the world which are now personally effecting everyone including me. As a concerned citizen of the world I have to do something about this category of evils [religious and Islam related] since I have the expertise to contribute in terms of words [not arms nor funds].

As a citizen of humanity, what are you doing? You are trying to shut me up and complicitly allowing the cancer of Islam to fester??
You are likely to divert and insist it is foreign affairs [note I posted some indications, ISIS has already stated foreign affairs is not the main reason why the spread terror], poverty, blah blah but like most you are so blind to what [the 500 pound gorilla] is in front of you.
Just to be clear, of course we can collect statistics about opinions; we can draw correlations as in; '50% of football players prefer beer to wine' But these are different; we cannot express them in formula because they are descriptive. They do not describe a rule, fixed relationship between objective measurements of 'football playing-ness' to 'beer prefereing-ness'. It does not say this must be the case. Also, the correlation does not say that 'one football player contains 50% of a wine preference'. This last is something you seem to be stuck on.
With Islam and its consequences, the empirical evidence is so obvious.
I have already stated, there is already an obvious hypothesis from abduction that there is an obvious correlation between the terrible evils & violence committed by SOME Muslims to the religion of Islam.
Note the parallel with the case of Violence in various medias [movies, games, etc.] where the authorities has introduced laws to ban, censor and control these violent elements that can easily influence the vulnerable. I don't think there are specific % to support this restrictions. I estimate 20% of humans are vulnerable to be influenced by violent elements in the various media.

Now the Quran and its related Ahadith [worst] are loaded with tons of evils and the vulnerability is much serious because Muslims has to obey whatever is in the Quran or else they could go to hell. The associated existential crisis in a religious environment is more compelling than what drive vulnerable folks to violence in a secular setting.

-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:21 pm to add the following --
Spectrum wrote:I am very surprised of your lack of knowledge re Pure and Applied Statistics.
The principles of the Bell Curve is based on a study of variables of large samples.
[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:Samples of what? As I explained, if you are doing science your samples have to be of something objective and quantifiable (so not 'evil'). And if your thesis is scientific it won't involve a bell curve. Hooke's law (F=kX) describes the physics of springs; it applies exactly like that, in every case. There is no 'bell curve'; it doesn't apply in varying degrees, i.e. some springs conform strongly to the law, others only a little bit, around a 'mean' figure.
The above is not relevant to my point.
Note I understand the Principles of the Bell Curve and the standard deviations from the mean.
With the above principles and based on my own observations, readings and samplings where necessary, I can predict the various sigma % and numbers of what is at the two extremes.

For example I can predict at 3 sigma [99.7%] and 1.5% on one side, there is like to be 10.5 million people taller than 6.5 feet. [statistics on tallest, shortest and average are easily available]. (1.5% x 7 billion). I don't think my estimation [subject to improvement and revision] will be far off if I were to apply this statistics to start a global clothing, bed or shoe factory.

I have applied the same estimation to arrive at 20% of humans are born with an active evil tendency on a conservative basis based on various available evidences. For those who are unable to grasp this estimation I can present a detailed paper to support my point and note it has room for a large margin of error before my thesis failed.
Once again, we could take samples of opinions about 'evil', but then we have only described those; opinions. We have not shown that those opinions are 'true' or 'meaningful'. We could then display our results in the form of a graph, which might - or might not - resemble a bell curve. But it would tell us nothing about 'evil', any more than creating a graph of 'how much people believe in unicorns' would tell us a fact about unicorns.
Note roughly, I stated 20% of humans has an active evil tendency.
I have defined evil on a continuum from 1% to 99.9%.
Petty crimes. lying, cheating, bribing, etc., are rated 1-10% of evilness.
Based on this, surely we can predict 75% of humans are likely to commit petty crimes, lying, cheating, bribing. From this we can say 75% of humans are evil prone.
Instead of 75% I am now using only 20%, i.e. 20% of human are evil prone.
As I had stated even if the % is 5% my main thesis is still effective.

As such there should no issue with my premise, 20% of human are evil prone.
Frankly you are merely making a fuss of it for the sake of fussing.

Here is one example I hope you can get my point;
Say I define “blackness” as in humans as having black pigment color [of various shades] in their skin cells.
If I apply the above on a continuum basis, then
we will have a range from 100% to .01% blackness.
Some ordinary white people may look 'white' but could they have a 5% black pigmented skin cells. Such a person is generally observed as 'white' but technically on a continuum basis we can identify this 'white' person as a 5%-black-person. Thus the inference is at least 90% of humans are blacks, i.e. at least 5%-black-person.

What is ordinary a brown person may have skin cells with 50% blackness, thus technically can be identify as a 50%-black-person.
What is ordinary a recognized as a black person will have 80% and > of black pigmented skin cells, thus technically a 80%+ black-person.

Now if I infer there are 20% of blacks on Earth, my inference will be rationally accurate based on various observations and sampling studies. This is a very save estimate based on the point there there 90% of humans are black, i.e. at least 5%-blackness.

Note the popular 50% full or 50% empty.
It can be 99% full or 1% empty.
It can be 99% empty or 1% full.
The above premises are all valid depending from the point of reference or perspective one is relying on.

The above example is how I arrive at 20% of humans has an active evil tendency on a conservative basis from the estimate that 80% of people are likely to have an evil tendency to commit petty crimes, cheat, lie, bribe and the likes. Note the religion of Islam condone lying [a low % evil].

-- Updated Mon Sep 04, 2017 11:28 pm to add the following --
[b]Lucylu[/b] wrote:I know that there is the B.R.A.I.N initiative in the US and the Human Brain Project in Europe which are plowing millions, if not billions, in to discovering the workings of the brain, probably due to the weight of the dementia crisis! There is interesting work with injecting stem cells in to injured parts of the brain. So there's hope for us yet. It would be nice to have some people live forever, but perhaps not others!
wiki wrote:Inspired by the Human Genome Project, BRAIN [White Houses' project under Obama] aims to help researchers uncover the mysteries of brain disorders, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases, depression, and traumatic brain injury (TBI).
The underlying driver is the Human Genome Project [HGP] and my hope is for the findings of this project [HGP] to understand "Realism [philosophical] is not Realistic".
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Razblo »

Burning ghost wrote:You can send to me in PM.

If you title something saying Phobia is not Phobia then its a problem for some people.
No one has said a phobia is not a phobia. What has been said or implied is 'islamophobia',as a term for describing an attitude or behaviour, is not a phobia.

So such descriptions and arguments relate to this topic when considering what is realistic or realism. These too are terms requiring discussion due to their use in language for describing human thought and action.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

Razblo wrote:
Burning ghost wrote:You can send to me in PM.

If you title something saying Phobia is not Phobia then its a problem for some people.
No one has said a phobia is not a phobia. What has been said or implied is 'islamophobia',as a term for describing an attitude or behaviour, is not a phobia.

So such descriptions and arguments relate to this topic when considering what is realistic or realism. These too are terms requiring discussion due to their use in language for describing human thought and action.
Politically it is used in ways to describe what may, or may not, be a phobia. It quite possible to have an irrational fear of Islam. It is quite possible to have an irrational fear of almost anything. "Terrorism" is also misused frequently to describe anyone on the opposing side (everyone in Syria has been accusing everyone else of "terrorism", including armed forces of all recognized states, such as the US, UK, Turkey, Iran etc..)

It is tiring to have to explain this. It is tiring to request Spectrum's supposed "thesis", but I'll persist in the hope he'll relent rather than bringing the subject up at every opportunity.

note: It is a sorry state of affairs if what Spectrum wants to post is being deleted without him having a chance to edit it as the mod/s request. I don't know if that is the case or not, so for now I resist offering sympathy for veering off-topic.
AKA badgerjelly
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Spectrum wrote: Note my basic hypothesis is easily proven with evidences, i.e.
  • 1. DNA wise all humans [including Muslims] are potentially evil and 20% are born with an active evil tendency.
Let us start there. Suppose I dispute that figure; suppose I claim that '30% are born with an active evil tendency'.

What is the objective empirical observation we could make of each newborn baby, so that we count count its occurrence, and (by inductive reasoning) show that your statistic about its frequency is correct and mine is wrong?

No empirical observation? Then your figure is arbitrary. So you are not doing science.
User avatar
Lucylu
Posts: 676
Joined: October 1st, 2013, 2:32 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Lucylu »

Londoner wrote:
Spectrum wrote: Note my basic hypothesis is easily proven with evidences, i.e.
  • 1. DNA wise all humans [including Muslims] are potentially evil and 20% are born with an active evil tendency.
Let us start there. Suppose I dispute that figure; suppose I claim that '30% are born with an active evil tendency'.

What is the objective empirical observation we could make of each newborn baby, so that we count count its occurrence, and (by inductive reasoning) show that your statistic about its frequency is correct and mine is wrong?

No empirical observation? Then your figure is arbitrary. So you are not doing science.
If I may jump on the bandwagon..Why only 20-30%? I would say up to 100% given the right conditions. Look at the examples of the Germans- an advanced culture, with blood line almost exactly the same as many white westerners, many of whom became Nazis due to the 'banality of evil' (Hannah Arendt, 1963). There's no reason to think that we couldn't all fall under the same sort of desire for a saviour and a scapegoat under conditions of economic collapse and desperate poverty. In fact, it seems to be human nature. Look at the fervent worship of Jesus that came out of slavery? Perhaps oppression/ poverty and 'evil' are co-related. That is why Ghandi's pacifism was so striking.


Or look at the Khmer Rouge where many ordinary young people, particularly impressionable teenagers, routinely carried out torture on their own people, even their own neighbours. Look at hospitals the world over that keep people alive to suffer the most guastly states imaginable, instead of letting them die naturally, in peace (my pet topic :oops: ). But this inhumane treatment is normalized. There is evil everywhere if we want to look. Perhaps some we are completely ignorant of.

I tend to the think people are as nasty as they are allowed to be. I think everyone is capable of murder for instance, if given the right incentive. How many would cheerfully kill a paedophile who abused their child, for instance.

What I don't understand is why Muslims are being singled out here? Either it should be an empirical examination of 'evil' or a research study of Muslims. It seems too muddled to expect to cover both in one thesis.

I think bringing in the idea of an evil gene, when in comes to races or cultures is also dangerous. Many people believe that Black people are genetically predisposed to crime or drug addiction because the stats in the US, for example, show that the prison population has a higher level of African Americans, but the deciding factor is obviously poverty and perhaps cultural oppression i.e. there are more African Americans living in poverty in the US.

Spectrum, is this something you are working on for a PhD thesis currently?
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts". -Bertrand Russell
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Steve3007 »

Londoner:
Let us start there. Suppose I dispute that figure; suppose I claim that '30% are born with an active evil tendency'.
To move things along while the US is still asleep: I think Spectrum used the analogy with skin colour to propose that it wouldn't actually matter whether you say 20% or 30%. He seemed to be using that analogy to point out that when one tries to turn a continuous variable into a discrete variable one has to place a dividing line at an aribrary point on the continuuum. So if you want to take a whole load of shades of brown, or grey or whatever, and classify them as either black or white you have to pick a particular shade, arbirarily, as the dividing line.

I don't know if that helps the debate at all.

What I'm most intrested by is the idea that there could be a "gene for evil". This seems to me about as futile as looking for a gene for love. I suspect that most human traits which appear clearly to be part of human nature - to be genetic - could result in all kinds of different outcomes which we would regard as both good and evil with the subtlest of changes of circumstances.

Take, for example, the tendency of our species to want to follow strong charismatic leaders and be loyal to our own tribe. We can clearly see how that has been one of the factors that has led to evil things happening in the past. But I think it would be ridiculous to conclude that that tendency is in itself evil. You only have to change the circumstances a little bit in order for that tendency to be beneficial. Certain genes "coding for" certain behaviours is not how genetics works, even if the language of genetics sometimes suggests otherwise. Given that "evil" is not even an actual behaviour but an umbrella term for a vaguely defined category of behaviours, it's even more doubtful that genes can be linked to evil.

-- Updated Tue Sep 05, 2017 10:35 am to add the following --

Lucylu:
Why only 20-30%? I would say up to 100% given the right conditions. Look at the examples of the Germans- an advanced culture, with blood line almost exactly the same as many white westerners, many of whom became Nazis due to the 'banality of evil' (Hannah Arendt, 1963) .... Or look at the Khmer Rouge where many ordinary young people, particularly impressionable teenagers, routinely carried out torture on their own people, even their own neighbours....
Yes indeed. Or look at the Rwandan genocide or the bombing of Dresden by the RAF or the sinking of German civilian refugee boats by the Russian armed forces at the close of WWII, or the Napalming of civilians in Vietnam or the treatment of the Rohingya people in Myanmar or the treatment of the animals that I eat for food or the behaviour of the Japanese in China during WWII or the treatment of indiginous people by colonial powers the world over.

I suspect that any attempt to use a reductionist method to try to disentangle all of this evil from all of the good in the world and map evil to evil genes and good to good genes is futile. As a software engineer I'm used to trying to write computer programs in a modular way in which the interfaces between different modules are clearly defined and it's not a big mess of interdependencies where changing one part has unforseen effects on other parts. Human beings are not made like this. We weren't designed, so we are a complex mess of interdependencies.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Burning ghost »

One way to get on track would be to talk about the "ESSENTIALS" of experience with which we claim to hold the concept of "reality" up to. I think the Kantian discussion was a nice place to start.

I know many people who say "everything is relative". If we addressed relativism we may get a better idea of the limits of the concept of both "relativism" and of "realism". Each plays a role due to intersubjectivity (the objective world) and subjectivity, that of individual experience. Sadly both are skewed and distorted ideas left over from Descartes introduction of "dualism".

This seems to me to be the heart of the matter, and necessarily unfathomable. This doe snot stop us striving though. I don't see much use in dealing with tiny fragments of human nature (such as "evil") in order to back-up or refute ideas of relativism, objectivity, realism or subjectivity. I think we can at least see the shadow of the old dualistic division here though with the subjective and relative on one side of the shifting chasm, and with the objective and realism on the other.
AKA badgerjelly
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Londoner »

Spectrum wrote:
Here is one example I hope you can get my point;
Say I define “blackness” as in humans as having black pigment color [of various shades] in their skin cells.
If Spectrum has defined 'blackness' by having this pigment in their skin cells, then that is what blackness means. Anyone who has that pigment is black.
If I apply the above on a continuum basis, then
we will have a range from 100% to .01% blackness.
No we won't. Having a pigment is not on a continuum. You have it or you don't. There is only 'black' (=has the pigment), and 'not-black' (=does not have the pigment).
Some ordinary white people may look 'white' but could they have a 5% black pigmented skin cells. Such a person is generally observed as 'white' but technically on a continuum basis we can identify this 'white' person as a 5%-black-person. Thus the inference is at least 90% of humans are blacks, i.e. at least 5%-black-person.
Now you have drifted. You are no longer working on your first definition of 'black'. You are now mixing 'has the pigment' and 'has a percentage of the pigment'. And where does the 'could have' come in? Either it is the case that they have the pigment or they don't; in any given case we can look and see.
What is ordinary a brown person may have skin cells with 50% blackness, thus technically can be identify as a 50%-black-person.
What is ordinary a recognized as a black person will have 80% and > of black pigmented skin cells, thus technically a 80%+ black-person.
So now you are using 'black' in three ways; (1) the original definition of simply having certain cells (2) the proportion of these cells they have and (3) what they look like.

If you are doing science you cannot do this. 'Black' has to mean something specific.
Now if I infer there are 20% of blacks on Earth, my inference will be rationally accurate based on various observations and sampling studies. This is a very save estimate based on the point there there 90% of humans are black, i.e. at least 5%-blackness.
This is where your lack of precision gets us into problems! Suppose we selected a sample of Africans. If 'being black' is not about how particular groups look then that shouldn't matter.

But if it does, if you need to select the right sample to get the figure, then your results will depend on your choice of sample, i.e. your subjective opinion of who looks 'black', not on what you started by saying it was about, a neutral fact about cell chemistry.

And as a theory it is not falsifiable, therefore not scientific, since if I sampled a selection of people and came up with a different number, you could say it was 'the wrong sample'.
User avatar
Razblo
Posts: 157
Joined: July 11th, 2017, 8:52 am

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Razblo »

Burning ghost wrote:
Razblo wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


No one has said a phobia is not a phobia. What has been said or implied is 'islamophobia',as a term for describing an attitude or behaviour, is not a phobia.

So such descriptions and arguments relate to this topic when considering what is realistic or realism. These too are terms requiring discussion due to their use in language for describing human thought and action.
Politically it is used in ways to describe what may, or may not, be a phobia. It quite possible to have an irrational fear of Islam. It is quite possible to have an irrational fear of almost anything. "Terrorism" is also misused frequently to describe anyone on the opposing side (everyone in Syria has been accusing everyone else of "terrorism", including armed forces of all recognized states, such as the US, UK, Turkey, Iran etc..)

It is tiring to have to explain this. It is tiring to request Spectrum's supposed "thesis", but I'll persist in the hope he'll relent rather than bringing the subject up at every opportunity.

note: It is a sorry state of affairs if what Spectrum wants to post is being deleted without him having a chance to edit it as the mod/s request. I don't know if that is the case or not, so for now I resist offering sympathy for veering off-topic.
Therefore 'islamophobia' is as much a thing as 'terrorismophobia'. Check your psychotherapy models for either.

Those you use 'islamophobia' to beat down critics of Islam ideology should perhaps seek psychiatric help for their freespeechophobia.

-- Updated September 5th, 2017, 7:33 am to add the following --
Burning ghost wrote:

Politically it is used in ways to describe what may, or may not, be a phobia.
Aside from my sarcasm I agree with this point. That it is political. For this reason it is an invalid description.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Steve3007 »

I agree with Burning Ghost that the word "terrorism" is used so often that it has lost most of its impact, but I suppose that doesn't mean it's lost its meaning. It just means that it's been misused. It still means the use of violence deliberately against civilians with the specific aim to intimidate people into acting in certain ways.

I guess "terrorism-phobia" would be an irrational fear of terrorism - i.e. a fear that is out of proportion to the threat. That's where Londoner's "fear or snakes in London" analogy comes in. If you fear terrorism to an extent that is way out of proportion to the liklihood of you actually falling victim to it, it's an appropriate term. Perhaps, judging by this research (below), most American people suffer from both terrorism-phobia and government-corruption-phobia?

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/10/16101 ... 160030.htm

-- Updated Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:50 pm to add the following --

An incidentally interesting and possibly amusing extract from the above survey:

"Most indicative is nearly one-third of respondents believed the government is concealing information about 'the North Dakota crash,' a theory we asked about that -- to our knowledge -- we made up," Dr. Bader continued."

Before visiting the US for the first time this summer my son suffered from gun-phobia because his natural assumption, based on news reports, was that he would be shot dead almost as soon as he got off the plane. He seems to have recovered from that one.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Spectrum »

[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:
Spectrum wrote: Note my basic hypothesis is easily proven with evidences, i.e.
  • 1. DNA wise all humans [including Muslims] are potentially evil and 20% are born with an active evil tendency.
Let us start there. Suppose I dispute that figure; suppose I claim that '30% are born with an active evil tendency'.
If you have some basis and rationality to your 30% claim, then I will readily accept your figures.
What your claim imply is 450 million of Muslims [i.e. 30% x 1.5 billion] has an active evil tendency.
This mean that 45 out of 100 Muslims are in ready mode to commit evils of various degrees on non-Muslims and other Muslims when compelled by the evil laden elements in the Quran and Ahadith.
The above indicate that Islam is a dangerous religion and the proof are the glaring evidences of evils and violence committed by SOME Muslims. Thus we need to do something about Islam.
What is the objective empirical observation we could make of each newborn baby, so that we count count its occurrence, and (by inductive reasoning) show that your statistic about its frequency is correct and mine is wrong?
No empirical observation? Then your figure is arbitrary. So you are not doing science.
As I had indicated my hypothesis is proven by the empirical resultant evils, terrors and evil from Muslims around the World.
Some Muslims are killing non-Muslims merely for the reason they are disbelievers and many other reasons which are deemed as a threat to Islam.
This is Science, i.e. I have the hypothesis and it is supported by empirical evidence of evils committed by SOME Muslims. Plus my theory is predictable and the results are expected to be very accurate.
Note the trend in this statistics of 31,686 -Deadly Attacks Carried Out Since 911. From this trend I can predict the estimated numbers over the next 12 months.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Note the above refer to Deadly Attacks. There are another load of evils of various degrees committed by SOME Muslims all over the World.

As for the potential in newborn babies, we don't have the technology to study the precise neural conditions yet. At present we already have fMRI scanning and imaging that can detect activities in the brain for certain mental problems. When the Connectome Project advances in the future we will be able to determine which baby will have an active potential evil with higher accuracy.

Even now researchers and psychiatrists are able to predict which child is likely to grow with the potential to be a psychopath killer.

At What Age Can We Identify Psychopathy in a Child?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/fu ... y-in-child
wiki wrote:The Stanford marshmallow experiment[1] was a series of studies on delayed gratification in the late 1960s and early 1970s led by psychologist Walter Mischel, then a professor at Stanford University. In these studies, a child was offered a choice between one small reward provided immediately or two small rewards (i.e., a larger later reward) if they waited for a short period, approximately 15 minutes, during which the tester left the room and then returned. (The reward was sometimes a marshmallow, but often a cookie or a pretzel.) In follow-up studies, the researchers found that children who were able to wait longer for the preferred rewards tended to have better life outcomes, as measured by SAT scores,[2] educational attainment,[3] body mass index (BMI),[4] and other life measures.
The above on impulse controls was done in the late 60, despite being based on external behaviors, there were some reasonable results.

With current trend of exponential advancements of knowledge and technology in the field of neurosciences, psychology and related fields of knowledge, I am optimistic in the future we can determine the potential of each baby [i.e. potential active evil tendency]. But such methods will take long time.

In the mean time it would be more effective to deal with external empirical evidence and the ideology of Islam.

-- Updated Tue Sep 05, 2017 11:31 pm to add the following --
[b]Lucylu[/b] wrote:If I may jump on the bandwagon..Why only 20-30%? I would say up to 100% given the right conditions.

Spectrum, is this something you are working on for a PhD thesis currently?
I did specify DNA wise ALL (100%) humans has the potential to commit evil of various degrees. It just like sex, all humans has the potential of a heterosexual sexual drive but some are asexual, transexual, homosexual, etc.
But it unlikely 100% will be born with an active evil tendency.
For lower degree of evil, e.g. petty crimes, lying, stealing, bribing, and the like, we can confidently assert [from own observations, experience and research] 80% [?] of all people are likely to commit evil of lesser degrees. There are various polls for this.
My estimation of 20% denote this 20% has an active evil potential to commit higher degree evils, e.g. rapes, serious crimes, violence, etc.

I am not doing a PhD thesis currently. I have various related projects, e.g. Why Islam [major part] is So Evil and my intent is to present my thesis with PhD standard.

-- Updated Wed Sep 06, 2017 12:52 am to add the following --
[b]Londoner[/b] wrote:
Spectrum wrote: Here is one example I hope you can get my point;
Say I define “blackness” as in humans as having black pigment color [of various shades] in their skin cells.
If Spectrum has defined 'blackness' by having this pigment in their skin cells, then that is what blackness means. Anyone who has that pigment is black.
Yes, even if 1% of the skin cell has black pigment, technically we can identify the person as a 1%-black-person. It would not appear visually to be right, but technically there is nothing wrong to label the person as 1%-black-person if we deliberate on a continuum of blackness.

However if we deliberate on the continuum of whiteness, then that person is a 99% white person.

Here is another example.
Recently the DNA Ancestry Profile Testing is very common.
Let say a person DNA profile has the following results;
  • 1. African 80%
    2. Ethnic XYZ 10%
    3. Jewish 9%
    4. European 1%
[/list]

Although the above person is likely to be 'black' it is not technically wrong to identify him as European, albeit a 1%-European-Person.

Thus in the case of the evil continuum.
I rate genocide as 99% on the continuum while say petty crimes at 10%.
Technically a petty crime is an evil along the continuum, albeit with an evilness of 10%.

If you cannot get it, never mind. We'll get to it some where else.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Realism Cannot Be Realistic

Post by Steve3007 »

Presumably the calculation of the evil coefficient for any given crime would have to take into account circumstances. If the average coefficient for petty theft is 0.1 then presumably the theft of a piece of bread to feed a starving family member (Victor Hugo style) would be less than that. Maybe even negative. (AKA "good"). Whereas the theft of a piece of bread purely because I like the idea of another person being a bit hungry (i.e. sadism) or because my sacred text told me to do it (a relatively rare occurrence I suspect) would attract a higher evil score than the average for petty theft.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021