• Plantinga: Is Belief in God Properly Basic?
    I would argue the belief in gods or a god is a basicality mainly because to get large groups of people to work together you need a false belief or perhaps a real belief — christian2017
    That doesn't entail a basic belief, because it is LEARNED. Basic beliefs aren't learned, they are innate. Plantinga suggests we perceive God through a theoretical "sensus divinitatus", analogous to vision, or hearing.
  • Plantinga: Is Belief in God Properly Basic?
    What is "the world"? The only idea of a world I have is from my senses. Sometimes what I think they're telling me doesn't line up with other things I think they're telling me, but all I have to work with is what my senses seem to be telling me, and the best I can do is try to make consistent sense (no pun intended) of that as a whole. — Pfhorrest
    As I said, our sense of the world is FUNCTIONALLY accurate. We do not walk off cliffs; we do not eat rocks; we perceive and avoid predators.
  • Plantinga: Is Belief in God Properly Basic?
    Except for 'aspects of the world' within a narrow range of (non-planck) sizes & (non-relativistic) speeds, our (unaided) senses do not. — 180 Proof
    So what if it's a narrow range? It is a range that has been relevant to our survival- as one would expect if it is a product of natural selection.

    Our "view" is not a "belief" but a perceptual-cognitive bias (e.g. change blindness). Or what Hume aptly termed "habit of thought", which persists until we stumble upon (scientific observation, anyone?) instances of perception that are not "functionally accurate".
    David Armstrong terms these "non-verbal beliefs", and I think that's an appropriate way to view it because these ground all other beliefs about the world- including the inferences of science.

    It is not mere "habit" that infants perceive objects beyond themselves. It's not taught.
  • Bernie Sanders
    ↪NOS4A2
    OK, we get it - you're not a Bernie guy. For the sake of argument, assume Trump is not reelected: which Democratic candidate would you want to be President? (i.e. which would make you the least unhappy?)
  • Does Relativity imply block universe?
    a problem with relativity as a model of time: relativity does not have a concept of the arrow of time — SophistiCat
    I think you're just saying that relativity doesn't entail an arrow of time, nor is it dependent on there being one. Nevertheless, relativity is consistent with there being an arrow of time. Relativity is not a theory of everything.
  • Plantinga: Is Belief in God Properly Basic?
    No beliefs are properly basic. — Pfhorrest
    I beg to differ. Here's a couple:
    - belief that our senses deliver a functionally accurate view of the world
    - belief that there is an external world (i.e. solipsism is false).

    These are basic beliefs because they are not derived from prior beliefs - they are innate, consistent with a reasonable world view, and the product of a "design plan" aimed at truth (not actually teleological, but evolutionary processes are analogous to a design plan).

    Plantinga claims we have a sensus divinitatus, and that this works analogously to the senses. It's not logically impossible, but it is not a sense that can be verified to exist. Even if it does exist, it is a very inexact sense, since there's such extreme diversity in perception of a deity among humans past and present.
  • Bernie Sanders
    All Bernie has ever been is a politician. What has he ever built? What has he ever ran? What has he ever done? We’re going to put a man like that in charge of the world’s greatest economy and military. That’s something people will have to contend with. — NOS4A2
    The one quality that is needed in a President is good judgment. Regardless of background, our job as voters is to discern whether or not a candidate indeed has good judgment. No specific background (CEO, college professor, politician, reality TV star...) establishes that the candidate has good judgment, nor does it establish he has poor judgment.
  • What is Fact? ...And Knowledge of Facts?
    That "a fact is a true propostion" is a useful stipulation, the one I prefer, and to the best of my knowledge is the most common usage among philosophers. But let's bear in mind that we don't have access to the truth value of most propostions. This is the problem of knowledge: knowing a proposition is true means believing it with a justification that establishes it as true and avoids Gettier problems. We cannot know that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, but we can treat is as a "fact" (different sense of the word) - there is reasonable justification for believing it and it is commonly accepted as true. I don't think there's an alternative term to "fact" when discussing history or literature - but there's rarely any confusion about what is meant.
  • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    ↪Douglas Alan

    Bear in mind that very few issue in Philosophy are settled, and the article is consistent with that. Nevertheless, the article shows that there are good reasons to think nothingness is impossible, or at least very improbable.

    Why THIS something rather than some OTHER something? Why expect there to be a reason? Are you a theist and wonder what God had in mind? If not, then the answer is: there's no reason. Adolf Grubaum wrote a good paper on this, so consider reading it (Grunbaum: Why is there a World At All Rather than Nothing?).
  • Bernie Sanders
    ↪Xtrix
    ↪Pfhorrest
    ↪Artemis

    Suppose, for the sake of argument, Bernie is unelectable. Would you agree that would be a good reason to nominate someone who IS electable? My point is that you need to consider the consequences of your choice - and it's possible that your choice will result in 4 more years of Trump.
  • Bernie Sanders
    this is the only option left. It's the one that hasn't been tried. — Xtrix
    Do you honestly think Sanders will be able to fulfill his promises, or is that beside the point - i.e. you just want someone with the right set of concerns?
  • The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    What's your favourite article? — Banno
    Today, my favorite is the article on Nothingness. It's my current favorite because it was relevant to a debate I was having in another forum: is nothingness metaphysically possible.

    A past favorite was the article The Epistemology of Modality, a good intro to modal logic.

    I also like the article on Ontological Arguments, written by well-known atheist philosopher, Graham Oppy.

    BTW, another worthy source is the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The articles are generally more concise, so it's a bit more accessible and sometimes easier to understand - although It's a bit less comprehensive.
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    Not a legal expert, but afaik, the abortion thing was decided by the supreme court and not on the level of the judges that the president can appoint, so I don´t see why this is even relevant. — Nobeernolife
    Who do you think appoints Supreme Court justices?
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    My guess would be that a Republicant president would appint Republicant-leaning judges, and a Democratic president would appoint a Democratic-leading judge. — god must be atheist
    It's not that the judges are leaning toward a party, it's about the respective judicial philosophies of the appointed judges. Republicans embrace originalists, who practice a narrower view of interpretation (the right to choose to end a pregnancy is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, and so they are inclined to deny this as a right). Democrats embrace the "living constitution" principle, which has a more expansive view of civil rights (the Constitution also refers to their being rights other than those that are enumerated - a lever that permits growing individual rights). There's also a tendency of originalists to pay less heed to past court decisions (thus enabling overturning Roe v Wade), whereas the "liberals" are more inclined to defer to stare decisis (treating Roe v Wade as established law).
  • Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    ↪NOS4A2
    I found it with google. You'll find this, and similar ads as examples of Russian disinformation that are referenced in many articles about the topic. Congress also posted a resource that lists a number of additional examples of Russian disinformation. Ads like this would pop up in facebook for targeted groups of people. You didn't see it because you weren't in a targeted group. Blacks and Latinos were targeted (there was also a Spanish version).
  • Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    he “Russian misinformation” canard is itself misinformation. Have you ever seen a single piece of Russian misinformation? — NOS4A2
    02-text-vote.w700.h467.jpg
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    If it is in the constitution, shouldn`t it be "recognized" by everyone? — Nobeernolife
    Sure- in an ideal world, all voters would understand this and other information pertinent to making wise voting choices. TV commercials would be a waste of time and money would be much less relevant. We don't live in that world.

    Evangelicals aren't smarter than everyone else, they're just focused on abortion. Abortion became legal (nationally) by court action, and it's clear that court action can undo it. This provided a political lever. Pro-choice people (a strong majority of the populstion) aren't nearly as focused. Sure, they'd prefer women have choice, but it isn't a sine qua non for choosing whom to vote for, as it is with many pro-life people.
  • Resources for identifying fake news and intentional misinformation
    This was published a while back, — frank
    Interesting article. What I'm struck by is the environment Trump has encouraged, by labeling real news as "fake", and sometimes retweeting what is actually fake news.

    To your point, I think fact checkers are the most convenient tool.
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    ↪Nobeernolife
    That power was recognized by evangelical Christians - that's why they voted for Trump, and will do so again.
  • Does Rare Earth Hypothesis Violate the Mediocrity Principle Too Much?
    A materialist explains life as a consequence of a string of random events - and we don't really know what they are. Why should we expect life to be common? Further, given life - why think INTELLIGENT life is common? Humans evolved through a series of accidents - we were not inevitable.

    On the other hand, theism entails teleology: that the universe was designed to produce life. If life were common, especially intelligent life, that would be more consistent with teleology and theism.
  • Does Relativity imply block universe?
    General Relativity does not depend on block time, it merely depends on mathematically treating it in a manner analogous to spatial dimensions. That it should be treated this way does not establish this as ontological.
  • Is the President (prime minister, etc) an overrated figure?
    real political 'power' and influence lies in either in the legislature, or in the judges, at least as far as the system as a whole goes and works, who agrees with me? — IvoryBlackBishop
    The President appoints federal judges. That is a tremendous power, with the potential to have impact that lasts decades.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    What if it’s not a ‘collapse of a sector’ but a legitimate redistribution of resources? Why should shareholders profit from healthcare? They’re arguably transferring wealth from those unfortunate enough to fall ill. — Wayfarer
    It WOULD be a "legltimate distribution of resources" in the long run, and that's why I'm not opposed to it in principle. Regardless of that, there are severe, short term risks.

    Why should shareholders profit? Note that I pointed out that this may affect stocks generally, not just health care stocks. If all shareholders were billionaires, few would care if their wealth were dramatically reduced. But they aren't. Stocks are owned by pension funds, affecting firemen, policemen teachers union members,...and they are owned by many on their IRAs and 401Ks. Some retired people live off this. Many people have worked hard all their lives, sacrificed to save for retirement so that they have enough of a nest egg to live on, and then you cavalierly suggest they should suffer. Please.

    Do not forget that this isn't simply a choice between status quo and medicare for all. A public option gets healthcare for everyone, without the huge disruption. Furthermore, it has a chance of passing, while an imposed medicare for all does not. I will vote for Bernie, if he's nominated, but many won't because they fear the consequences of a plan that will never be implemented. So whether or not you accept anything I've said, know that it's a fear that will lose some votes. Trump won swing states by only a few thousand votes - it's these margins that will make the difference.
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    Sander’s medicare plan seems pretty similar to what Canada and Australia already have. Why Americans are so hysterically frightened of that baffles me — Wayfarer
    Here's some of the problems:
    First, fear of the unknown. Most people have health insurance of some kind, and although they may grumble about it, there's no guarantee "Medicare for All" will be an improvement. But the unknowns are substantial.

    What becomes of the medical insurance industry? I suspect most Bernie supporters don't care what happens to those fat cats, but keep in mind the industry employs a lot of people, and there are millions of stockholders (including people with a vested pension plan). . What impact will that have on the economy to lose jobs and household wealth? The collapse of this one sector could have huge impact on the economy as a whole.

    Medical insurance premiums will be replaced with taxes. That sounds fine in the long run and in the aggregate, but will this happen all a once, or phased in? How can it be phased in without creating massive deficits? When phased in, this will have the same effect as a revenue-neutral change in the tax structure - it's inevitable that there will be both winners and losers. Losers will not support the change. Losers include big unions who have negotiated great health plans. Even if "Medicare for All" matches their current plans (which may be unlikely), it means their negotiations were for naught. If the transition is not done in a revenue-neutral way, we're back to massive deficits.

    Will there be disruptions in service as the transition is made? There are good reasons to be concerned.

    If Bernie gets elected, I predict his promise of Medicare for All will never happen. At best, a Buttigieg-style "Medicare for those who want it" might pass (I don't know how likely that is, but I think that's the best anyone can hope for).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Oh dear. No genetic fallacy. Just pointing out she’s a globalist. — NOS4A2

    Fair enough, although labeling someone a "globalist", or any other kind of "-ist" suggests possibly making some unwarranted assumptions. Nevertheless, I gather you're just making some observations, and stating an ad hominem (stooge). Well and good, so I presume you'd still value her opinion, given her education and experience - right?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪creativesoul
    Yes, but I'd like to think that people participating on a philosophy forum would value critical thinking, so I think its appropriate to call out clear irrationality.

    Am I being irrational to do so?
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    One of the people who testified against Trump, Fiona Hill, a Soros stooge, writes for an online magazine called “The Globalist”. You can’t make this stuff up. — NOS4A2
    Geez - Genetic fallacy upon genetic fallacy. A "Soros stooge" (whatever that refers to) is wrong because she's a "Soros stooge", not because something she says is irrational or false. And since she writes for a magazine called "The Globalist", she obviously has some false beliefs about the world, and therefore she's wrong.

    Thanks for providing another example of how to think irrationally.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientiests. It also discusses s a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus

    Well, as you say yourself, the Tol study came to a different conclusion. Anyway, how productive is it boil down tens of thousands of different papers into a simplistics yes/no vote?     — Nobeernolife
    You're ignoring the fact that the Tol study does not constitute the consensus of those with the relevant expertise, and it did some cherry picking of individuals with contrary opinions.

    How productive is it? As productive as any argument from authority. Anyone is free to hold a contrary opinion, but they shouldn't expect it to be respected if it's based on non-authority opinions, cherry picking of authorities whose conclusions appeal to them, or on naive falsification (e.g. the models make these errors, so the general view must be false).
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences.]/i\

    Wow, hold the horses. Are you sure there is general consensus about THAT? I.e. Dr. Patrick Moore, an earth scientists himself, thinks that we are in a carbon starved period, and a little warmer and thus greener planet would be a good thing. Can quote a source about this "general agreement" about "disastrous consequences"?     — Nobeernolife
    Patrick Moore is not a CLIMATE scientist. This study provides the basis for my claim about the consensus of climate scientists. It also discusses a prior study (Tol) that concluded there was not much consensus

    "Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science."

    Perhaps you object to my use of the subjective term "disastrous", so let me just put it this way: if current trends continue, there will be very costly consequences.
  • Something out of nothing.
    My argument is that it is far more rational to believe in the possibility (not certainty) of a non-physical existence after physical death than it is to make something out of nothing - to argue for existential meaning in a purely physical existence. — CommonSense
    To be rational, there must be a rational justification for the belief. I haven't seen one, and I'm not going to read a book to see if it's buried in there somewhere.

    What is the "something" that you allege is from nothiing? Meaning? That woulld be reifying an abstraction.

    Walk me through your justification, and we can then assess whether or not it's rational.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    All the previous models have been wrong. — Nobeernolife

    Correction: they have been inaccurate, to varying degrees. The point is that this doesn't imply anthropogenic global warming is a hoax, it just means that we can't predict it accurately. Inaccuracy is not rational grounds to reject the general consensus view that the world is warming, that CO2 emissions is contributing to it, and that if currrent trends continue, there will be disastrous consequences. The inaccuracy only implies we can't know exactly when.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    ↪NOS4A2

    This article seems a good summary.

    Here's my takeaway:
    there was a plea deal, which granted Flynn probation in return for his cooperating with other investigations and prosecutions.

    Flynn chose to not testify in a particular trial because it would admit he knowingly lied on his filings under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA)

    Prosecutors believe Flynn had already admitted to these false statements, so they regarded Flynn's refusal to testify as a breach of the deal.

    Because of the alleged breach, prosecutors changed the sentencing recommendation to jail time. They rethought this, and 7 days later, they reverted back to the original recommendation of probation.

    Flynn's attorneys are treating the temporary action as a breach of the plea deal. This opens the door for Flynn to withdraw hia guilty plea,if the judge approves.

    As a separate matter, Flynns current attorneys allege the original ones had a conflict of interest. This is another potential basis for withdrawing the plea.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    Yes, of course people should be charged when they lie to the FBI.

    I couldn't care less if Mccabe were prosecuted for lying, if that is the typical course of action for lies of a similar magnitude. But I'm sure you're aware that prosecutorial discretion filters out some lying charges, and fairness dictates that discretion be applied consistently. This discretion also provides a tool for investigators to seek additional information - as was the case with those charged through the Mueller investigation. There's nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, there IS something wrong with Trump using such prosecution in a vendetta - and the judge perceived this may have been going on.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    It appears to be so. That’s a shame given that he lied to the FBI with all these others being jailed for doing the same. — NOS4A2
    That's a false equivalence. Flynn pleaded guilty to lying as a plea deal - they had other things on him. Had lyng been the only issue, he would have had no motivation to accept the deal.

    Of special note is a statement made by the judge in Mccabe's case. The judge, a George W. Bush appointee, said "the fact that you got somebody at the top basically trying to dictate whether somebody should be prosecuted" was like a "banana republic." He told this to the prosecutors months ago, but it was only released today. Here's another example of Trump's inappropriarte nvolvement getting in the way of the impartial administration of justice.
  • Is a meaningful existence possible?
    Having an impact that is beyond our individual selves gives us meaning, unless you think our families and societies are irrelevant. — Relativist


    On a long enough time frame, sure.     — runbounder
    Consider the alternative of an eternal afterlife. How can anything you do in THIS brief life have a meaningful impact on that which exists eternally?
  • The Road to 2020 - American Elections
    It's not only their fault, and it's not that they're all evil people. But we have to at least acknowledge their disproportionate influence on our society and our laws. It's all titled in their favor, predictably. You have to notice this. — Xtrix
    You are right about this, and all you said, but I'll add a root cause: people are stupid and lazy. If every voter took the time to analyze policy and candidates, they could (in theory) make a merit-based selection. It's sad that advertising blurbs make such a difference.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪NOS4A2
    Oh my. I'm getting embarrassed for you. Seriously, maybe you should take a break from this thread and try to make a contribution elsewhere.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    Speaking of that, what is your take on Barr's comments on Dumpertrumper's tweets ? Do you think there is an ulterior motive of sorts? — 3017amen
    Well, he spoke truth - but that doesn't preclude there being ulterior motives, some of which may be good (to save the sinking ship of the Justice Dept) and some might be selfish (his own reputation).

    It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪Michael
    ↪NOS4A2

    Trump admitted to send to Ukraine. Here's the audio: https://www.spreaker.com/user/9809239/roadkill-potus

    It starts at 21:43.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    All of these effects are caused by personal motivations, desires and feelings. If a judge or attorney or attorney general are influenced by a tweet they are in the wrong job. — NOS4A2
    You must also believe juries should never be sequestered, since if they're doing their jobs, they will not be influenced.

    You have a naive view of influence. It's not limited to conscious choices and perceived motivation.
Home » Relativist