I think they mean something different when they say "exist" than I, and apparently you, do. — T Clark

I think, actually, they are nuts. Not on everything, but on this part.

I see what you're getting at, but if I had written what you just did, I would have written "philosophical" every time you wrote "metaphysical" — Pattern-chaser

Since philosophical includes metaphysics I would obviously agree with those sentences, but I see no reason, for example, to say that cosmology is obviously dealing with metaphysics. Every epistemology is making claims about what is, and somewhere in it, at least as axioms, there will be metaphysical claims. I mean, what is physicalism but a metaphysical position. Or the idea that there are natural laws. That is also a position in metaphysics.

Maybe it 'belongs' with science. And then there's metaphysics, which is the cache of tools we use to investigate vague stuff, stuff where there's no evidence, and no chance of finding any, and so on. The stuff I'm describing here, as I do my (poor) best to define/describe metaphysics, is inaccessible to science, and cannot be dealt with by science — Pattern-chaser

Tell that to the cosmologists. Tell it to Einstein. That space and time are relative, that's metaphysics and a couple of decades after Einstein's math and theory, it was confirmed empirically. Newton's univerise and Einstein's have metaphysical differences.

I'm referring to that branch of philosophy that considers truth, beauty, the nature of Objective Reality, and so on — Pattern-chaser

Some of these things impinge upon science peripherally, but none of them are central to science. — Pattern-chaser

I really cannot see how the nature of objective reality does not impinge on, and is not central to, the project of science, especially physics. Truth also. I didn't realize anyone was including beauty in metaphysics - I'd put that in Aesthetics - but I do realize that metaphysics' definition varies. It always seems to include ontology and science has a lot to say about ontology.
ar
And if you want to argue that the scientists are not talking about ding an sich, that is what things are like without us percieving them, I disagree wholeheartedly. They often write and describe what they think exists regardless of our perception. When they write about black holes, they are writing about what there is even if we did not exist.

But let's make sure we're not talking past each other. I think scientists consider themselves to be investigating objective reality and science for them is dealing with objective reality, for them. That is part of their and its philosophy. Now you can come in and argue that really they are examining appearances and so all their models and theories and data are really about appearances, but that is you aiming your philosophy at theirs and arguing what is really going on. Different scientists might, to varying degrees, agree with parts of this, but they all think they are modeling actual reality, out there.

And then, regardless, even the concept of appearances and what we can and cannot know is metaphysics type issues. No one is metaphysicsless. You cannot have opinions about reality wihtout explicitly or implicitly assuming and asserting metaphysical positions. And science is founded on its metaphysical positions. Right down to the idea of natural laws. Or that one can gain knowledge about reality, to physicalism, and then on up to specific theories and ideas about what is going on.

I am, though, mixing the this thread with the one about scientists not accepting philosophyr or looking down on it. They don't realize it's in their bloody bones, metaphysics also.

I am not, however, arguing that science is metaphysics or metaphysics is science. Just that they overlap and then also that they are not quite the same kind of category.

This is true, if one considers the fact that no empirical science whatsoever, is ever done that isn’t first thought. Even if all empirical science is itself fundamentally grounded in observation — Mww

Yes, the word 'observation' is key. Or to look at what 'empirical' means.

So the question really boils down to.....is a non-empirical science possible. — Mww

It's not science. It's something else. Even if it is possible, it's not what eliminative materialists are doing or basing their conclusions on.

Perhaps the only thing we can all agree on (even if it's for different reasons) is that metaphysics is not a science? — Pattern-chaser

But that's a bit like saying science is not a language. Well, yes, but uses one. Or Science is data. Well, yes, but...Science is not perception. Science is not logic. Science is not epistemology.
I am sure their are other examples. Where you have categories that overlap and also are members different kinds of categories.

Physics and specfically cosmology is really focusing a lot on metaphysics. All science is based on specific conclusions in metaphysics. Paradigmatic shifts that have taken place and in all liklihood will take place will have metaphysical aspects. Any scientist trying to decide what a model is and what it means about future research or what anomolies mean in relation to models, is likely mulling over metaphysical type stuff.

I believe some eliminative materialists contend that “consciousness” doesn’t even exist, that it is folk psychology. — NOS4A2

Which is such a bizzarre idea. All their conclusions are based on, well, experience. Or, they are based on direct intuition. Either way, since they would still have to experience the intuition and be aware of it, ALL their conclusions are fruit of a poison tree.

There's one reality, but many possible explanations? — Pattern-chaser

Which is already a kind of metaphysical assumption. And if we take in multiverse type models, it might be, in a sense or more than that, incorrect. But futher we assume that we all circle with our senses a thing, but perhaps it is vastly more malleable than that.

OK, sure. I also think that people view things as if they have a bird's eye view, rather than being people in situ, waking up and depending on memory and phenomenology and their own intuitive sense of how well these things work in them and so on. But even without getting into that, the positivists eat their own tail, yes.

Sure, but I think it's a problematic and metaphysical definition.

Schlick offered one of the most illuminating definitions of positivism as every view "which denies the possibility of metaphysics" (Schlick [1932-1933], p. 260). Accordingly he defined metaphysics as the doctrine of “true being”, “thing in itself” or “transcendental being”, a doctrine which obviously "presupposes that a non-true, lesser or apparent being stands opposed to it" (Ibid). Therefore in this work he bases the positivism on a kind of epistemology which holds that the only true beings are givens or constituents of experience.

which is a metaphysical viewpoint.

But if you look at the subject from the perspective of positivism, then it’s meaningless as a matter of definition. Why? Because positivism starts with the axiom that ‘metaphysical propositions are meaningless’. — Wayfarer

Then positivism will end up being self-contradictory, since it makes a number of ontological assumptions and conclusions. You really can't avoid that unless you just stay silent. Even the explicit and implicit ideas around 'sense experience' are ontological ones and thus fall under metaphysics.

Surely if scientists found philosophy useful for achieving their scientific goals and purposes, they would embrace it. — Brainglitch

Is that conclusion based on scientific research? If not why should anyone accept it?

Thus, anyone whose opinion it is that scientists need philosophy, or would better able to achieve their goals, or would choose better goals, needs to present compelling arguments for those opinions. — Brainglitch

Scientists have philosophies. The issue is how good is it? Could an investigation of philosophy improve some facet of their studies? Might it help them see ungrounded assumptions`?
All scientists have some ideas about epistemology and they likely have opinions, perhaps some not fleshed out in the least, about the affects of semantic issues on their work, how paradigms might inhibit areas of research, about the use of models and more. Like everyone else they have philosophies and not just about their professional work. But since they have not been trained, for the most part, in philosophy, it is more likely some of this is negatively affecting their work. Perhaps making them never consider certain lines of inquiry due to problematic assumptions. Does this mean they need a formal study of philosophy? No. Most have work and can probably get by or do fine if they don't do a formal study of philosophy.

Think this is more to do with a wounded reaction to the term's use rather than anything to do with the systemic properties of privilege. — fdrake

I don't think that's true. A lot of the current political ideas on the Left now, I worked with back in the 80s in one of the subcultures where these were the norm. This included gay and lesbian rights, transperson's rights and existence, ideas like white priviledge, heteorsexual priviledge, male priviledge, etc. It was my job, as in responsibility as part of a salaried position, to look into situations where problems arose around these issues and also to develop communication around the issues from the institution. The policies were focused on practical consequences and then also what constitutes racism or sexism or heterosexism in interactions. I was in regular meetings, where specific instances were brought up, discussions of policy took place and more exploratory, what to we all think type discussions also. The idea of priviledge was often used as an accusation and as a self-accusation. IOW people not in the advantaged category and people in the advantaged category would both, often, use the idea of priviledge as an accusation or aspersion. The latter group against themselves. Now those who used it against themselves were obviously on the lefty, progressive side of things. IOW if white, they realized a lot of the things you said in your penultimate post. But they definitely were adding in a kind of original sin aspect. And a lot of the aimed uses of 'priviledge' by disadvantaged category people were meant as damning - to varying degrees - accusations.

Not surprising of course and I know from my own categories how I can react to others who have advantages over me. Human stuff. But there nonetheless and problematic. You can't expect people to be perfect with concepts, especially if they've had a shit time. On the other hand it still pays to point out the problem. Can this pointing out become it's own problem? absolutely. One could really see this aspect when people with different kinds of priviledge got into it, though this was a small phenomenon. And the shaming and countershaming would start flying. The white lesbian and the straight black man each trying to see who is on higher ground. who gets to be less ashamed.

I am not in the front lines any more, so I readily admit my impressions are hardly scientific. but it seems to me 'white priviledge' is still used, often, and with regularity, to include a shaming. And not jsut a shaming about, say, the ignorance of a white person about the advantages they have had, but a shaming for being white. Or someone else for being a man, per se.

You can see that in attitudes towards police, differences in religious practice, attitudes towards education and communication styles. But all these differences in perspective; of how people form opinions and what opinions they form; make more sense upon the background of social context. — fdrake

I certainly agree with the epistemological argument. IOW I agree that what it argues is the case. I don't agree that it's what people mean or at least I didn't. I thought it was the sociological they mean, though I suppose this could be the trickle down meaning.

like the wikipedia opening...

White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that in some countries benefits white people over non-white people, particularly if they are otherwise under the same social, political, or economic circumstances.

I thought common usage at least was focusing on the advantages of being white. Of course it is an advantage to trust certain institutions - if that trust is rational - but that hasn't seemed like the focus, at all, of people's use of the term.

I also agree with much of what you describe in the sociological argument,and this is part of what I think is used to create shame when the term is used. Often it is not used this way. It is used simply to point out the advantages, often not thought about, of being white. But often it seems to be used as a shaming, a j'accuse on the individual level.

It's not my fault if someone decides to read my post. That's their choice. — khaled

You set a causal chain in motion. You made a choice to try to convince people of something. If you do this this leads to consequences, and ones which they cannot predict before they read it.

They are aware there is a chance each post may make them depressed yet they read — khaled

They may or may not be aware of that. Just as when I leave the house I may or may not be aware that someone may accidently run over my foot or intentionally rob me. The fact that people are aware of what might happen, does not change the fact that deciding to drive is takign the risk you might hurt someone, you might drive unsafely, the act of driving might lead to risks for other people. You might not be as good a driver as you think. We all take risks for others. And these others may have children already.

Further it is not just that they might get depressed. They might make choices that you are certain are fine - like not having children - w hen in fact your arguments, while seemingly immaculate ot you, might not be. You should know that you are potentially fallible, as we all are. But you risk changing people's minds in ways that involve rather large decisions. If you happen to be wrong, then the risk, even at the level of an individual, is not a small risk. Yet, you take this risk. It might affect the spouses, however, of your readers, even if the reader makes this choice knowing they might get depressed.

Secondly putting forward antinatalism also risks saving someone from tremendous harm as well which makes doing so fine by me — khaled

Right, and you just opened the door to taking risks. You went from being a deontologist about actions, to being a consequentialist. And once you are a consequentialist, we get to be. We get to take risks with the lives of others, just as you do. And we get to do it based on our values. And here we have a gap, because our values are not the same. And of course you get to argue your values. But in general in what I have seen in the thread, the anti-natalists present themselves as having a commandment. Thou shalt not take risks of harming others who cannot consent to it. But you do that when you think it serves a greater good.

Join the club.

This obviously does not mean you agree with the natalists on their whole position.

But on that one piece you cannot continue to present a purist deontological line. An asbolute moral line.

One of the saddest things about privilege is that the privileged usually come to believe they deserve it, — unenlightened

This is the problem. The solution is not to shame everyone into thinking that, say, not having a parent who beats you makes you less moral, good, entitled, then someone whose parents did this - or suffering any other kind of individual or category oppression - but
rather to undercut that sense of deserving. That people understand that they were in a different situation and this afffected their success and when they compare themselves with others and judge others that this is a large factor.

I'm content to leave this here - you? — tim wood

Sure, there are so many things you do not explain or give concrete examples for when I ask and you often do not respond to core points I make. I am glad that Kant's argument, whatever it was, satisfies you. I don't see the argument here. You produce quite a bit in response. I appreciate the effort you put in, but you just don't seem to be responding to me or completing your own thoughts Yes, let's leave it here.

I am not by any means sure that I'm making an epistemological claim. From you I get it that without care in speech an auditor can almost always find alternative meanings based on alternative understanding of the words used. So, if I say the sum of the interior angles of all Euclidean triangles is 180 degrees, you can then observe that there are non-Euclidean geometries where they don't. Sometimes that's useful; sometimes that's counterproductive; sometimes destructive, and sometimes intended to be destructive. — tim wood

It's still not clear to me why you keep bringing in math. It seemed like you were saying that certain things were simply true in math, period. I pointed out that what you presented as simply true - absolute, universal, objective - were not that. Perhaps this was a tangent on my part. Just doing my best to understand what the point was/seemed to be and point out what would be the flaws if that is what you meant. Even here it seems like you make no attempt to clarity. You tell me that my act might even be intended to be destructive or acts like mine. But then you don't explain how or why or how I misinterpreted your math analogies, if that's what they were.

The point I am making is that if a thing is so in some regard - and we're not simply mistaken - then with respect to that circumstance, it is absolutely so — tim wood

That is extremely abstract. Could you apply that to morals in some specific way. If it is meant to apply to morals.

Doesn't matter who likes it or doesn't, buys it or doesn't, or how anyone votes or how many votes there are, or how many fallacious arguments are made against. — tim wood

At this rarified abstract level I agree. People's beliefs do not necessarily change the truth of something. IOW if something is objectively true, then even if someone does not agree that it is, it doesn't change the fact that it is objectively true. However universal means that every has that value. A universal value is one that is held by everyone. By definition. It can even be wrong, but as long as it is held by everyone, it is universal.Which means that the following is confused

I go back to T Clark, above
Morality is a matter of human values. To the extent those values are universal, I guess you could say they're "absolute." But to the extent they are cultural and personal, they are not. — tim wood

Are you prepared both to claim and defend the claim that there are no universal values? — tim wood

Their might be a value that everyone shares. Perhaps some extremely harsh punishment of someone with no benefits to others. That value would then be universally held. This would not mean it is absolute or objective. It does not mean that those people will necessarily agree on much else or that all or even some conflicting ideas of the good can be resolved.

I have not been convinced there is a way to determine objective or absolute values.

And I don't see this as having much bearing on the topic of the thread. I would happily claim that there is no universal value in relation to suicide. I think there is likely evidence in this thread. There is certainly a wide variety of values on the subject out there. If you are skeptical I can find a few examples of differing values on suicide.

* "Should all suffering/harm be avoided?"

My answer is "No." (At least not on how broadly folks seem to use the words "suffering" and "harm.") — Terrapin Station

And I would add that putting forward anti-natalism and trying to convince others of it risks causing harm. Not just in causing guilt, but if a successful campaign, could convince people to choose something that in fact the anti-natalists might be wrong about. IOW they should know they are fallible, and since their positive seems to rest on this idea of being perfect about not causing or risking harm for others, they fail their own criteria.

* "Is it wrong to do something that puts other people at risk?"

My answer is "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on the risk, the exact situation, etc. — Terrapin Station

Ibid.

* "Is it wrong to do something against someone else's consent?"

Again, my answer would be "No," certainly not categorically. It depends on what we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

Ibid.

It is incredibly easy to say something like "you shouldn't presuppose anything at all", and still somehow sound reasonable, while it simply isn't. That is the core problem with philosophy. Nothing to painstakingly test. Nothing to painstakingly prove. So, where is the barrier to mere bullshit? Where are the anti-spam measures? — alcontali

It is certainly true that one can say a lot of stuff in philosophy, get it published somewhere, and it may not be useful or insightful. The anti-spam measures are not as cut and dried as in science and one must, as an individual, do work to sort stuff out. Philosophy is not about directly coming to facts, but about generating ways of looking at things, finding assumptions, creating ideas. Then it takes time to see which ones are useful. IOW the reader must work over time or allow others to work over time. One doesn't I hope read philosophy to come away with packaged units of truth or likely to be true data - as one might when reading what one's peers are publishing in in nature. But that's a criticism based on treating philosophy as science, which it is not. A scientist reading the philosophy of science or a cosmologist reading works on metaphysics or ontology or language philosophy, would not be, one hopes reading as if reading scientific papers. But rather they would be reading it to challenge their own assumptions, to see other ways to view things, to get at how language might be skewing their view of things. Not taking in chunks of pretty darn reliable information, but improving their own minds. Getting at being better thinkers. Now there might be direcly applicable ideas at times, but that's not really the purpose. And it would be a category type error to dismiss philosophy for not being science.

Hence, it is trivially obvious why scientists do not want to discuss with people who want to talk about the philosophy of science but who seem to be incapable of doing anything worth mentioning, in science. It is just too easy, peasy to do that, and that is why they should not take anybody seriously, who does exactly that. — alcontali

That would be their loss and based on a poor criterion. iit would certainly be a waste to read most posts in philosophy forums on line. And just hopping into the smaller journals would like be also be likely wasteful. But reading the works of philosophers who have good reputations and perhaps ones that have lasted for a while could contribute in a number of ways, just, again not like reading science would.

And it would definitely be helpful for scientists when they wander into discussions that are in part or in the main philosophical. Or make comments that are in these areas, even when they think they are just saying obvious stuff they 'know' from their own field means X in other fields or about phenomena or interpretations different from their own.

The quotes... seriously?

Ok, the quotes are mine (consider them as a kind of soliloquy in reply to the numbered questions). Since they're under my name, aren't they automatically attributed to me? — BrianW

Putting them in quotes indicates they are not you. Just as we take what you wrote without quotes as you. It would be odd of us to assume that when you quote, it is actually you just continuing to write.

Imo, this has nothing to do with overcoming discrimination. Resorting to verbal attacks or physical brutality is a statement about the level of intelligence (emotional and intellectual) one employs. Not only is it counter intuitive to ending discrimination, it also fuels the fire often beyond control of the participants. — BrianW

That's not the point of what he or she said. It seemed implicit that people were begging. That this is response of, say, minorities to mistreatment. He is pointing out that there is no such rule that people beg, giving examples.

Now perhaps you meant that those few people who just beg are making a mistake. You could say that. Or you could say, yes, I meant that that is the main pattern out there and then suggestion what they should do instead. You might find they have done those other things, you might not.

But responding to him as if the only issue is strategic best option is missing the point.

In most bases, actually in all bases, except that in a very few, "4" is called something else. If your point is that it's always possible for someone to be distracted and go off track, I agree. But don't worry about it, it's just a sign of youth. — tim wood

My point was, again, that something you seem to be putting forward as the only way something can be taken, isn't the only way. I am not exactly sure what your point was, but it seemed like you were saying that,and it doesn't really matter if in most bases it would be 2+2=4, just that it is not universal. Similarly when you said no geometrist would take me seriously if I said the angles of a triangle did not add up to 180 degrees,when in fact they very well might. How exactly this all relates to ethics for you, I am not sure. Doing my best?

But to our point as I understand it: are you supposing there are no absolute shoulds or oughts? You have never been around children, then, have you. Or apparently around bad people. — tim wood

I have been. I know these bad people for example have friends who think they are good people. But in any case, you just told me I didn't have certain experiences, but haven't explained why this must be the case.

If you have two things here and two other things there, and you put them together, then you have four things, universally and necessarily so — tim wood

Water drops, piles, holes. Have two water drops here, two there, bring them together you can end up with one water drop. Likewise piles and holes.

But what this has to do with ethics who knows.

You have one kind of ethics here and one kind there, sure, you often end up with two kinds of ethical systems.

I am not sure what we have proven.

The case is different with shoulds and oughts. There are some things you ought to do - for whatever reason. And that's a first difference. It's a should or an ought for a reason. If that reason does not apply, then neither does the moral constraint or obligation. — tim wood

Or there are some things that I do not like, but which I cannot prove to anyone else they should not like. Some of these disliked, like say hurting children for no reason, are disliked by most other people, though those who differ cannot be swayed by reason. And then there is a mass of stuff where there are large groups who disagree. Like with suicide.

For example. I claim 2+2=4, always. You say, not so; I have one thing here and two things there, and that's three, not four. Sounds silly, but the confusion in this case lies in not distinguishing between the abstract arithmetic proposition, and the on-the-ground reality. — tim wood

And what this has to do with ethics, I see no clear explanation of.

And no matter what the quality of the argument, you might just decide, "The hell with it, I'm not going." And from that people draw the conclusion that because the absolute moral constraint or obligation was not also absolutely compelling in force, that it on that account is not absolute - in any sense. — tim wood

I have made no argument based on the ethic or moral rule not being absolute because people can go against it. I am saying there is no way to demonstrate it is objective and I see no ethics that are universal. Universal would mean all agree. Objective would mean that one can demonstrate that one should live this way. Absolute mortals, well that might mean....

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

which means it is deontological, and many people are not this, and also objective. So if you think there are absolute morals, you need to show you have a process to demonstrate this isn't just your value, but acutally you know what is objective good.

What I am trying to do here is get you to understand "absolute" in what may be for you a new way. How can something be absolute if it is not always the case that it must necessarily be so? First, look at the language (to make sure you understand it - and in the case of translations, that it is correctly translated(!)). Second, realize that if you do something wrong, it does not mean that, or cause, the right to be no longer right. — tim wood

YOu seem to be arguing against a position I do not have. I do not think that because people can go against it or because they might err or because not all follow it. There is the Christian idea that God has shared what is absolutely good and we may or may not follow that. There is an epistemological claim in there. 'I know what God thinks is Good' and here is a kind of deductive claim in there. If God thinks something is good or bad, it is absolutely so. Those claims need to be backed up and I don't think they can be.

Now that may not be how you decide what is absolute good and bad. I don't know. But what is your way of knowing what it is? What backs up your epistemological claim?

I can only suppose that is because you have confused the nature of geometry with morality/ethics.. — tim wood

Perhaps I misunderstood what you were up to. I was affected by the comment that if you tell a geometrist that the angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 they won't listen to you. I thought you were heading in the direction of there being some parallel in ethics. It seems not. I don't think the math analogies, if that's what they are, are helping the conversation. And since geometrists would know about non-Euc. geometry I think this led me to beleived you were confused.

I don't think this.....

If there is one, any, universally held value, then the whole field comes into view. It's then your business to show that there is not a single one.

is true and I argued that in my previous post, but you didn't respond to that, I don't think. I take that up again below.

The point here being that the failure to "regularize" mathematics did not cause mathematics to revert to being whatever anyone "felt" like it should be as a matter of personal opinion. 2+2 was, and is, still 4. — tim wood

In certain bases, like base 10, but not in others.

But as with mathematics, that in no way means that morality/ethics becomes free-floating and entirely arbitrary. — tim wood

I don't think I am arguing that. It certainly becomes a rather large range of types and examples: iow what is considered good/bad has tremendous variety.

AS far as I can see you didn't respond to the core point.

Even if you come up with one axiom that everyone might agree on - it does not guarantee that we have objective or universal moralities. And this gets even more true if we talk about a specific act - like some horrible act against children or something. That axiom does not necessarily at all lead to other agreed upon axioms. And once you have differing sets of axioms (even if an overlap of one or even a few axioms) you can end up with incredible different ethical systems and ones that are not compatible with each other.

If you can present with one universal axiom that we all have - and actually I don't think this will be easy - I can then try to show you this what I just asserted above. I explained in my earlier post using an example, but I am happy to try with whatever axiom you think we have in common.

double post

"I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me" yes, you did say it by agreeing with Wayfarer, who stated this as a counter-claim to mine. I you read the texts carefully, you will see. — god must be atheist

OK. I didn't recognize the phrase 'toxic to me' I can see now it's a reasonable paraphrase of what you originally wrote. Next time a direct quote instead of a synonym would be better. I intended to agree with the last part of you post that I thought he was referring to. I can see how you applied it to the whole post.

I hope that's clear to you now.

Yes, you did say it, when you expressed your agreement with Wayfarer, who said my statements of the religious also apply to anti-religious fanatics. Wayfarer did not specify which part of my script applies, so the infernece is valid,that all my text applies. Therefore by agreeing with Wayfarer you agreed that the debates should stop. — god must be atheist

OK, seems a stretch to me to assume I meant everything and not that last portion, but fine, I get how you took it now. In any case I saw those quaities of debating style in both groups and extended this to include moderates of both sides. I was not referring to the debates being useless. Now, one could wonder if I also agreed with your conclusion that the debates are useless. IOW one ought to be able to see the difference between what is potentially implicit in my agreement and

my having said.....X,Y and Z, when you can't even quote yourself accurately and then attribute statements to me I did not make.

I do see how it would be fair to think I might have agreed to the whole post via him.

But as it happens I do not in regard, for example to the debates.. And apparantly, by your behavior, and despite your assertion, you do not either, think them useless. Isn't it hypocritical to participate on your part?

And I stand by the position that anti-religions can exhibit all sorts of aggressive frustrated behavior and also to engage in fallacious arguments, ad hominim attacks and a poor understanding of epistemology when dealing with theists. I also see this behavior in theists and I see it even in moderate examples of both theists and antitheists.

You present perfect examples to support this....the post that set our dialogue in motion

is off topic, offering no substance on the issue of the thread. Is a general insult and is, sure, toxic. And it is not toxic because it offers reasoned anti-reglisious arguments, but rather because it is off-topic bile. Effectively, if not intentionally, trolling.

So are other posts in this thread...

Let's look at your first contribution, I think, to this thread....

Janus, you speak truly like one who is devoted to a faith, and facts, arguments, will never daunt you. This diatribe you wrote only proves your ignorance borne out of blind faith and borne out of a conviction to never accept an otherwise valid argument if it speaks against your religion.

Your devotion to faith on the expense of rejecting known facts and valid teories is well described in your little note there.

When you say "they can provide no good argument" you admit that the huge amount of good arguments already extant, you simply, by necessity of convenience, ignore. — god must be atheist

Now in your defense the other poster was using a general ad hom, against those he disagreed with. Your contribution is to make this personal, about him, including mind reading about his characte: 'will never daunt you' and more. You decided that what the thread needed was insults or more insults and mind reading, including about what someone else will never do. We could call that an implicit claim to having precognitive powers.

Oh, pardon, that was your second post. Your first begins as debate, discussing an issue, but quickly moves into ad hom mind reading.....

To call these tales scientific metaphors or moral- or religious metaphors is one the vile tricks the religious employ to defend their indefendible faiths.

IOW it is not the case that they are mistaken yet truly believe what they are arguing, for example. You know it is a vile trick - meaning intending to mislead, an ad hom focus on the people and not the issue.

Presumably you are anti-religious and you exhibited some of the traits I think that the anti-religious, just like the religious can exhibit.

And in this second example, you were not responding to a person using ad homs, at least going by the quote they were making an argument and were on topic. Whether they were right or wrong is no justification for your ad hom and insulting approach at least in some post.

You may not stop being hypocritical and may continue to engage in debates you consider useless.

But I can ignore you and will. There are atheists, anti-religionists, agnostics and theists I can discuss and debate with who do not fit, in many ways, your own description of religious people. I can have these discussions with them and not find the discussion useless.

Fair enough, I was harsh in reference to Terrapin, — tim wood

It wasn't the harshness, which I took as aimed at the idea, not at him. It was the conclusion. Even if we do not think there are objective or universal values, this need not lead to insect like relations. In fact morals have often led to insectlike behavior, because they have often been used to justify not feeling empathy for people. And because even with being able to say these values are he ones that can be demonstrated to be the right one's objectively, one need not be like an insect, since one has facutlies and tendencies that insects do not have.

None of this is about that at all! But since you have made the claim, and anyone can make any claim, then make your case, because Hitchen's guillotine (razor) awaits. — tim wood

I was claiming that your argument did not lead to the conclusion you were making.

This goes way back to the 1870s when right wing judges declared corporations as having the rights of persons, — Noah Te Stroete

yes corporate personhood is another horror. and the fact that corporate charters are no longer seen as priviledges that can be revoked. Conservatives along with liberals should be horrified at this change in the way corporations are viewed. Conservatives right off the bat since it goes against precautions put in by the founders, men who were nto just concerned about big government, but also bit private, having seen what things like the East India Company were capable of.

The insight - one insight - I find in it lies in the usage of "universal" and "absolute." This usage, I suspect, is not in your usual understanding. As I read your post, it seems to me that you're arguing that there is no "Euclid's Elements" of morality/ethics; that is, no axiomatic theoretical development. And thus nor you nor I nor anyone else can argue morality/ethics more geometrico. — tim wood

Even with geometry there is non-euclidian geometry, and, in fact the latter has turned out to be useful in describing reality in science. So even what seems utterly clear and objective is actually not universal in geometry.

It's as if you sought an external criteriological standard from logic or science, — tim wood

God would potentially be another one.

But when dealing with 'objective' there is no reason we cannot come up with a standard and even try to make it universal, but that trying would not simply be an appeal to reason, it would also be an appeal to value certain states more than others. An emotional appeal.

If there is one, any, universally held value, then the whole field comes into view. — tim wood

I don't think so. Because if have one that is something like 'Don't unnecessarily cause people to suffer' the word necessarily carries with it the potential for a wide range of other values. And that's with a kind of consequentialist value. IOW even if eveyrone on earth is a consequentialist, which they are not, they are still going to potentially think that axiom is true, but apply differing ideas around necessarily. And since they include deontologists, we will have people who will not even evaluate using the same processes, let alone coming from the same axiom. They will be disturbed by having an adverb, for example. Or by evaluating in terms of pain.

You can deny these, and the enumerated rights that follow from them. You can deny them. And you can deny that the angles in a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees. If you do, no geometrician will pay you any mind. — tim wood

Fortunately, as I pointed out above, people ignored precisely that conclusion and found useful math that also, even, applies to the real world. Hyperbolic geometry is more effective, for example in three dimensions, and in specific situations, like when working with the surface of a sphere, like he world. Euclidian is more useful when dealing very locally and especially in two dimensions. But beyond that it seems that Einsteing found that hyperbolic genometry is the case at relatavistic levels of scale, where space is actually curved.

I can only suppose that is because you have confused the nature of geometry with morality/ethics.. — tim wood

Well, nowhere have you shown that the analogy is a good one. But assuming it is a good one, it fails.

I think worse undermining of democracy comes from campaign finance, lobbying, consolidation of the media, and revolving doors between industy and government, for example in oversight of industry. It's an oligarchy. I don't think the House is much better or better than the Senate, despite be more numerically correct. The two party system is also very damaging, especially, when for example, the Democratic Party itself will pick a candidate and mess with Bernie, democracy be damned.

But I find your arguments reductionist past animal to the insect. — tim wood

Insects don't have empathy, as far as I can tell. Humans do. Humans are social mammals. So we take into account emotional effects on ourselves and others and given our potential range of thinking, imagining and our training in noting possible pain in others, this can create all sorts of subtle caring about, preventing pain, getting upset at things that cause people pain. I don't think insects have this. None of this means there are universal morals let alone objective ones.

IOW Terrapin, for example might never ever come to believe in objective morals or universal ones. However this does not mean he is like insects. He still can be a social mammaly and given this his actions behavior and values will likely be influenced not only by vastly more complex understanding than insects have, but will also be influenced by empathy.

And I've been over this more than twice. Per Mortimer Adler: If you do X, then you can get Y. If you want Y, then you ought to do X. — tim wood

Sure, but that's not morals, that's practical.

If you're prepared to argue that there are no values that are universal - and demonstrate it - then I'll concede and leave you be. — tim wood

I think it's more like there are no morals that are objective. We have no way to determine if suicide, in general, is immoral, or when it is. We can move from our desires or values to what kind of society we want and then see what practical steps lead to this. But there is absolutely no universal moral related to suicide, let alone objective ones. I support this by pointing out that we have disagreement on suicide in this thread, though it's barely fleshed out, it's there. I support that there no objective values or, perhaps more cautiously, none we have access to, since we have no way to measure their correctness. We can certainly evaluate them consequentially, but the evaluation with include value judgments that we must then demonstrate are correct, always coming to new values or the same ones with no way to get away from our desires or ideas aobut what much be objectively valuable.

Whether or not you include epistemology in metaphysics, it is still philosophy and it's at the heart of science. — T Clark

Agreed. I think there are a number of ways metaphysics is a part of science- in theory and practice.

That's where science leaves off in time....:joke:

Wayfarer and Coben, you just proved my point. — god must be atheist

Please show how I proved your point.

The fact is, that facts and reason support anti-religionism. You can't say "this applies to anti-religious as well." — god must be atheist

You seem to be confusing the merits of a position with the behavior of the adherents. I was writing about the latter. Nothing I said is countered by what you say here.

You are right that we, the anti-religious are toxic for you, make you angry and frustrated, — god must be atheist

I didn't say that anti-religious people are toxic to me nor that they make me angry and frustrated.

I agree with you, however, that the debates should stop. They are fruitless, they are vengeful, and they create a level of unnecessary frustration. — god must be atheist

I didn't say the debates should stop.
Please don't include me in lists, if you are going to assign positions to me.

As long as we are defining consciosness as 'experiencing' or 'awareness' it seems obvious to me that there is no dependency on language. Babies are clearly enraptured by their mothers, animals by all sorts of perception, including social and non-social interactions. And if not 'up in our heads' all the time, can easily notice stretches of languageless awareness even in ourselves. One could argue that the last is still, in some way, dependent on our having language, but given that our language use arises in the lives of what seem to be obviously experiencing and aware creatures - our very young selves, I think the issue is actually not even controversial.

Epistemology is often included in definitions of metaphysics. I checked once and it came out about 50/50. To me it seems clear that it belongs as part of metaphysics. I suggest again that you take a look at the Collingwood paper referenced by Tim Wood. — T Clark

Well, if you want to include epistemology in metaphysics then it is completely and utterly true, without controversy, that science has metaphysics, which was my original assertion in this thread. It seemed like, though I could be wrong, he took associating metaphysics with science as religious. (I am not quite sure what was going on there, since he didn't quite respond to me). But if he is taking epistemology to be a part of metaphysics, I can't see how metaphysics could possibly be problematic when associated with science..

Definition require some sort of knowledge don't you think ? — Basko

Yes, but it's not the same kind of knowledge. It's an agreement with others on how we will use a word. Like if we are discussing 'what is consciousness`?' and we decide to use it for experiencing, this is a knowledge of at least that facett of 'things' that there is experiencing, and our justificaiton might include knowledge about why this is a good choice. But to answer the question of what consciousness is ty something like 'a side effect of having a soul' or 'a byproduct of a complex neural net' is a whole other kind of knowledge. The first is about how best to separate out terms, the latter is actual knowledge of the make up of something. The first is phenomenogical, the second is scientific or ontological. I would almost call the former the sign of a skill, more than the sign of knowledge. Now that's also a bit artificial, but it involves,I think vastly less claims to knowledge. I am assuming that you too have noticed that you experience things, and I 'point' at that and say 'let's agree to call that consciousness'. The second goes beyond agreement, a formality and beyond phenomenology. With the latter we are saying what things are really like and made of.

I think these types of statements are another reason why scientists don't take philosophy seriously - they demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge there is a true and (sometimes) clear separation between metaphysics and science. One, perhaps over-simplistic way of looking at it is that metaphysics sets the rules by which we know things and science describes what we come to know about how the world works. — T Clark

Epistemology is the rules/viewpoints on how we know things, not metaphysics. And it doesn't seem like you responded to any of the points made or what is in the Wikpedia quote. I get that you are disagreeing, but that's about it.

I just feel like all of a sudden I am the centre of attention, and since my posts were not responded to, — god must be atheist

I thought I responded to what I cited, and that in context.

Three very long posts buoyed up very quickly, and I don't see how they relate to my posts. A bit like being in the snake pit... look left, look right, you don't know where to look, there is danger by numbers. — god must be atheist

I haven't read the other long posts, just glanced at them. I can't see how snake pit is much of an analogy for getting long responses in a philosophy forum to a set of complex issues. I'd link you to the long article in Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which goes into some of the complexity related to metaphysics in philosophy, but then this, it would seem, might qualify as venomous.

I just did not understand and still don't why I need to read three very long posts — god must be atheist

You don't need to. If you're interested you can, that's what the forum offers, along with no possible way to make you need to.

Maybe I misunderstood the posters' intention. That's possible. I apologize if I did — god must be atheist

You could forget about the intentions, iow ad hom type stuff, and then either choose to read and respond to the posts or not.

It looks like I just stepped into a nest of venomous religionist snakes. — god must be atheist

This kind of psychic guesswork and insulting metaphor...well, my guess is it won't increase the chances of anyone learning anything or having a good discussion.

Since you suddenly felt the center of unpleasant attention. I can instantly avoid doing that from here on out.