I think we need to overhaul Philosophy and/or general thinking method IF we want to be rational/reasonable. I say so because I think there is something fundamentally strange (if not wrong) in the methodologies usually used in our thinking, which contain huge amount of (often unexamined) presumptions.
Our mind, our thought is the main tool (along with other elements such as inspiration and any other odd things…) for evaluating, estimating, analyzing, guessing, predicting, and so on.
Just like any tool/method, it might be useful and yield certain result if it’s handled with proper and appropriate manner. However, it may lead us into misunderstanding, confusion, and even into fanatic beliefs without the knowledge and experiences needed for handling it.
When I read the opinions and thought of others, I feel that most of us are thinking within sub/unconscious confinement set/kept by lots of presumptions. And this type of thinking isn’t appropriate in many situations because we would miss entire spectrum of possibilities outside the perimeter of presumptions.
In short, we have strong tendency to think in a pigeon-hole and to believe what we see is the absolute, the truth, the fact completely filling the entire sky.
Among different presumptions, I think the presumption (and the desire underlying it) of the certainty, or more precisely the presumption that it’s utterly doubtlessly normal to attain the conclusion/answer, is the worst offender.
For example, let’s think about theories of the nature offered by some philosophers:
On guy thought everything was made of fire, while another one thought it was water, and another guy concluded it was the air.
Well, we can understand their desire to find out and explain everything by a simple thing. Finding/extracting different properties/qualities in things, connecting them to symbols/words, classifying them, supposing theories regarding them, and drawing conclusion have been natural and normal for most humans, after all.
By connecting incoming information and symbol, by relating various concepts, we have developed so called “knowledge” we know of. So, it’s normal to try to connect, to conclude something to another thing, for us.
We developed like this, most probably as an animal specie, and learned and grown up as an individual, continuously making nerve connections, and creating the network of fixations.
Although it is somewhat normal, this connection/fixation oriented tendency of us can lead us into the pigeon-hole vision. It’s obvious that we can become stiff minded person as we get older if we only connect/fix concepts all the time. Also, we can accumulate lots of inner contradiction if we just kept connecting because this connecting/fixation tendency seems to have the priority over the integrity checking.
Going back to the example of people deducting the universe to a simple element, be it water, air, fire, etc, I think their way of concluding theories indicates that they were thinking out of the desire to make connections more than the desire to think properly. They did so most probably because they were not so aware of how their thought operated and what kind of desires pushed them to question and to think that way.
And I sense the exactly the same tendency among most thinkers, ancient and modern.
Recap (with a bit of additional perspectives):
There is a generalized problem in human thinking method.
Sub/unconscious presumptions keep our thought in a pigeon-hole.
The presumption of attaining conclusion is the worst offender.
This presumption is driven by the desire/instinct/habit of making connections and fixating concepts.
The pigeon-hole effect combined with this impatient tendency to connect/fixate cause many of us to imagine/hallucinate the presence of the truth, the fact, objectivity, absoluteness, etc.
Now, we get bunch of stiff minded people who can become fanatic with mere suggestion that their presumptions might be baseless/unexamined/shaky. And pigeon hole thinkers have strong tendency to overrate (glorify/worship/praise/demonize) things. This overrating tendency is caused by simple mechanical/geometrical nature that things may appear a lot bigger (or even completely filling the vision) in the restricted/tiny pigeon-hole perspective.
Now, as we know the problem and the cause, I think we may be able to tackle the possible solution.
it seems practically impossible to operate cognitively without such presumptions. how could we even?
the question our minds ask is not “is this belief true?”, but “is this belief useful to me?” often, lies are more useful than truths.
this, i think, is just human nature, and probably the nature of life in general, which would incorporate a functional mechanism in the brain/decision making apparatus that prevents it from generating excess waste or loss of energy. life didnt evolve by using its available energy wastefully or needlessly. pideonholing is probably the result of adaptations enabling us to sweep our environment and classify things in an instant, based on good/bad or helpful/dangerous types of criteria. that sort of thinking method isnt probably very well adapted to deep open contemplation of “absolutes” that transcend its immediate needs or conditionings.
of course, youre right that there are added advantages, and perhaps even a survival imperative at this point, for us to “open up” our minds and learn to think more objectively/rationally/carefully/introspectively. but, im just saying that its probably not in our nature, and therefore probably not going to be some grand change in humanity along these lines anytime soon.
but how could any life, any animal operate if it were constantly questioning and doubting its own conclusions and perceptions? we need the feeling of certainty in order to act at all, at least from any perspective other than raw instinct of fight/flight.
indeed, this is very common it seems. we can be glad that we understand these things and can therefore try to surpass them (as much as is possible, for us to try, i mean), but most people dont seem to ever get to this point. i know precious few people who ever think about their thinking, at least according to what they say and do. for myself, a strange sort of coincidental procession of events led me to this sort of philosophizing and realizations of the powers of introspection, and along with that the inherent limitations and risks of failing to introspect properly; yet i dont know if most people ever have such experiences. as i said, judging from what they say and do, it seems doubtful.
it also seems doubtful when you consider that in any other environment other than the cushy first-world domesticated life we all lead, such expendatures of needed energy on non-survival behaviors would be considered wasteful. sure, there is survival advantage in metacognition, maybe, but Maslov would tell us that such levels of thought would not be reached until more basic needs are met. i think this is pretty self evident, although of course there would be exceptions, like people who are more genetically predisposed to metacognition, or the more affluent members of society… but on the whole, finding food/water/shelter/sex doesnt usually require sitting around metaconceptualizing about your deeper thought processes; you dont need to know if its TRUE or ACCURATE, only if it WORKS.
making connections seems to be HOW we think, almost seemingly exclusively. im trying to imagine an aspect or type of thinking that does not make connections, and i cannot. but i think i know what you mean, that such people didnt really care if they thought they were “right”, they were only acting along the lines of their desires which propelled them to endless connection-making for the sake of connection-making.
that is probably right to some degree, but the drive is probably unconscious. maybe thats what underlies creativity, artistic expression, even use of language and/or all behavior and thought. to me, such saturating-behavior of ones environmental possibilities and potentials seems more at root of our behavior and thoughts than any sort of guiding “rule” or “goal” such as to be “truthful” or satisfy a “desire”. we are systems, and systems tend to seek expression of their nature according to the laws of operation within which they move. the desire to make connections is probably so basically instinctive and hardwired that there isnt any practical way to NOT think like that, except maybe certain forms of meditation or maybe brainwashing or extreme conditioning (but even then, we are still making unrealised connections, it seems).
it does seem that a great many of the “thinkers” throughout history spent far too little time thinking about themselves and their own thought-processes, and most of their time thinking about other “stuff”… more time with the content, less with the process, maybe. but once again, thats only normal.
what do you think the solution is? i dont really see one.
people will either ‘wake up’ or they wont. probably based on their genetic constitution, various conditionings and habits they learned throughout life, and the circumstances of their present life, not the least of which is the NEEDS of the present moment… if they need to reach new heights of thought for mental or emotional or social or survival benefit, in a real direct way, then they seem more likely to do so. if they do not have such needs, it seems unlikely, and indeed uselessly wasteful, for them to sit around wondering about their thoughts and trying to introspect on how “true” or “rational” their beliefs are.
thoughts/speech/behavior are social phenomena, even when done by individuals; and as i said in my other thread, all social mechanisms are utilitarian. our thoughts/speech/behaviors are as ‘deep’ or ‘accurate’ or ‘complex’ as they need to be. perhaps we can push past this “need to be”, but then again, maybe not. im sure most of us here on ILP have some sort of ‘philosophy gene’ in us somewhere.
the wish to overhaul philosophy is a basic drive in all philosophers and i would say in all creative disciplines, and as GGG points out it always is a product of conditioning, overcoming and reconditioning. the ultimate truth has already been discovered, its called science. Philosophy has since the greeks not been occupied with that, the truth is out in the open, but it turns out its not interesting enough.
well said. the psychology of most philosophers is such that they are not satisfied with scientific knowledge, even though scientific knowledge is the only real (justified) knowledge we can have, of anything.
fictions are far more entertaining, however, for some reason that i cant decipher…
There is a uniqueness in each of us. Unfortunately society and polity do not accept this disparateness and club us all into one. Each of us has a different potential that has to be expressed and realized in a unique way. In an attempt to establish the equality among men we have suppressed individual peculiarities which are most useful. For, happiness depends on one’s being exactly fitted to nature’s own work. There are many varied tasks in a modern nation. Human types, instead of being standardized, should be diversified , and their cultural differences maintained and exaggerated by different modes of education and life habits. Each type will find its place. Modern society has refused to recognize the dissimilant of the human being and crowded him into four classes – the rich, the politician, the farmer, and the middle class. The clerk, the police man, the teacher, the shop-keeper, or the government employee, and all others, have the same standard of living as the rest of the middle class. Such ill-categorized types are banded together according to their financial position and not according to their individual characteristics. Obviously they have nothing in common. The best of those people who could develop their potentialities are atrophied by the narrowness of their life. In order to promote human progress it is not enough to hire architects, to buy bricks and steel, and to build schools, or establish innumerable universities, laboratories, libraries, and temples. It is far more important to provide those who devote themselves to the things of the mind with the means of developing their personalities according to their innate constitutions. The brutal materialism of our modern civilization is not only opposed to the soaring of intelligence but it also criticizes the nonaffluent gentle weak who look for other things than money and whose ability does not withstand the struggle of life.
Science has no ultimate truths, it has measured facts and creates contingent paradigms to explain and test them. Its practice and methodology, even the criteria by which it assesses facts and builds them into models, have been and still are defined by philosophy.
The questions science asks are framed by two factors: the state of the science in question, and by the philosophy behind it. Criteria of verification, justification and so forth are philosophical matters. We have comprehensive extant legal systems, but there is still jurisprudence to be learnt and done.
My opinion is that the basic drive is very often egocentric, but that’s for another new thread…
Science is the observation and description of what is consistently real. Does truth get more ultimate than that?
I dont think so. No philosophy underlies the discoveries Copernicus and Newton, just curiosity. Yes they were christians, but their understanding of God changed with their findings, not vice versa. Newton went on to claim that gravity was the love of God, but thats personal, their science is not.
Why are you bringing the legal system into this? Not all laws are scientific.
what is the ego in scientific terms? Does it even exist? Psychology is still more philosophy than science.
How does it describe what is real? In what terms? - In terms of the contingent paradigm.
The measured is consistently real, but everything else changes - the observation, the description, the definition and nature of measurement. The mass of Newton’s equations is not the mass of Einstein’s - if you’d lived 150 years ago, would you have claimed Newton’s scientific models were the Ultimate Truth? Would you now claim those of relativity and/or quantum mechanics are? There’s an instrumentalist/realist argument belonging to philosophy…
(In any case, ‘truth’ is not really an absolute concept per se. Is it more ultimately true that 2+2=4 or that mass curves space-time? It’s a sign that a statement corresponds to certain facts; as above, facts are described in a language that they themselves help to define)
Popper was a scientist? Kuhn? The terms within which science works, and methodologies of science-as-a-whole (as opposed to scientific methodologies), have been defined by those philosophers who took an interest. Scientists themselves don’t design science, any more than taxi drivers design cars - different training is needed.
Sorry, that was a digression by way of comparison - law is a field of knowledge that is well-established and documented, but philosophy still has an active and important higher-level role to play in it, in the very definition of what it is - as with science. Philosophers don’t make and amend laws, but they clarify what laws are and should be. But it was just an analogy, not worthy of debate
Very well, it’s a manifestation of the Will To Power
Oh, maybe I was vague on this one.
By “presumptions”, I was referring to presumptions that were held as if they are absolutely sure/certain.
I was talking about Presumptions with baseless certitude, so to say.
And it’s possible to reduce such presumptions. It may happen accidentally, as well as intentionally.
I don;t think so. Well, at least not my mind. My mind works in a way that can be called “debugging mode”, “reverse engineering mode”, or “back tracking mode”.
Basically, when I have a question, I will trace back and try to see what was the sensation/feeling/thought I had just before the question.
In other words, I don’t launch my mind in the search of an answer (and/or trying to make connection/fixation/linkage).
Rather, I will check the source/cause of the question.
Often, questions arise out of negative sensation/feeling/thought. And we can usually obtain an insight or at least multiple perspectives by staying with and observing these negatively perceived stimuli instead of jumping away from them toward mental escapism ( = questioning).
These negatively perceived sensations/feelings/thoughts are (in turn) caused by the (parabolic) array of presumption, most of the time.
Questioning/thinking is more or less mechanical mental habit for many people, and it will resolve if we are aware enough and if we can satisfy the root desire.
There are more technical details, and it’s not easy for most people, though.
I do agree that it’s natural, normal, ordinary way.
Without pigeon-holed awareness, we wouldn’t be able to imagine “separation”. When separation can’t be achieved, we can’t hold any concept/notion no can we identify any specific object, including ourselves.
“Focusing” causes pigeon-hole effect, when the focus is (considered/presumed to be) fixated.
However, we don’t need to cling onto pigeon-holes.
We can simply hold a precise focus when it’s desired and release or change to another focus, afterward.
The problem of human thought comes from excessively sticky focusing. And slow and sticky focus shifting isn’t efficient in flexible and free thinking. It’s similar to sticky or slow gear shifting in a car. It’s a waste of energy, and loss of potential performance.
“Focusing” itself is necessary. But sticky focus is probably the result of badly went adaptation.
However, I consider the universe/nature to be crazy/insane in a way (I mean, everything from particles to galaxies are turning around, spinning, and/or swinging all the time like a mad dog). So, human silliness and sticky focus might well be pretty normal/desirable from the crazy universal/natural view point.
In other words, what I am proposing can be AGAINST nature/existence.
Although I said “we need to overhaul”, I wasn’t talking about "everyone’ in this case.
It’s more like some of you who might share similar view as mine and me.
And I don’t expect/desire any large scale change in humanity, either.
Still, I find current state to be a bit too silly for my personal taste. I can be happier if there are slightly more people who can at least understand relative nature of any notion/logic/theory/etc.
But I don’t blame much because I don’t get burned alive even if I don’t pretend to be a Christian, there days.
The lack of certainty doesn’t mean constant questioning, unlike you’ve presumed.
Also, you may already know that human is pretty plastic and adaptable animal, more than other animals because of our awareness and logical mind.
And we can adapt to lots of negatively perceived inputs, including uncertainty.
Moreover, when/if you get to know the fake nature of most certainties, you would feel more comfortable and at home with natural uncertainty.
It feels good when you loose the notion of “separation”, “1”, and so on.
But it doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t be able to think.
It means we wouldn’t loose the awareness that any perspective in relative and temporally.
There is less lying (to boost the relative matter into the “absolute” flavored delusion/presumption) that the life is less complicated, too.
Well, I used to ask these thing to my friends. And many of them did think about it, at least a bit.
But they abandoned because they were more interested in other things.
I was simply more interested in awareness oriented matter since my first wake up into this world and I have been observing ever since.
It’s a matter of personal preference.
Well, let’s forget about people who doesn’t have enough time/energy to spend. It’s not for everyone.
Well, there is what I may call as “insight” based thinking.
When our thought (or presumption) linkage network is exposed to the emptiness, big chunk of them can disappear as if it’s nuke. And this leave the fresh cut out.
By observing the newly exposed surface, we can understand lots of thing (we can have lots of perspectives).
This is how we can “think” by loosing connections. The destructive inspection of ourselves.
I’ve been using this since I was young, and it’s a pretty efficient way. When really big chunk is gone, I can continue to obtain new surface for years/decades.
And it becomes like an hourglass. The links starts to slip and drops into the core emptiness, nearly continuously, and revealing new surface all the time.
You just have to sit and watch, as the wall/membrane/fibers of presumption linkages (that held your self) die in agony.
Probably it’s for someone who has done enough of making junk connections and then quality connections, and who got bored with this silly linking game/habit.
I think the basic drive is the fear of uncertainty. I say so based on the observation of my own case and that of others.
And what some of us call “creativity” seems to be someone desperately trying to do whatever to forget about the fear of something. Still, It can be interesting, though.
I think It does require slightly different density/focus of awareness. What I suggest IS awareness based thinking.
Certain type of meditation does help.
But I don’t think brainwashing would help. It’s because brainwashing has two phases.
At first, the brain is cleansed of fixations/certainties. Ordinary people would feel very uncomfortable if not in fear without these false certainty providing them false sense of security.
Then, the brain is fed with another set of false absolutes. With the trauma of fresh fear, it jump on and hold the new false certainty very tightly.
In other words, “brainwashing” isn’t very accurate naming.
It’s more of “brain re-tainting”, and the first stage is forceful and often intentionally traumatic “brainwashing” phase.
What I suggest is different. I don’t suggest forceful cleansing, because it doesn’t work.
Cleansing would happen as result of satisfying desires.
So, being honest to own desire is the important element.
And getting used to negative things is another important element.
Both are very simply to say, but not easy at all, because they are against our nature.
I guess only strong desire can pull us through the resistance.
It’s normal because of the directional nature of our focus.
Our awareness is usually projected toward exterior, and this makes our “self” a blind spot.
Preferred method to change this situation is to pull back the awareness. This can be done with practice. Well, lots of practice, most probably.
If you prefer, you can see ourselves like this:
(THis is a very simplified view)
Sub/unconsicous wall/membrane/fiber of presumptions/fixations = outer-ego-membrane —>
junks in conscious area → external existence.
Since our awareness is projected by the wall of presumptions/fixations toward external existence, we can’t be aware of the base.
By pulling back a little (ordinary introspection), we can see conscious area of ourselves.
But it’s a lot harder to pull back further because sub/unconscious area is made up of negatively perceived things and you don;t want to see them, naturally.
You don’t have to be a masochist, but you need to be honestly curious about anything, including negative things,
It doesn’t mean you have to seek odd things. It only means you have to have the strength/stamina to be still/unmoving (or at least come back when you get projected) when something scary/fearful/awful/sad/painful/hateful/annoying comes up.
But it’s not suppressing feeling. It’s to fear honestly when the fear comes up.
It’s not easy at all for most people.
I guess you need to be fed up with own escapism. Jumping away from negatives toward one escapism to another wouldn’t stop as long as these escapism are interesting for you.
Unbending and non-negotiable desire for The Absolute (in your logical mind).
Awareness.
Time, energy, environment.
Maybe there are other required quality.
If you ever get satisfied by fake absolute, your journey is stack at that point.
It’s to know anything positively noticed/identified isn’t The Absolute and not to settle with them.
Then, you have to do the reverse engineering of your self ( and more), since you didn’t come out with detailed user/service/repair/hacking manual nor CD/DVD-ROM when you were born.
I’ll post about the basic steps, later.
Well, we can guess what would happen to “others”, but it’s more interesting to see it by ourselves.
As I said, it’s not easy. It’s not natural. It’s surely painful/fearful/scary. I mean, if you can’t face negatives, you wont be able to understand them, pass through them, nor consume them.
[/quote]
Ouf, I’m not sure about "social’ thing. And I don;t care much.
I think you have a bit too much presumptions around “use”, “utility”, “need” type of notion/value.
By doing so, you can be missing to notice your own desires.
I care more about my own desires (or any desire that happens to manifest, even it seems a bit foreign to me) rather than theories about other people or people in general.
And being totally ego-centric is probably another requirement for thinking out of pigeon-hole.
Being ego-centric enhances ego-using, ego-damaging, ego-fulfilling, and ego-consuming.
Ego-membrane/fiber would be worn out and torn down if you use it a lot.
Do you think science is the ultimate truth?
Well, if you are happy with science/religion/whatever as the ultimate truth, you can stay in the particular pigeon-hole, as long as you like.
Science (when it’s done well), offers justified theory, so to say. But it’s just a theory. It’s valid only within certain (known and unknown) limitation/condition.
And even not really scientific flat earth theory can be pretty accurate/useful within certain condition. Each theory may have its own merit/demerit depending on the application.
Scientific theories are more dependable in certain applications. But religious bullshit theories seem to be still satisfactory for huge amount of people for many many things.
And all of them are mere theories. Scientific theories have been relatively well examined and more or less logical. But I wouldn’t qualify them as “ultimate truth”.
All theories can be seen as fictions, as they are man made concept/model.
And all human notions/concepts can be seen as “fictions”, too.
all i said was that science generates the only “true” (i.e. JUSTIFIED) knowledge. its the only standard we know. so its the best we have.
such as?
what would be an example of knowledge that is justified without respect to certain limitations/conditions?
neither would i. they are just the best we have, and considering the method by which the truths were gained, they are such that we are justified in believing in them from a perspective other than utility or pragmatics, which separates science from religion and philosophy.
i meant deliberate fictions, a desire to create fictions rather than seek more truthful models.
It’s my view that the recognition and examination of our presuppositions IS, fundamentally, practicing philosophy. HOW that’s done is another discussion, or what you called ‘to be continued…’
All that’s possible is to ascertain a conclusion that we can live with…until a better one comes along, anyway. This requires some degree of self-realization, though.
This is the tale of the three blind guys who describe the same elephant in three different ways, no? (A tale which came out of the East, btw.)
You mean an unawareness of how their thought operated? I very enthusiastically agree! (That this isn’t a given is the danged Greeks’ fault, I’m tellin’ ya!)
You quoted entire post of Jakob and then said “well said”.
Didn’t you endorse/agree the entire post of Jakob?
In the post you quoted, Jakob said “the ultimate truth has already been discovered, its called science.”
You added that, after agreeing to his post.
And I guess you are forgetting the degree of “justification” is also relative.
Science does not provide absolutely justified theories.
It provides relatively justified theories that satisfy the need/desire/etc of certain people.
As I’ve told you, non-scientific bullshit can still satisfy certain people and they may find it “justified”.
Flat-earth perspective is still widely employed, and the validity of the model/theory has been justified within certain limitation/condition.
Overrating anything, including science, will create and keep you in a pigeon-hole.
Any theory is built upon premises.
And the premises define the condition/limitation.
Flat earth theory doesn’t work when the distance of the travel, the altitude of travel, etc are greater.
Sphere earth theory doesn’t work when you need even more precision because the earth isn’t a perfect sphere.
You overrated the quality of scientific knowledge.
Moreover, you can’t say which theory is (absolutely) better, because the evaluation of theories is also relative.
For certain given purpose, scientific theory might well be better than religious/philosophical. But it’s just for the arbitrary specific purpose.
Then, your view on science is less fanatic/stiff compared to that of Jakob.
However, since you gave overall approval to his post, I think it indicates you have pretty similar tendency as he has. I don’t think you detected the pigeon-hole perspective of him.
When you can’t even detect these tendency (and the easy one like this) in others, you wont easily detect it in yourself because of the natural outgoing awareness vector of ours. It’s easier to see thing in others, outside yourself (and especially your sub/unconscious self, naturally).
Again, you are presuming that scientific theories are “best”, without any condition/limitation. It’s a typical pigeon-hole perspective.
Any model is a “deliberate fiction”.
But I guess you wanted to say that some people have tendency to create theories/models without any concern for justification.
What I’m insisting in this thread is the tendency to overrate particular theory/model, as if it’s always better, true, valid regardless of situation/application.
Because the pigeon-hole is small, things in it appears bigger, and sometime filling entire vision.
In your case, science and maybe some other things are overrated, and you were probably not so aware of it.
If you were well aware, would have seen the pigeon-hole from outside, so to say, and you wouldn’t have been able to think as you did within the pigeon-hole.
I’ve already a bit in the response to TTG.
It’s based on the awareness. We can’t do reverse engineering of our thought by the thought.
Also, our logical mind is too slow and it’s not always multi-tasking.
When we need to observe what’s happening within emotional mind (where we have lots of presumptions), we can’t use logical mind, at all because of it’s slowness.
Only (not so directional, and more or less passive) awareness can monitor (and log, even without effort nor intention of doing so).
Once observation is done, we can review/play-back what is recorded and see what’s happening in detail from different angle.
Well, I don’t agree. As long as you are going from one false sense of certainty (provided by the provisional conclusion) to another, you are simply stepping from one mind numbing drug to another.
It’s an addictive chain of escapism.
I was thinking about Greek pre-Socrates-period guys.
And it was just an example.
I think human animals are more mechanical than we like to think. And unaware of many many things including own thought process.
In many people, usual thought process is mere “associative linking” ( or following messy chain of associated memory/feeling/sensory links). I don’t really consider I as “thinking”.
Some people mix logical evaluations of varying quality in the “associative thinking”.
It’s rare to see someone thinking with conscious and specific perspectives.
Scientist (or other professionals) may think well within her/his domain. But the quality of thought often degrades dramatically outside their trained domain.
And even these relatively well organized thoughts are usually plagued by lots of overrating coming from pigeon-hole perspective, and by unexamined presumptions.
And I’m saying it can cause problem.
I’m not against making theories/models.
I see the problem that we tend to be too eager and impatient in making connections, drawing lines, reaching conclusion, and also that we tend to overrate theories/models/notions/concepts/presumptions, too much, too sub/unconsciously.
Dwelling in cheaply made small pigeon-holes. We can see our mind like that.
I didn’t talk about “examine every presumption similtaneously”.
I do suggest to be more aware of presumptions so that some (or lots of) them would dissipate (especially if they aren’t reasonable/useful).
But I know it’s a bit too difficult for many of us.
Most of us love to be certain to the point we would even accept substitute/fake certainties, in the form of presumption, for example.
your right. complimenting someone in making a good post means that i necessarily agree with every single specific phrasing and wording that they wrote, with no possibility for interpreting it in my own way.
sorry, youll have to try harder to catch me contradicting myself. but dont give up, i know its a fun game!
once again. i havent said otherwise.
science is justified according to its own framework. the only framework which can possible generate any justified knowledge. so, therefore, “absolutely” (but still conditionally, of course) science does generate truth.
i wonder why ILP members are so stuck on the word “absolute”— can you comprehend this concept without inserting dogma?
i never said nontruths didnt have utility.
are you seriously claiming that flat earth theories are just as justified as modern earth theories, just because both of them generate the same predictions/observations in some very limited circumstances that result from severely limited human perceptions?
the premises establish the conditons of the argument. science is not based on premises or logic, however. it is based on observation and empiricism.
flat earth theory doesnt work because we know it is untrue.
however, that wont stop some people from clinging to it to satisfy their own ego and self-esteem.
wow. nice observation
and i was starting to think you had a point here. silly me.
you didnt answer the question. ill take your inability to provide an example of what i asked as an admission that i am right.
no, you just misunderstand his point.
i didnt say “OMFG I AGREE WITH EVERY SINGLE THING AND PERSPECTIVE AND WORDING OF THOSE THAT YOU SAID WOW YOU ARE 100% CORRECT IN EVERY WAY OMFGGG!”
i said “well said”. maybe you can see the difference. and maybe, if you had asked me to clarify what i meant, i would have been more than happy to provide examples of where i agree with him, and where i interpret differently or would have used a different word.
but much easier and more satisfying to just throw words in people’s faces for an easy character attack. especially easier when you have no regard for a distinction between truth or falsehood outside of pragmatics or utilitarianism.
actually for me, its easier to see things in myself. once i understand myself, i then gain understanding of others.
and once again, feel free to demonstrate a better way of theorizing other than scientifically, or a method of generating knowledge or facts which is more justified.
or dodge the quesiton again.
no. not a model that actively and honestly seeks the true answers to some question. at best, it would be an accidental fiction.
not everyone shares your nihilistic extreme skepticism.
some models and theories are better than others. those scientific theories which are more consistently verfiable and provide superior predictive power are superior to those that do not.
just like logical theories which are noncontradictory or more internally consistent are superior to those which gnerate contradictions or inconsistencies.
just because you habitually underrate and dismiss any claims at knowledge or certainty in order to pretend an easy superiority over others without having to actually understand anything, doesnt mean that people who do not act as you do are overrating anything.
