Does Philosophical Inquiry Lead to Truth?

[Wossname]

by Jack D Ripper » Today, 3:05 am

So, some of the moon appears to be more like Romano cheese and some more like Muenster. I think more types of cheese should be tested, to get a closer match.

This does explain why NASA stopped going to the moon, as it was a very expensive way to sample cheese. I do not think it likely that the quality of the cheese on the moon could be high enough to justify the cost of obtaining it.

The great explorer and creative genius Wallace established that the moon is made of a unique cheese similar to Wensleydale, or perhaps Stilton, but not quite either.

There is even a film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0qagA4 ... QCHRiGSvCV

I think an intrigued China has recently sent a rocket to collect some. I hope this will encourage them to improve the standard of their crackers.

[evolution]

Fine.

I cannot relate to your desire for Hume to be right. When I was young, I wanted to come up with some great philosophy and convince the world of it.

I cannot relate to this. WHY would ANY one want to come up with some, so called, "great philosophy" (a misnomer in and of itself), and then want to convince human beings of a 'world' of some, alleged, "great philosophy"?

What compelled/caused 'you' to want such a thing?

Deciding that Hume was basically right killed that dream.

But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.

Also, you should not feel too much of a need to agree with me. I do not expect it or require it.

[evolution]

Also, you are wrong about that.

You believe I am wrong to say that you should look at other ideas before you conclude that Hume is right about practically everything?

If philosophers before me have already found the truth, then I can discover it through them.

Perhaps. Imagine that it is some really obscure philosopher, who almost no one ever reads, who is right. Will that make any difference for you if you never read that obscure philosopher?

Also, if you read the truth, how will you recognize it?

Most people obviously don't recognize the truth whether they read it or not, as they generally just believe whatever they have been indoctrinated to believe as children.

Although the former part of this sentence may well be the Truth itself, the latter is a PRIME EXAMPLE of an 'excuse' some adults use to continue on with their OWN BELIEFS.

Adult human beings BELIEVE THINGS solely because they just WANT to BELIEVE THINGS.

Blaming 'being indoctrinated' as an adult is just a 'cop out' for NOT being in control of One's 'self'. If an adult cannot stop BELIEVING THINGS, then they obviously do not have control.

https://www.pewforum.org/2016/10/26/lin ... -identity/

I do not have to go through the process of changing the world myself. Granted, a life in which one changes the world has more glory, but is glory something that one should strive for? If I finally reach a place I have long traveled to reach and I am surprised by the result (such as Hume being right), I move forward with what is there in lieu of a winsome sigh and a resignation that my life is therefore pointless.

I am not belittling your dream, and to a large degree, I share it. One day I want to contribute to human knowledge, write books, and mentor people that look up to me, but as I said earlier Hume being right does not change that. Philosophy is also not the only subject one can change the world in if one reaches a dead end there. If I get a degree in mathetics, then I can contribute somewhere else.

It is good to keep one's options open. It is also a good idea to realize that most people are never going to contribute much to human knowledge. Regardless of whether they wish to or not.

Many philosophers essentially do the opposite. This can be known because of their disagreements with each other, that most of them must be wrong. So their great accomplishment in life is to persuade others to be wrong as well. That is what the majority of philosophers have done, insofar as they have convinced others that they are right. Of course, by writing crap, many convince some others that what they have written is crap, but that is not generally the intention.

[evolution]

by Jack D Ripper » Today, 4:33 am

Seth_Gibson wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:09 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑Yesterday, 1:48 am
But, one minor quibble with what you are stating. Hume being right is not saving you so very much time, as you still need to look at what others have had to say, and need to evaluate those other things.
Also, you are wrong about that.

You believe I am wrong to say that you should look at other ideas before you conclude that Hume is right about practically everything?

Seth_Gibson wrote: ↑Yesterday, 5:09 pm
If philosophers before me have already found the truth, then I can discover it through them.

Perhaps. Imagine that it is some really obscure philosopher, who almost no one ever reads, who is right. Will that make any difference for you if you never read that obscure philosopher?

Also, if you read the truth, how will you recognize it?

Most people obviously don't recognize the truth whether they read it or not, as they generally just believe whatever they have been indoctrinated to believe as children.

This is a point, I think, that some people do not properly grasp.

At school, a teacher might explain that person A proposed theory X based on evidence E. But later the theory was shown by person B to be inadequate because of evidence F, and person B therefore proposed theory Y as a better theory. At which point it is tempting as a student to scratch your head in exasperation and ask why your teacher bothered to make you learn theory X in the first place. Wouldn’t it have been better and saved everyone’s’ time just to teach theory Y and ignore clearly inadequate theory X?

Why not just teach that ALL 'theories' are, essentially, just a guess or presumption about what COULD BE, and NONE OF THEM, necessarily, express what ACTUALLY IS?

And teach them that theories are usually just based on one's own previously held views, assumptions and beliefs, anyway, which could be totally and utterly WRONG from the outset. Like, for example, the obviously WRONG and INCORRECT big bang theory was based upon the view that there was 'a beginning', which originated from the presumption that EVERY thing was created from One Thing. Although EVERY thing is created from One Thing you can see just how quickly and easily things can be led astray.

The answer, of course, is no it wouldn’t.

Are you suggesting that misleading human beings over tens, centuries, or thousands, of years could not have been done better and did not waste people's time?

I agree that SHOWING how teaching WRONG and INCORRECT 'theories' over years and years REVEALS just WHY this is the WRONG thing to do.

Knowledge is a construct and it is important that people understand the process by which it is constructed.

And learning just HOW misconstruction of knowledge was AND is formed teaches what NOT to do.

Gaining the ABSOLUTE True, Right, and Correct knowledge can be obtained almost immediately, but learning HOW to achieve this comes off "the backs of others".

That involves the ability to evaluate argument and evidence. It is no good if a teacher says “The moon is made of green cheese” and you write that down and leave believing you now know what the moon is made of. You would ideally ask, “Why do you claim the moon is made of green cheese? What is your evidence”? And you need an understanding of how to evaluate that evidence.

But the, so called, "experts" do NOT YET even KNOW how to 'evaluate', so called, "evidence". A great deal of "experts" make a guess/presumption what, so called, "evidence" leads to, and then just say, "the evidence says 'this' [whatever the 'this' is]. For example, the so called, "experts" claim that 'red shift' is "evidence" that the Universe is expanding. These, so called, "experts" have so easily and all to quickly jumped to a "conclusion" based on a WRONG evaluation of what the actual 'findings/readings' were.

'Evidence', itself, does NOT need 'evaluating', as 'evidence' points to some 'thing'. 'Evidence', itself, is self-pointing and so does NOT need 'evaluating'. Findings, outcomes, data, et cetera, however, can be 'evaluated' to 'mean' some thing. And, if 'arguments' are sound AND valid, then they speak for themselves as they are IRREFUTABLE, literally, (in) any way.

So when people make claims about the world or the people in it, be they scientists, psychologists, philosophers or whoever, a good thing to ask is why should believe that claim.

Adult human beings do NOT need to BELIEVE ANY thing. In fact if adult human beings BELIEVE things, then what they say/claim afterwards could be nothing more than just an attempt to back up and support that BELIEF, which may have NO relationship to actual Truth and Correctness.

And there is not much point in asking if you do not know how to evaluate the reply. In fact, understanding that you often don’t know how to evaluate the reply can sometimes be a spur to new learning (if the topic interests you). If you are ever good enough, and I never have come close, you may one day present new theories or arguments to the world that change or challenge the way people think. That could be a hallmark of genius. But even so, when you do, other people around the world will jump all over your theory and will likely, eventually, explain why it was wrong. New and better theories will emerge and knowledge will progress. A hallmark of Hume’s genius is the way in which his theories have withstood such scrutiny for so long.

So if, Seth, as you say, you want, one day to contribute to human knowledge, in whatever field, it will probably be helpful first try to understand what it is we think we already know, and why so much of it is probably inadequate or wrong. Good luck with that.

[Wossname]

[

by evolution » 21 minutes ago

Why not just teach that ALL 'theories' are, essentially, just a guess or presumption about what COULD BE, and NONE OF THEM, necessarily, express what ACTUALLY IS?

Yes that is my point, and in my experience that is, by and large, what is taught. That understanding is a key part of the scientific process. If the experts believed that they knew “the truth” there would not be so many of them trying to improve on our current, flawed understanding. It is generally religious belief that claims to have a handle on absolute truths in my experience. But people may have different experiences here.

by evolution » 27 minutes ago

'Evidence', itself, does NOT need 'evaluating', as 'evidence' points to some 'thing'. 'Evidence', itself, is self-pointing and so does NOT need 'evaluating'. Findings, outcomes, data, et cetera, however, can be 'evaluated' to 'mean' some thing. And, if 'arguments' are sound AND valid, then they speak for themselves as they are IRREFUTABLE, literally, (in) any way.

Not sure what you mean here. Reality does not come labelled as such. We have our perceptions of it, but we have to interpret these, and try and make sense of them as best we can do we not?

So called scientific truths are not claimed as certainties. They are always contingent and subject to amendment or change. You speak at times with a sense of certainty. As if you are sure about how things really are. Can I ask where that certainty comes from?

[evolution]

Well, obviously, yes. It is a matter of degrees though. You convinced me, correct? I cannot be the only one you convinced during your life on this planet. I think you already know that, but you should not undersell your contribution, as it does not have to be an all or nothing deal. We cannot convince "The World", but we can convince a part of it, and in that sense, you definitely convinced the world of Hume's philosophy.

No, your terminology is simply not correct. Convincing someone in the world that Hume is correct is not convincing the world that Hume is correct.

world

NOUN

1 (usually the world) The earth, together with all of its countries and peoples.


1.1 (the world) All of the people and societies on the earth.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/world

Convincing one person, or even ten thousand people, is not convincing all of the people of the world.

Maybe it was only among academics, but philosophy has a way of trickling down through the cracks to the proletariat. People who know almost nothing about philosophy know who Plato is.

I rather wonder about that claim. If they do recognize the name, what, precisely, do they attach to it?

If you remember from Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Plato and Aristotle had a massive influence on the catholic church and the papacy through people like Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Whether that is good or bad is beside the point. What matters is that when people engage in scholasticism, they preserve the thinking of the greats, even if only in a watered-down Neoplatonism, as in Plato's case when Plotinus wrote for the masses.

I cannot but wonder what Plato would think of what was done with his ideas. In my opinion, Plotinus took what was worst in Platonism and ejected the best parts. And as for Augustine, the use of Platonic ideas by him is even more removed from what Plato envisioned. If I had written what Plato wrote, and saw people doing with my philosophy what they have done with his, I would be angered to the point of finding it very difficult to express how angry I was. I would regret having written anything at all.

We have the power to do the same with Hume if we choose to.

I think you are greatly overestimating what is possible. Plato is the most influential philosopher in the history of the world. Plato has influenced, in one way or another, virtually every philosopher since his time. So, indirectly, he has influenced everyone who was influenced by one of them.

Yes, most people are probably like that. I read about that phenomenon when I was a Christian in middle school deciding whether to believe in God prior to becoming an agnostic/atheist. I ended up concluding that I had no reason to disbelieve all the other religions, and so I gave up Christianity.

I will give you a reason to disbelieve most religions. All but at most one. They all contradict each other, so it is impossible that they could all be right.

This is a claim of YOURS, and not yet a proven fact. Or do you have proof of this?

Would you like to provide some examples of what you SEE and BELIEVE are 'contradictions', and then discuss them?

In fact, at most, one religion is right. And this goes down to the most exacting level; it is impossible for even both Catholicism and Lutheranism to both be right.

Have you ever considered that it is just 'yours' and "others" interpretations where the 'contradictions' actually are, and lay?

And although I have heard some refer to Lutheranism as "Catholic lite", the difference is important, according to the religions in question.

And what is the actual 'difference', which you see, and see as being, supposedly, 'important'?

It used to be, and I think it still is the case, that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In other words, if that is right, then choosing "Catholic lite" gets you eternal damnation in hellfire.

What do you think or believe 'eternal damnation in hellfire' actually means and refers to?

Allow me to suggest that what you think or believe could be completely totally and utterly WRONG.

Now, perhaps you meant that you had no more reason to disbelieve any of the other religions than the one you were raised to believe, and that is likely close to true. (I say "close", because some religions are more ridiculous than others, as, for example, Mormonism is more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, because it was founded by a main who was charged with fraud, and instead of facing a trial, he illegally left the state. Also, of course, he added to the absurdities of ordinary Christianity with his additional absurd "revelations" from god, making it even more ridiculous.)

Is not EVERY, or just about EVERY, religion based on 'revelations from God?

If a religion is 'ridiculous' because of it coming from 'revelations from God', then to you EVERY religion that is based on 'revelations from God' would just be 'ridiculous', correct?

Was not the human being named "jesus" charged with some 'thing'?

But, of course, you are right in the sense that they all use the same kinds of "evidence" to support themselves, which means that the kinds of evidence used must be inadequate, since all of the false religions have that same kind of evidence.

You mention here "false religions", which religions are 'true religions', to you?

(As noted before, as a matter of logic, which makes it known with certainty, at a minimum, all but one of the religions is false, though they could all be false).

LOL So, it is, allegedly and supposedly, KNOWN WITH CERTAINTY that ALL but one of the religions are false. What are you basing this claim on, EXACTLY?

If you remember from my original post, 72% of beliefs can be predicted by looking at the internal components of the brain. I also said that I do not know whether anyone can root out superstitious beliefs, including philosophers and scientists. Except now I am the one trying to convince you that most people are not completely hopeless, despite being illogical.

On this point, you do seem to have switched sides, as it were.

Virtually everyone in my family is a conservative Christian, so things can get heated around the dinner table, but I still speak my mind and the situation invariably works out reasonably well (I try to be diplomatic). The trick is to argue from the other side's premises, instead of one's own. Maybe I am just lucky, but they do listen.

You are fortunate. Some people, when they have done as you have done, have been thrown out of their homes and disowned by their parents. (No, I am not referring to me on this.)

OBVIOUSLY, those ones have NOT done what the one known as "seth_gibson" has said they have done.

So people will believe strange things for illogical reasons, but one can still influence them as I did. Like I said before, not all people are illogical. If one can convince reasonable academics, then the academics can convince the people who read, and who are likely to have more power. Those people can influence public opinion, whether directly or indirectly.

To influence people does not entail that one influences them in the way intended. Particularly when it gets watered down and passed through so many different people.

Also, not all academics are reasonable people. You might want to read about the Sokal Hoax.

https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

Depending on where you go to school, and what teachers you have, you might be more successful if you ignore everything I say to you and just go along with whatever nonsense any of them say to you. Some have made a successful career out of writing nonsense.

This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of 'black and white thinking'.

[evolution]

Your premise that it is good to evaluate other ideas is correct. I was arguing that your conclusion about not saving time is wrong because if he is right, and assuming I realize this, then I can attempt to spread the word about Hume. I do not have to be so much of a polymath genius to get things done.



If it is some obscure philosopher, then you are right. I would not find out the truth. Hume is not an obscure philosopher though. I do not have an answer for how to recognize truth, as I have not read enough into it to make a judgement. You know better than I do. Do you believe that it is possible to recognize the truth?

I believe that some people can recognize the truth. But that might just be excessive optimism on my part. Most people seem to imagine themselves not only being capable of recognizing the truth, but of having it. When it comes to the kinds of truths that we are discussing, most people are wrong. Again, we know this because of the fact that they contradict each other, so most people must be wrong.

Just because two people say things that contradict each other, this does NOT mean that both must be wrong, obviously.

One, in fact, could be right ALL of the time, even though what they say is contradicted by some one else EVERY time.

Ah, but you already said you did not want to define truth because it is too troublesome.

Recognizing it and defining it are two different things.

If you can NOT define 'it', then you could NEVER recognize 'it', obviously.

Just like recognizing that someone is conscious is quite different from giving a precise definition or explanation of what consciousness is.

How do you KNOW that someone is conscious then?

If you, "yourself", can NOT even give a precise definition of some 'thing', like 'consciousness', then you obviously do NOT YET KNOW what the 'thing' IS, EXACTLY.

Also, the way you have TWISTED and DISTORTED this, does NOT work in what you are 'trying' so hard to argue for.

Using TWO VERY DIFFERENT WORDS and then 'trying to' propose what you have here is just very faulty reasoning.

Some of these questions I am asking might be answered by Hume's Enquiries. Is this correct?

If you are hoping for a lengthy discussion of what truth is, then you will be disappointed, as he does not waste his time on that subject.

I am open to changing my direction in life given that it is necessary. Hopefully, I do not end up convincing others of crap.

I hope that. However, some have made a good amount of money convincing others of crap. Usually, one gets paid more for crap. That is true not just in philosophy, but in other things as well. For example, it is easier to make money as a phony faith healer (surely a redundant phrase) than it is to make money in debunking phony faith healers.

A significant part of the reason why crap is more profitable is that it typically involves telling people something they want to hear. People find the truth unpleasant, and prefer to believe comforting lies.

As EVIDENCED and PROVEN here.

Many go so far in this as to disown reason, and just believe what they want to believe.

As can be CLEARLY SEEN above.

Not only that, but many regard it as a virtue to not bother with evidence, as is demonstrated by the advocates of "just having faith" (i.e., believe something without evidence), who claim that that is better than going with the evidence. As a general rule, people are irrational and do not like it when they encounter someone who points out their irrationality.

Adult human beings can be VERY irrational, as EVIDENCED and PROVEN ALREADY.

[evolution]

[

by evolution » 21 minutes ago

Why not just teach that ALL 'theories' are, essentially, just a guess or presumption about what COULD BE, and NONE OF THEM, necessarily, express what ACTUALLY IS?

Yes that is my point, and in my experience that is, by and large, what is taught. That understanding is a key part of the scientific process.

If this was true, then WHY do so many, so called, "scientists" say that 'the Universe began with a big bang', and/or that, 'the Universe is expanding', especially when BOTH are just 'theories'?

(Which by the way are, obviously, totally wrong AND incorrect. But this is another matter).

If the experts believed that they knew “the truth” there would not be so many of them trying to improve on our current, flawed understanding.

But science and, so called, "scientists" do NOT deal with thee Truth anyway.

"Scientists" are those who are still looking for answers.

It is generally religious belief that claims to have a handle on absolute truths in my experience. But people may have different experiences here.

by evolution » 27 minutes ago

'Evidence', itself, does NOT need 'evaluating', as 'evidence' points to some 'thing'. 'Evidence', itself, is self-pointing and so does NOT need 'evaluating'. Findings, outcomes, data, et cetera, however, can be 'evaluated' to 'mean' some thing. And, if 'arguments' are sound AND valid, then they speak for themselves as they are IRREFUTABLE, literally, (in) any way.

Not sure what you mean here.

Okay.

Reality does not come labelled as such.

If 'Reality' is NOT labeled as 'Reality', then what is 'Reality' labeled as, EXACTLY?

And, what does the label 'Reality' refer to EXACTLY if that label does NOT refer to 'Reality', Itself?

Maybe if you were sure what I meant there, then you would NOT say things, which NEED 'clarification'.

We have our perceptions of it, but we have to interpret these, and try and make sense of them as best we can do we not?

'Reality' speaks for Itself. This can be CLEARLY SEEN, HEARD, and UNDERSTOOD.

How 'you' interpret 'things' is WHY 'you' are still looking for answers regards 'Reality', Itself.

So called scientific truths are not claimed as certainties.

So then these, so called, "scientific truths" may not be 'actual truths' AT ALL, correct?

If this is correct, then calling these 'not truths', 'truths' seem like a very absurd, illogical, ridiculous, and non sensible thing to do.

But if this was not correct, then what is actually correct?

They are always contingent and subject to amendment or change.

So, again we are back at the start where they are just guesses and/or presumptions about what COULD BE. Which, AGAIN, could be completely and utterly TOTALLY WRONG.

To me, all this assuming and guessing seems like a great waste of time. Especially considering that thee ACTUAL Truth of things can be CLEARLY SEEN and UNDERSTOOD, almost immediately, anyway. Like, for example, what the Universe ACTUALLY IS, and how It ACTUALLY BEHAVES.

You speak at times with a sense of certainty.

YES I DO. That is; when I AM CERTAIN.

As if you are sure about how things really are. Can I ask where that certainty comes from?

From thee Truly OPEN Mind, which 'resurfaced' because of Honesty and because of wanting to change, for the better.

This CERTAINTY was and is verified by KNOWING what can be agree with, and accepted.

[Wossname]

by evolution » Today, 10:10 am

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 8:45 am
As if you are sure about how things really are. Can I ask where that certainty comes from?
From thee Truly OPEN Mind, which 'resurfaced' because of Honesty and because of wanting to change, for the better.

This CERTAINTY was and is verified by KNOWING what can be agree with, and accepted.

I think I can know some truths, e.g. my phenomenology such as whether or not I am in pain at the moment.

Still, I am less sure about other things than you seem to be.

How do you know your truly open mind is truly open open? And can you suggest how can I know if you speak truth or if you are not, in fact, some self-deluded maniac?

[Seth_Gibson]

Well, obviously, yes. It is a matter of degrees though. You convinced me, correct? I cannot be the only one you convinced during your life on this planet. I think you already know that, but you should not undersell your contribution, as it does not have to be an all or nothing deal. We cannot convince "The World", but we can convince a part of it, and in that sense, you definitely convinced the world of Hume's philosophy.

No, your terminology is simply not correct. Convincing someone in the world that Hume is correct is not convincing the world that Hume is correct.

world

NOUN

1 (usually the world) The earth, together with all of its countries and peoples.


1.1 (the world) All of the people and societies on the earth.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/world

Convincing one person, or even ten thousand people, is not convincing all of the people of the world.

I can use that definition if it is more accurate.

Maybe it was only among academics, but philosophy has a way of trickling down through the cracks to the proletariat. People who know almost nothing about philosophy know who Plato is.

I rather wonder about that claim. If they do recognize the name, what, precisely, do they attach to it?

Not much, but his name being prevalent is symptomatic of his influence on thinkers, and subsequently his affect on what we believe today.

If you remember from Russel's History of Western Philosophy, Plato and Aristotle had a massive influence on the catholic church and the papacy through people like Saint Augustine, and Saint Thomas Aquinas. Whether that is good or bad is beside the point. What matters is that when people engage in scholasticism, they preserve the thinking of the greats, even if only in a watered-down Neoplatonism, as in Plato's case when Plotinus wrote for the masses.

I cannot but wonder what Plato would think of what was done with his ideas. In my opinion, Plotinus took what was worst in Platonism and ejected the best parts. And as for Augustine, the use of Platonic ideas by him is even more removed from what Plato envisioned. If I had written what Plato wrote, and saw people doing with my philosophy what they have done with his, I would be angered to the point of finding it very difficult to express how angry I was. I would regret having written anything at all.

It took me much longer to get through the section on catholic philosophy for Russel's history as I found it comparably less interesting. Not much original thought is there, at least in the way Russel portrayed it. But hey, at least they preserved the questions Plato attempted to answer. If they did not care, Plato might have become some obscure philosopher, and a large portion of the western canon would never develop as a response to his arguments.

We have the power to do the same with Hume if we choose to.

I think you are greatly overestimating what is possible. Plato is the most influential philosopher in the history of the world. Plato has influenced, in one way or another, virtually every philosopher since his time. So, indirectly, he has influenced everyone who was influenced by one of them.

That is the point I am making. Plato influenced philosophers, which influenced society in the long run. Are you arguing that Hume could not do the same thing if we attempt to communicate his philosophy?

Yes, most people are probably like that. I read about that phenomenon when I was a Christian in middle school deciding whether to believe in God prior to becoming an agnostic/atheist. I ended up concluding that I had no reason to disbelieve all the other religions, and so I gave up Christianity.

I will give you a reason to disbelieve most religions. All but at most one. They all contradict each other, so it is impossible that they could all be right. In fact, at most, one religion is right. And this goes down to the most exacting level; it is impossible for even both Catholicism and Lutheranism to both be right. And although I have heard some refer to Lutheranism as "Catholic lite", the difference is important, according to the religions in question. It used to be, and I think it still is the case, that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In other words, if that is right, then choosing "Catholic lite" gets you eternal damnation in hellfire.

Now, perhaps you meant that you had no more reason to disbelieve any of the other religions than the one you were raised to believe, and that is likely close to true. (I say "close", because some religions are more ridiculous than others, as, for example, Mormonism is more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, because it was founded by a main who was charged with fraud, and instead of facing a trial, he illegally left the state. Also, of course, he added to the absurdities of ordinary Christianity with his additional absurd "revelations" from god, making it even more ridiculous.)

But, of course, you are right in the sense that they all use the same kinds of "evidence" to support themselves, which means that the kinds of evidence used must be inadequate, since all of the false religions have that same kind of evidence. (As noted before, as a matter of logic, which makes it known with certainty, at a minimum, all but one of the religions is false, though they could all be false).

Yes, I meant that I had no reason believe my religion over all the others. I concluded what you just did, that only one religion could be true. I thought "but if I choose the wrong religion due to pure chance, it is not fair to send me to hell. What kind of 'righteous' divine punishment is that?" Of course not all religions are like Christianity in that way, but it was enought to turn me off to religion entirely.

If you remember from my original post, 72% of beliefs can be predicted by looking at the internal components of the brain. I also said that I do not know whether anyone can root out superstitious beliefs, including philosophers and scientists. Except now I am the one trying to convince you that most people are not completely hopeless, despite being illogical.

On this point, you do seem to have switched sides, as it were.

Virtually everyone in my family is a conservative Christian, so things can get heated around the dinner table, but I still speak my mind and the situation invariably works out reasonably well (I try to be diplomatic). The trick is to argue from the other side's premises, instead of one's own. Maybe I am just lucky, but they do listen.

You are fortunate. Some people, when they have done as you have done, have been thrown out of their homes and disowned by their parents. (No, I am not referring to me on this.)

So people will believe strange things for illogical reasons, but one can still influence them as I did. Like I said before, not all people are illogical. If one can convince reasonable academics, then the academics can convince the people who read, and who are likely to have more power. Those people can influence public opinion, whether directly or indirectly.

To influence people does not entail that one influences them in the way intended. Particularly when it gets watered down and passed through so many different people.

Also, not all academics are reasonable people. You might want to read about the Sokal Hoax.

https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

Depending on where you go to school, and what teachers you have, you might be more successful if you ignore everything I say to you and just go along with whatever nonsense any of them say to you. Some have made a successful career out of writing nonsense.

I just read it. There is definitely an incentive to stroke the ideological preconceptions of the people scrutinizing one's work. In Thinking: Fast and Slow it is shown that when someone disagrees with you, areas of your brain light up with pain, essentially creating cognitive strain. This makes you more likely to catch grammatical mistakes in the work of people you disagree with. Also, the fact that Sokel used the terminology of the academics reduced the cognitive strain even further, because familiarity makes people comfortable. This phenomenon is known as the mere exposure effect.

The key, though, is that in order for academics to contribute in some way, they must argue that someone from before is wrong without creating cognitive strain. Value is created where disagreement arises if the academic can show how the theory can be improved or replaced. When scientists have a model that describes the world, the newly accumulated evidence is integrated into that model, such as the theory of relativity. When the result of an experiment is not compatible with a theory like relativity (a quantum mechanical result, for example), the experiment is viewed with suspicion, and it is not until a new theory comes along like quantum mechanics that the results are generally accepted.

Philosophy is more chaotic than that because there are multiple theories of reality that run in parallel, and none of them are universally recognized as objective, unlike with science. This makes me think that I could definitely get away with writing nonsense, as long as I "improve" upon the nonsense of others, while making sure to not to offend them.

Part of all this comes from a video I watched which talked about how to create value with academic writing. If everyone on this forum watched this video, then it would be a lot easier to have discussions:

https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM

[Seth_Gibson]

If it is some obscure philosopher, then you are right. I would not find out the truth. Hume is not an obscure philosopher though. I do not have an answer for how to recognize truth, as I have not read enough into it to make a judgement. You know better than I do. Do you believe that it is possible to recognize the truth?

I believe that some people can recognize the truth. But that might just be excessive optimism on my part. Most people seem to imagine themselves not only being capable of recognizing the truth, but of having it. When it comes to the kinds of truths that we are discussing, most people are wrong. Again, we know this because of the fact that they contradict each other, so most people must be wrong.

Ah, but you already said you did not want to define truth because it is too troublesome.

Recognizing it and defining it are two different things. Just like recognizing that someone is conscious is quite different from giving a precise definition or explanation of what consciousness is.

We have to have a ballpark estimate of the definition though, otherwise, we do not know what we are recognizing, right? If we need an estimate, then to what extent do we need a definition? Take a farmer who lives with his family and tends to his farm, but has no understanding of philosophy. Does he recognize the truth that loving one's family is a virtue? When you say people can recognize truth, do you mean recognize truth in the case of the farmer, or in the case of a philosopher like Hume who nakedly "senses" truth for what it is in an abstract sense? One would not say that the farmer has an abstract theory to explain why loving one's family is a virtue, even though lives according to what is ethically correct. Would you respond by saying that he "recognizes" that it is a virtue because of this empathy, and shared humanity with his family? In other words, a precise definition is not required because the foundation of ethics is empathy. Except it might still be required for things outside of ethics based on what I just said.

In the case of recognizing consciousness, it was easy to see why we did not have to have a precise definition of consciousness. My transhumanist brother is not switching out my Mom's brain any time soon. But when it comes to truth, it is not so easy as "judging by behavior". How does one recognize the truth in a broad sense?

Some of these questions I am asking might be answered by Hume's Enquiries. Is this correct?

If you are hoping for a lengthy discussion of what truth is, then you will be disappointed, as he does not waste his time on that subject.

I am open to changing my direction in life given that it is necessary. Hopefully, I do not end up convincing others of crap.

I hope that. However, some have made a good amount of money convincing others of crap. Usually, one gets paid more for crap. That is true not just in philosophy, but in other things as well. For example, it is easier to make money as a phony faith healer (surely a redundant phrase) than it is to make money in debunking phony faith healers.

A significant part of the reason why crap is more profitable is that it typically involves telling people something they want to hear. People find the truth unpleasant, and prefer to believe comforting lies. Many go so far in this as to disown reason, and just believe what they want to believe. Not only that, but many regard it as a virtue to not bother with evidence, as is demonstrated by the advocates of "just having faith" (i.e., believe something without evidence), who claim that that is better than going with the evidence. As a general rule, people are irrational and do not like it when they encounter someone who points out their irrationality.

Convincing others of crap is not really possible universally, though, because if someone says something that could never be construed as plausibly true, then people will treat it like the crap that it is. People are unlikely to believe you if you say the moon is cheese, even though that sounds like a wonderful prospect. With science, there is an agreed-upon objective truth because the truth is empirically observable, and so humans are forced to see it irrespective of how they feel. With philosophy, though, yes it is much harder to discern the truth from the garbage. Maybe once we have developed sufficiently sophisticated tools to root out the superstition, and confirmation bias that permeates academia, we can actually recognize the truth. That is, as philosophy becomes more like science, we get closer to the truth.

[Seth_Gibson]

Not much, but his name being prevalent is symptomatic of his influence on thinkers, and subsequently his affect on what we believe today.

I meant effect, not affect.

[Jack D Ripper]

No, your terminology is simply not correct. Convincing someone in the world that Hume is correct is not convincing the world that Hume is correct.



https://www.lexico.com/definition/world

Convincing one person, or even ten thousand people, is not convincing all of the people of the world.

I can use that definition if it is more accurate.

I rather wonder about that claim. If they do recognize the name, what, precisely, do they attach to it?

Not much, but his name being prevalent is symptomatic of his influence on thinkers, and subsequently his affect on what we believe today.

I cannot but wonder what Plato would think of what was done with his ideas. In my opinion, Plotinus took what was worst in Platonism and ejected the best parts. And as for Augustine, the use of Platonic ideas by him is even more removed from what Plato envisioned. If I had written what Plato wrote, and saw people doing with my philosophy what they have done with his, I would be angered to the point of finding it very difficult to express how angry I was. I would regret having written anything at all.

It took me much longer to get through the section on catholic philosophy for Russel's history as I found it comparably less interesting. Not much original thought is there, at least in the way Russel portrayed it. But hey, at least they preserved the questions Plato attempted to answer. If they did not care, Plato might have become some obscure philosopher, and a large portion of the western canon would never develop as a response to his arguments.

Although I agree that medieval philosophy is less interesting (and less good) than other philosophy, I don't think it was very useful in the rediscovery of the ancient philosophers. In fact, I think it is mostly the opposite, as Christians had a habit of burning books they did not like. This is why, for example, we have so little of what Epicurus wrote. But, perhaps, they did help make Plato more influential, as they did not burn his books and tried to adapt some of his ideas to Christianity (well, that started long before medieval philosophy, as Augustine was doing that, but many continued that tradition). It also may have helped Aristotle be influential, as they liked him, too. So we have a lot of Aristotle and a lot of Plato that we can read today.

I think you are greatly overestimating what is possible. Plato is the most influential philosopher in the history of the world. Plato has influenced, in one way or another, virtually every philosopher since his time. So, indirectly, he has influenced everyone who was influenced by one of them.

That is the point I am making. Plato influenced philosophers, which influenced society in the long run. Are you arguing that Hume could not do the same thing if we attempt to communicate his philosophy?

I am saying that no one is going to have as much influence as Plato, not that no one can have the same kind of influence.

I will give you a reason to disbelieve most religions. All but at most one. They all contradict each other, so it is impossible that they could all be right. In fact, at most, one religion is right. And this goes down to the most exacting level; it is impossible for even both Catholicism and Lutheranism to both be right. And although I have heard some refer to Lutheranism as "Catholic lite", the difference is important, according to the religions in question. It used to be, and I think it still is the case, that the official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In other words, if that is right, then choosing "Catholic lite" gets you eternal damnation in hellfire.

Now, perhaps you meant that you had no more reason to disbelieve any of the other religions than the one you were raised to believe, and that is likely close to true. (I say "close", because some religions are more ridiculous than others, as, for example, Mormonism is more ridiculous than mainstream Christianity, because it was founded by a main who was charged with fraud, and instead of facing a trial, he illegally left the state. Also, of course, he added to the absurdities of ordinary Christianity with his additional absurd "revelations" from god, making it even more ridiculous.)

But, of course, you are right in the sense that they all use the same kinds of "evidence" to support themselves, which means that the kinds of evidence used must be inadequate, since all of the false religions have that same kind of evidence. (As noted before, as a matter of logic, which makes it known with certainty, at a minimum, all but one of the religions is false, though they could all be false).

Yes, I meant that I had no reason believe my religion over all the others. I concluded what you just did, that only one religion could be true. I thought "but if I choose the wrong religion due to pure chance, it is not fair to send me to hell. What kind of 'righteous' divine punishment is that?" Of course not all religions are like Christianity in that way, but it was enought to turn me off to religion entirely.

On this point, you do seem to have switched sides, as it were.





You are fortunate. Some people, when they have done as you have done, have been thrown out of their homes and disowned by their parents. (No, I am not referring to me on this.)





To influence people does not entail that one influences them in the way intended. Particularly when it gets watered down and passed through so many different people.

Also, not all academics are reasonable people. You might want to read about the Sokal Hoax.

https://physics.nyu.edu/sokal/weinberg.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... ax/572212/

Depending on where you go to school, and what teachers you have, you might be more successful if you ignore everything I say to you and just go along with whatever nonsense any of them say to you. Some have made a successful career out of writing nonsense.

I just read it. There is definitely an incentive to stroke the ideological preconceptions of the people scrutinizing one's work. In Thinking: Fast and Slow it is shown that when someone disagrees with you, areas of your brain light up with pain, essentially creating cognitive strain. This makes you more likely to catch grammatical mistakes in the work of people you disagree with. Also, the fact that Sokel used the terminology of the academics reduced the cognitive strain even further, because familiarity makes people comfortable. This phenomenon is known as the mere exposure effect.

The key, though, is that in order for academics to contribute in some way, they must argue that someone from before is wrong without creating cognitive strain. Value is created where disagreement arises if the academic can show how the theory can be improved or replaced. When scientists have a model that describes the world, the newly accumulated evidence is integrated into that model, such as the theory of relativity. When the result of an experiment is not compatible with a theory like relativity (a quantum mechanical result, for example), the experiment is viewed with suspicion, and it is not until a new theory comes along like quantum mechanics that the results are generally accepted.

I don't think that is right. They accept the results when it is repeated by others who get the same results. They don't wait until there is a theory to explain it to accept the results of the experiment. In fact, it is the acceptance of the results that drives the work on a theory to explain it. If they did not accept the results of the experiment, then they would have no need to explain the results of the experiment.

Philosophy is more chaotic than that because there are multiple theories of reality that run in parallel, and none of them are universally recognized as objective, unlike with science. This makes me think that I could definitely get away with writing nonsense, as long as I "improve" upon the nonsense of others, while making sure to not to offend them.

Part of all this comes from a video I watched which talked about how to create value with academic writing. If everyone on this forum watched this video, then it would be a lot easier to have discussions:

https://youtu.be/vtIzMaLkCaM

There are a couple of things driving the nonsense that gets published in academia. Part of it is based on the "publish or perish" approach to hiring at universities. At many schools, teachers who do not publish do not get tenure and instead get fired. So they have to publish something or they perish in academia. So, if they have nothing worthwhile to say, they can write something unintelligible instead, that they get published, and it keeps administrators happy who then give them tenure. So, for that aspect of the problem, it is an institutional problem rather than something academics particularly desired to do.

Also, there are many prejudices that people have, and appealing to them works for getting things published. Some of the people running "scholarly" journals are idiots who believe a great deal of nonsense themselves, and so one can get published in those journals primarily by writing garbage. That was exploited in the Sokal Hoax.

Many people don't seem to think about it this way, but when you don't understand something, it could be because you are not smart enough to understand it, or it could be because you did not have the right preparation for it (as, for example, being presented with the last proof in Calculus III before you took Calculus I), or it could be because it is nonsense. This last option is one that people often are reluctant to suppose is the case, but it is a very real option.

[Jack D Ripper]

I believe that some people can recognize the truth. But that might just be excessive optimism on my part. Most people seem to imagine themselves not only being capable of recognizing the truth, but of having it. When it comes to the kinds of truths that we are discussing, most people are wrong. Again, we know this because of the fact that they contradict each other, so most people must be wrong.




Recognizing it and defining it are two different things. Just like recognizing that someone is conscious is quite different from giving a precise definition or explanation of what consciousness is.

We have to have a ballpark estimate of the definition though, otherwise, we do not know what we are recognizing, right?

Yes and no. We have to have some ideas about it, certainly, but there are things that don't have to be in the ballpark at all. For example, when it comes to consciousness, for recognizing that someone is conscious, it does not matter if one believes that it is the result of an immaterial soul attached to a physical body or if one is a materialist who believes that it is the result of brain activity or if one believes something else regarding it.

If we need an estimate, then to what extent do we need a definition? Take a farmer who lives with his family and tends to his farm, but has no understanding of philosophy. Does he recognize the truth that loving one's family is a virtue?

Is that a truth?

But that is not the kind of thing that we are discussing, is it?

When you say people can recognize truth, do you mean recognize truth in the case of the farmer, or in the case of a philosopher like Hume who nakedly "senses" truth for what it is in an abstract sense?

You seem to like phrasing things in ways I do not like. Hume thought about human understanding and wrote the relevant section of A Treatise of Human Nature about it, which was slightly revised for An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Part of that came from reading what others had to say about human understanding, and reacting to those other things, accepting bits of what he read, and rejecting other bits of what he read. He presents his reasoning in his books. I would not describe that as that he "nakedly 'senses' truth for what it is in an abstract sense". I think you have been reading too much Nietzsche.

One would not say that the farmer has an abstract theory to explain why loving one's family is a virtue, even though lives according to what is ethically correct. Would you respond by saying that he "recognizes" that it is a virtue because of this empathy, and shared humanity with his family? In other words, a precise definition is not required because the foundation of ethics is empathy. Except it might still be required for things outside of ethics based on what I just said.

The farmer can have virtues whether he understands them or not. He also could have a mistaken interpretation of whatever virtues he may possess.

Of course, a farmer could be a brilliant philosopher as well as a farmer; the two things are not mutually exclusive.

In the case of recognizing consciousness, it was easy to see why we did not have to have a precise definition of consciousness. My transhumanist brother is not switching out my Mom's brain any time soon. But when it comes to truth, it is not so easy as "judging by behavior". How does one recognize the truth in a broad sense?

I don't think that is the right way to approach the issue. Earlier, I stated (in response to someone else):

...
If this does start a discussion of what truth is, I will be in the bar somewhere else. I will, though, leave one parting thought, and that is that there are different kinds of "truth", which is illustrated with the following example:

Imagine someone says, "Santa Claus lives at the South Pole." Someone else replies, "No, that isn't true; Santa Claus lives at the North Pole."

Now, the statement "Santa Claus lives at the North Pole" is, in one sense (at least), true, in that it fits the story of Santa Claus, unlike the claim about the South Pole. In another sense, though, it is not true, because there is no Santa Claus, so he does not live anywhere.

But, if any of you pursue this, do not expect me to be a major participant. I don't like being unduly irritated while drinking Scotch. I can be irritated enough with other conversations.

How you would tell that the statement is true (in accordance with the story) is very different from how you would tell the statement is false (as there is no Santa Claus).

Or, to give new examples, how you know some statement in geometry is true is quite different from how you would know that it is true that you are at home (if you are at home). Which is different again from how you tell whether it is true or not that your mother loves you.

So, there is no single method of recognizing what is true.


This is not new with me:

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the
subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike
in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts.
Now fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit
of much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought
to exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give
rise to a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people;
for before now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and
others by reason of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking
of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly
and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the
most part true and with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions
that are no better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type
of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to
look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature
of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable
reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific
proofs.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.mb.txt

If you are hoping for a lengthy discussion of what truth is, then you will be disappointed, as he does not waste his time on that subject.





I hope that. However, some have made a good amount of money convincing others of crap. Usually, one gets paid more for crap. That is true not just in philosophy, but in other things as well. For example, it is easier to make money as a phony faith healer (surely a redundant phrase) than it is to make money in debunking phony faith healers.

A significant part of the reason why crap is more profitable is that it typically involves telling people something they want to hear. People find the truth unpleasant, and prefer to believe comforting lies. Many go so far in this as to disown reason, and just believe what they want to believe. Not only that, but many regard it as a virtue to not bother with evidence, as is demonstrated by the advocates of "just having faith" (i.e., believe something without evidence), who claim that that is better than going with the evidence. As a general rule, people are irrational and do not like it when they encounter someone who points out their irrationality.

Convincing others of crap is not really possible universally, though, because if someone says something that could never be construed as plausibly true, then people will treat it like the crap that it is. People are unlikely to believe you if you say the moon is cheese, even though that sounds like a wonderful prospect. With science, there is an agreed-upon objective truth because the truth is empirically observable, and so humans are forced to see it irrespective of how they feel.

With the natural sciences, that tends to be the case, but not so much with the social sciences, which are much more variable in how much rigor is applied. So with the particular example you mention, yes, you are correct, it will be difficult to convince people that the moon is made of cheese.

With philosophy, though, yes it is much harder to discern the truth from the garbage. Maybe once we have developed sufficiently sophisticated tools to root out the superstition, and confirmation bias that permeates academia, we can actually recognize the truth. That is, as philosophy becomes more like science, we get closer to the truth.

Don't get your hopes up too high for developing such tools:

https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/wrongthoughts.html

[evolution]

by evolution » Today, 10:10 am

Wossname wrote: ↑Today, 8:45 am
As if you are sure about how things really are. Can I ask where that certainty comes from?
From thee Truly OPEN Mind, which 'resurfaced' because of Honesty and because of wanting to change, for the better.

This CERTAINTY was and is verified by KNOWING what can be agree with, and accepted.

I think I can know some truths, e.g. my phenomenology such as whether or not I am in pain at the moment.

But who and what, EXACTLY, is the 'I'? And,

Is it REALLY the 'I', which is, supposedly and allegedly, 'in pain'?

Could a MORE TRUTH be there is a feeling, or a sensation, 'of pain' felt within the human body, which comes from, or arises from, 'nerve endings'?

Is who and/or what 'this' is that feels or senses this pain actually 'in pain' or is just the body, with its nerve endings, which is 'in pain', and the one that is self-recognized as 'I', or more correctly, 'I' just acknowledging what the body, which that 'i' is in, is sensing or feeling?

Being able to answer these questions, properly and correctly, is make far easier when how the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK is fully understood.

Still, I am less sure about other things than you seem to be.

Okay. This is TOTALLY understandable.

How do you know your truly open mind is truly open open?

First, there is NO "your" 'mind'.

Secondly, thee One and ONLY Mind is Truly OPEN, ALWAYS. How I KNOW the Mind is Truly OPEN is verified when LOOKING BACK and OBSERVING human history, hitherto, and what human beings have been able to imagine, invent, plan, and create, and KEEP DOING is solely because of a Truly OPEN Mind, and because of a brain, which is able to gather, and store, information/knowledge.

And can you suggest how can I know if you speak truth or if you are not, in fact, some self-deluded maniac?

How 'you' can KNOW is by remaining OPEN, and by just LOOKING AT the words I put in front of 'you' from a Truly OPEN perspective and NOT LOOK only from that information/knowledge, which has already been obtained, and which is already stored within that brain, within that body.

LOOKING at things from the brain ONLY one tends to make ASSUMPTIONS based on PREVIOUS EXPERIENCES, which I refer to as APE thinking, which all to EASILY and SIMPLY can lead one, completely, astray.

To VERIFY if thee actual Truth of things is being SEEN/HEARD, then one just needs to FIRST, LOOK from A [thee] Truly OPEN Mind, AND THEN use past experiences to VERIFY. When one comes to a KNOWING that EVERY one else could agree with, and accept, what is being SEEN/HEARD, THEN one KNOWS that thee ACTUAL Truth of things is being spoken.

One example is; If one speaks the words. 'We do NOT need money to live'.

Now, LOOK AT this, from what I have explained above, and SEE if this is thee ACTUAL, irrefutable, Truth of things. Or, if this is just some thing else.

If you like try BOTH ways and SEE if 'you' come up with two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT/OPPOSING conclusions?

Let us know how you go. And, if there is ANY thing that you would like to challenge, or ANY thing more that you would like clarified or explained, then I would be more than happy to oblige.