Judgement is one of the few things we can partially control in our mind.
There are allot of possible pollution sources in sense.
They have less judgement not zero judgement.
I will reply to the rest later on.
Drop the attitude, why could i say it’s pure nonsens, because i already have the knowledge.
Now go read and study, instead of making things up.
Or you were wrong. Labeling something nonsense, by itself, is not constructive. Use the knowledge you have to demonstrate why it is nonsense. This does a number of things. 1) it shares this knowledge 2) it shows the person whose post you are responding to how you interpret their post. They may not have communicated clearly. You may have misinterpreted. If you simply label their post, these kinds of miscommunication will be missed and this kind of confusion happens all the time in philosophical discussions 3) That is what philosophy is. Actually discussing the ideas of the person you disagree with or are otherwise responding to, making it clear what you think is illogical, misguided, unsupported, etc.
Here you attribute and assertion to him he did not make. And you did not explain why the fact that we have biases mean that we should not, nevertheless, do what the OP is suggesting we do. From what I have read of Dan, he seems very conscious that people have biases.
IOW communication as clearly as one can of ones experiences in an ongoing dialogue can be useful. This does not mean that what comes out is perfect or will be perfectly understood. I think what he is suggesting is important is that people not focus on expressing as best they can THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH - which will also be subject to the biases you are concerned about, by start with description.
IOW I don’t think you understood how the OP and his other posts work together and also that you assumed some claims on his part that were not there.
Since you claim to have all this knowledge of cognitive science, why not be a resource to the forum and perhaps yourself learn how to communicate more clearly, rather than seeing youself as have the nearly useless role of giving thumbs down to things you do not like as if this was philosophy or any other useful discipline.
Bias is only 1 aspect of our selves that doesn’t allow to describe ourselves objectivly, it also require actual experience, not all people knows what it’s like to have a gun to the head, to stand in a burning house, to see a person drown in a river, what will they do, how would they react.
Dan I think I agree if you’re saying that it’s more important to have an accurate description of the world than it is to make an accurate judgement about one action or another.
I mean one kinda has to come before the other or we can’t know whether we were judging correctly like…ever.
To know the world and accurately describe it, would take immense knowledge of both social aspects, physics, culture, geology, metrology, etc etc, which neither of us has, it’s an utopian dream.
Um, I think I know a pretty good bit about most of those things. And I think that knowing and describing will come before choosing actions or else your actions will really just be silly a lot of the time.
It’s not that hard to come up with a descriptive account of everything philosophy would need to inventory in order to have a complete, albeit general understanding of the world.
Ooooh, that’s why this forum chases rainbows non stop making the same glaringly ignorent topic year in year out, with the same bunch of glaringly ignorent people who tries to answer the very same question over and over, trying do define, ethics, good and bad, if the chicken or egg came first, etc ,etc. No most here lack basic factual knowledge.
Not even the basic principles in philosophy are observed, just look at my Academy thread where everyone didn’t have the slightest clue.
Yare, you peopole are sooo wise …COUGH!
Hey man it seems like you’ve got some kind of ego problem. Enjoy your day.
Sorry, but sometimes one just gets fed up.
oops wrong thread. i might come back.
My thread has been graced by Smears.
Accurate, good quality description comes from us processing our pure senses in the best way that we can.
This is the first step to quality philosophy, because in philosophy what we need allot, is a clear and complete description of a phenomenon or a process, or an appearance. From the appearance as our foot, we then work the higher parts of cognition which project time, space and chances.
You wouldn’t need immense knowledge of shit. You’d just have to agree on symbols for a formal language and come up with a general enough description that everything could be reduced to it in one way or another. Then you can spread it out and fill in the blanks with all the experiences you can come up with and you’d have a clearer understanding of the mechanics of how all things work and when you decided to make a judgement to serve some end or another you’d have a better chance at success than a person who just didn’t get things fundamental to understanding the world at a philosophical level. Reductionism, functionalism, accepting the fact that we’re forced to do this with language and the necessity of more than language to communicate all the things we can communicate.
Fed up with what? Chasing rainbows? You don’t think that plenty of philosophers have worked on how to come up with abstract ontologies that could in theory include everything and adhere to all the prevailing philosophical positions at one time?
So you think that the greater the clarity the more potential for a more robust or accurate description, and therefore the more likely a judgement which brings about the desired outcome?
You think of going after clear descriptions by way of shoving everything into formal language? Or do you mean it’s better to sharpen your senses and be mindful of all the philosophical rules when taking things in? By that I mean when you’re sitting around reading something about X you make it a point to think of it in your mind as a debate between a bunch of philosophers you’re aware of about what you should think about X. Tear your own assumptions apart and strip your perspective as close down to just a passive perception as you can consciously manage to and just see how easy the world becomes when you stop thinking about it so much and just observe.
Make sure that there aren’t glaring impossible inconsistencies in the things you see that could only be a result of the way you see them.
That kinda thing?
Oh, that’s why philosophers are soooo sought after on the job market? Not?
Well druzuz you have to be a real philosopher doing real philosophy to get one of those jobs. You can’t just get one because you want it or you like it or because you think it might be fun. You have to know what you’re doing.
I didn’t realize how much I learned in college until I started actually reading other people’s posts here a few weeks ago. I mean this shit is killing me man. Is it really this bad or are you just fucking with me?
The job market? That’s your argument?
Am I correct about that? You responded by pointing to the job market for philosophers?
Does that even mean anything? Do you think that’s a relevant criticism?
I just need to know so I can tell whether to take you seriously.
Stop the trolling, use some logic, and face the truth. I’m right, u’r wrong.
I’m just quoting this in case you read it again, get ashamed and try and delete it. Stuff like this should be on record.
No, you couldn’t disprove my claim, all you did was then resort to desperate trolling.
All you can do is troll when you have nothing relevant to say, just look at my Academy thread, where you didn’t grasp my simple point, then resorted to trolling and flaming.
Drusuz 2 - 0 Smears
Disprove what claim?