Those are historical reasons. Consider that exchanging gold for other stuff sets each thing's value relative to gold, which then establishes their relative value to each other. Values fluctuate due to supply/demand.

" What makes paper bills valuable? "
Inertia and social convention. It was originally a proxy for gold (and one could ask, what makes gold valuable?), but this evolved over time, and the link was eventually severed. Inertia took over, but it remains a social convention.

The other question is : what is its value? It's value is labor: work-hours. So its subjective to how much you make.

This seems significant. Kavanaugh allegedly contacted friends to solicit support against the allegations of Deborah Ramirez, and he did this prior to the appearance of the New Yorker article. In his testimony last week, Kavanaugh said he first learned of the charge from that article.

I agree 100%. Worst case, he's an innocent man wrongly accused who is unfairly denied a job. Sad from his perspective, but lots of qualified, deserving people fail to get the job they want. This can be said about a lot of SCOTUS candidates, I expect.

I agree with almost everything you said, but disagree that Kavanaugh is necessarily being hypocritical about polygraph tests. IMO, this article makes a good case:

"Brett Kavanaugh was asked during yesterday’s hearing if he would take a polygraph test. He replied that he would do whatever the Judiciary Committee asked him to, but noted that polygraphs are inadmissible in federal court because they are “unreliable. That fact is not in dispute...”

His court opinion merely, "affirmed that “polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.”

You never identified any problems, you just ignored them. — Proto

False. Look back a couple pages. I commented on each of your items. You responded, "The main point she seemed false for me." So it was you who ignored what I said, and your comment is consistent with my assertion that you listed rationalizations, not factors that led you to a conclusion.

I say Ford made long air trips just for pleasure, but when invited to the Senate hearings she refused to travel claiming she was afraid of air trips. My conclusion: she is a liar, you conclusion: she is brave.

I said no such thing. I just pointed out that people with fear of flying often fly, and pointed you to an article that discusses this. She was reluctant to fly; she preferred not to. This doesn't imply she would never fly. Further, it's false to characterize it as a "refusal" to fly.

Ford named three witnesses all of whom failed to recollect the party. My conclusion: she is a liar, your conclusion: she has poor memory.

I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that no one remembers every gathering they ever attended. Failure of 3 people to recall a vaguely described gathering, 30 years earlier, that had no personal significance to them is not surprising. Had one or more of them remembered, it would constitute corroborating evidence, but an absence of corroborating evidence is not evidence of lying.

Ford failed to answer the question about payment for polygraph test. Is that realistic that a person is not aware of someone having paid for the services the person obtained? My conclusion: in no way, Ford is a liar. Your conclusion?

She didn't "fail to answer," she just didn't know the answer. The answer turned out to be that her lawyer paid for it - it had been their recommendation to have it performed. I expect the lawyers will pass along the cost to her.

Ford has never mentioned Kavanaug's name in any official documents including sessions with her therapist for more than 30 years . My conclusion: she is a liar.

False premise to assume victims of abuse actually discuss it. Speaking out is atypical.

Finally, For what have all these lies been made?
My answer: Ford benefited becoming a national celebrity. My conjecture: She is a Russian agent who is well paid for and

This is not evidence of lying, it is pure speculation that rationalizes the assumption she lied. Your conjecture is fantasy - there being zero reason to think she's a Russian agent.

While it is possible she lied, your stated case for concluding this doesn't hold water.

I don't want to get ugly, but my issue with Proto is that he gave a list of reasons he believed Ford was lying. At least two people (Dfpolis and I) identified problems with each point, and this made no difference. Without refuting our rebuttals, it should at least weaken his belief. So his list doesn't actually seem to be factors that led to his belief, rather they seem like post-hoc rationalization of his (irrational?) belief.

Is it a mistake to take epistemology, and justification of belief, too seriously when it comes to politics? Or maybe I should just accept that some people are clairvoyant.

when the options for traditional reasoning are all used up we have to move on and try something else, or we will be paralyzed — lupac

We all do what we need to do to survive (and avoid paralysis), and I'm not judging anyone for doing that. But by that same token, I do what I do - and that is to seek truth, in the way I know how.

The thing I think is ridiculous is the notion that we can choose our beliefs based on the potential for benefitting, rather than based on our usual methods for evaluating the truth of propositions.

Ok, what I was saying was delaying the confirmation passed the midterms, would allow the midterms to be a defacto referendum on abortion - which they believe (I think rightly so) they win on.

It will be a referendum on Trump, and the Trumpublican party.

"we should at least be theists based around Pascal's wager and leave “what kind of theists” for another conversation."
To cover more bases, you should also accept Jesus Christ as your persona! savior (to meet Protestant conditions for etenal reward), and you should refrain from committing mortal sins, which Catholics believe sends you to hell. The latter also works for Islamic teaching as well.

To be on the safe side, I'd sacrifice lambs and offerings to the gods of Olympus, as well. Maybe also mutter, "Hare Krishna..." .

Were there time (were time made... assholes) for more comprehensive analysis she'd probably have her claims vindicated. — fdrake

Her claims are already vindicated by her credible testimony. Has any Senator accused her of lying? Even Trump didn't do that after her testimony (although he did BEFORE the testimony). Kavanaugh has even said that he's not questioning that she had been assaulted, he just denies being the one. (rank and file folks calling her a liar just reflect on their own partisanship, not on a careful evaluation of evidence).

So the only outstanding question is: is she correctly remembering who did it? There was only one other person in the room: Judge. He will deny it, and that won't really tip the scales toward Kavanaugh, because (if guilty) he's not going to admit it.

It would be helpful if someone remembered being at a gathering at a house that included both Ford and Kavanaugh, but that seems unlikely since all the named people have said they have no recollection. If it happened, this implies it was not a big, memorable event - maybe just a few folks went to someone's house to use their swimming pool (Ford says she was wearing a swimsuit), somebody brought beers, and ...you know, drunk boys will be drunk boys (paraphrasing some prior excuses that have been made).

Did Kavanaugh lie about the meaning of "devil's triangle" and "boofing."

Has anyone corroborated his definitions, by checking with other contemporaneous attendees of his prep school? (I expect his friends will back him up, so we'd need to hear from people who weren't in his circle).

1. It is common for people with fear of flying to fly (see: this)

2. No one remembers every gathering they ever attended, not if there's a number of them of similar inconsequence to them. All we know is that the gathering was small, not a big party, and it may have involved swimming.

3.No one remembers every detail of significant events, but we do remember the most impactful parts. I remember an altercation I had with a kid when I was 10 - he was bigger and stronger, and pinned me to the ground. I remember no details other than who it was, roughly where we were, and most strongly: the panic I felt due to being unable to move.

4. Are you alleging, without evidence, that she was paid to make up the story? Dismiss the polygraph as evidence, if you like, but then it's just less evidence she telling the truth, not evidence she's lying.

5. Being a psychologist doesn't prepare you for an acting performance. Did she seem insincere, or did project vulnerability and fear?

6. Benefitted? She originially wanted to remain anonymous.

Personally, I am convinced she is not lying - that she experienced the assault she described. I am a bit less confident that it was Kavanaugh.

Good catch, and I concede that as long as there are no universe-variables whose variability is continuous, then you're right.

Indisputable evidence of a clear violation of laws of nature would work. e.g.: regrowing a leg that had beem amputated.

Absolutely, Dems should nominate a woman.

Because there is no guarantee it would take that long. All you have is their word. — yatagarasu

It's being done, and with a 1 week deadline.

From the perspective of political theater, Republicans look stupid for repeatedly saying they couldn't make the FBI do an investigation. Technically, they can't order it - but obviously they could ask the White House to order it, as they are doing.

From the perspective of looking for truth, this is a good outcome. It remains to be seen if there's more evidence to be had.

I hope they bring in Mark Judge. I understand he's a recovering alcoholic. If he's in a 12-step program and taking it seriously, step 8 is a pretty big deal: "Make a list of all persons we had harmed, and be willing to make amends to them all". This could either result in his spilling the beans (if Kavanaugh and he are guilty), or in if they're innocent it could result in some compelling testimony from him if he expresses his commitment to this.

Infinite time doesn't necessarily ensure repeating. Assume repeated big bangs but the initial energy level at the beginning of inflation can be any real number between two boundaries. There are infinitely many possible initial energy levels. The probability of starting with exactly the same number twice is zero.

If that's not obvious, consider that sequence of universes (from this day forward) has a 1:1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers - so it has a cardinality of aleph0, while the set of possible energy levels is 1:1 with the set of real numbers, which has cardinality aleph1.

4. Assume time is eternal. If it can happen it will happen. An infinite number of times. No matter how unlikely it was in the first place! So all things happen an infinite number of times.

That is true only if there are a finite number of possible worlds.

While I favor a thorough investigation, I question how likely it is this would produce sufficient evidence to tip the balance one way or another. On the anti-Kavanaugh side, it would only matter if multiple people could corroborate a specific incident, and I think it's unlikely since this hasn't come out so far with the press digging in.

"His guilt or innocence is completely secondary to both parties concerns"

Sad, but true - at least in the aggregate.

The only reasoning is that once nominated his seat is secured and no future investigations could remove him. Which seems silly,

It's not silly. Confirmation only requires 51 votes in the Senate. Removal from office requires 67 votes.

I think what deserves our attention and analyses is the situation when both Kavanaugh and Ford acted, played and performed as actors; yet, in comparison with theatre, they played and represented their own lives and biographies. (By the way, while playing a role, is an actor honest?) The real facts of their lives were entirely overshadowed by the quality and persuasiveness of their performances, and most commentators were talking just about who made a better impression. What is important here is not truth itself, but the condition of the whole game, which make some enunciations looking more or less truthful.

I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with your assertion, "What is important here is not truth itself". Truth is the most important thing here, even if it is not treated that way by politicians. Truth is non-partisan, and we should encourage our elected representatives to keep that in mind.

Excellent points.

If philosophers are not able or willing to transcend these predictable patterns in some manner or another, there's really little to justify their existence.

A great topic for a new thread.

If a person points out something to another person and that other person does the correct thing in the situation to interact with whatever then it would seem that we all perceive alike. — MountainDwarf

Agreed - and this means it is reasonable that we all perceive alike (or within a tolerance).

But, on the mental or psychological level how do we know that their perception of the world isn't more like a person with a sensory disorder?

We don't "know" but we have no good reason to believe that is the case - because, as you said, we have evidence he perceives what we perceive.

This is philosophy, and there is no proof for God, so we can't be sure.

We can be pretty damn sure, but we have to accept the fact that knowledge (in the strict sense) is impossible or at least rare, so we have to settle for justified beliefs.

Regarding solipsism: do you know anyone who is? I doubt it. IMO our basic view of the world is innate: we recognize a distinction between ourselves and everything else - and recognize that there are others like us. This is not taught. It makes sense that we'd have some such innate, relatively accurate, view of the world - because how else could our species (and our ancestor species) have survived? The only thing solipsism has going for it is that it is possible. But we innately believe it is false, and such a belief is worthy of being maintained unless rationally defeated - and mere possibility is not a defeater.

I thought that your argument is that we need to count an infinite number of things in order for there to be an infinite number of things, or at the very least, in order for us to prove or justify that an infinite number of things exists. I don't think any of these two beliefs is true.

We don't need to observe every human being dying in order to prove or justify our belief that all human beings are mortal. — Magnus Anderson

I agree about humans, but this has nothing to do with my position. My issue is that we can't assume some set of properties is instantiated in a real world object solely because we can coherently define the properties.

The abstraction "human being" is derived from things we know exist: we abstract out the properties that we observe in human beings, so there's no question about these abstractions being instantiated in the real world.

The concept of infinity is not formed by abstracting out properties of known existents. The concept is formed by extrapolation of other abstractions. One such extrapolation is the infinity of natural numbers. 4 doesn't exist in the real world; 4-ness is a property of certain states of affairs - those consisting of 4 objects. So we know 4-ness is instantiated. Is infinity-ness instantiated? We can't point to anything that has this property.

The infinity of natural numbers can be conceptualized by contemplating an unending count, but that isn't a process that can be instantiated - that was my point with counting. No, this isn't a proof, because there may be other ways an infinity might be instantiated. But without one to point to, we have no basis to assume it CAN be instantiated.

Again, this reasoning isn't a proof. Rather, it's a justification for me to believe it more likely there are no instantiated infinities in the real world, than that there are.

Relativist: 'A "sphere" (or "ideal sphere") is an abstraction, not an actually existing thing.'

We use abstractions, i.e. symbols, in order to represent reality. For example, the term "human being" is a symbol -- a written or a spoken word -- that can be used to represent certain portions of reality. We don't say human beings don't exist merely because the term "human being" is an abstraction. We only say that human beings don't exist if there is no portion of reality that can be represented by the term "human being". — Magnus Anderson

Agree, but note that what exists is an instantiation of the abstraction: a real world object that has the properties described by the abstraction. I'm just rejecting the argument that an abstracted X implies there are necessarily real-world X. We are more justified in beliefing X if there are clearly instantiations of X.

Relativist: 'You bring up another abstraction: the number of possible paths being infinite. This is hypothetical; in the real world, you cannot actually trace an infinite number of paths. So in the real world you cannot actually COLLECT an infinity. All you can do is to conceptualize.'

You don't need to be able to count an infinite number of things in order for that infinite quantity of things to exist. — Magnus Anderson

Sure, but you need some reason to think the abstracted infinity is instantiated in the real world, otherwise your justification is the mere fact that we can abstractly conceptualize infinity.

I don't see how anyone could doubt that Ford actually was assaulted as she described. It's less certain that Kavanaugh did it because there's some possibility she was mistaken about who did it.

Kavanaugh sounded generally credible, but on the other hand he would clearly have a motivation to lie. His best points centered around his 1982 schedule.

His worst points were his attacks on Democrats. Nothing the Democrats did has bearing on the facts, so bringing this up seemed a deflection that hurts hus credibility. Beyond the question of his guilt/innocence, a SCOTUS candidate should refrain from partisanship, and he should show respect for due process and fact gathering.

Bottom line, based on the limited evidence available, I have a reasonable doubt about Kavanaugh's guilt. However I could not affirm his appointment because there's a sufficiently good chance he did it (>50%), and I think that is far above the threshhold that ought to be applied.

I am wondering if sensus divinitatis should be used in the argument for the existence of God.

It seems to me to be a reasonable epistemic justification for believing in some sort of god(s). In theory, it is a sensing of the existence of god(s), and if true - it can be deemed as trustworthy as any of our other senses. But it's not a basis for an argument for God's existence - your alleged sense of God carries no weight with me, who does not have it. I think you're mistaken in attributing the sensation to God, while you think I'm mistaken for failing to accept what my senses are telling me, or defective for failing to have these senses.

The hypothesis that there is such a thing as sensus divinitatis is based on the idea that all peoples in all cultures throughout history have believed in god(s). Appealing to this basis has the problemaic implication that the sense is very non-specfic - all this sense can be telling anyone is that some sort of god or gods exist, not that some particular conception (or religion) is true.

I have seen a rise in Trump support after he was elected, sort of similar to Germany having an increase in anti-Semitism after Hitler took over. — LD Saunders

I don't think leaders change the points of view of the public, they just make it seem more reasonable to express their views.

"Everybody (bar none) misbehaves at times. Everybody (bar none) behaves unwisely at times. Everybody (bar none) has their own memory of what did or did not happen in the past. "His lies" depends on "her truth". No. I don't automatically believe what women say."

I'm not demanding you believe Ford at this point. I'm asking you to acknowledge that IF she is telling the truth then clearly Kavanaugh is lying, and IF Kavanaugh is lying, then he ought not to be confirmed.

This is not judging who is telling the truth. This is asking about principles, because principles keep getting blurred by people expressing their opinion about who is lying and who should be believed.

It doesn't matter how many people heard her discuss Kavanaugh's behavior. It wasn't criminal when it happened and being brought up 35 years later doesn't make it criminal now, either. — Bitter Crank

That's beside the point. If Ford is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh is lying to Congress and that's sufficient reason to deny his promotion.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. I was just saying that reports of his being a virgin during that period don't carry much relevance to me with regard to his innocence.

IMO, he should not be approved if there's a good chance he indeed did any of the alleged acts. I wish there were more discussion on the standards we'd like to see applied, and less on our personal judgments.

So, how is it that Trump, a person who seems only interested in promoting himself, is supported by about a third of the American population? Is it that they don't comprehend good and evil? Or, is it that they are mistaken, believing that Trump is an individual who is engaged in self-sacrifice and is subservient to others? Trump cares so little about the suffering of others, after the 9/11 attacks, he bragged that he now had the tallest building in New York. It just seems odd to me that a person could even have the level of support Trump does have, given the fact he would be considered a villain by the standards of classic western literature. — LD Saunders

I see at least three camps of Trump supporters:

1) pragmatists, who don't like his personal behaviour but very much like most of the policies he is implementing. A demon who implements the right policy is better than a saint who implements the wrong one.

2) The polemicists- who demonize those who disagree with them politically. They are the first to believe idle rumors and conspiracy theories about people on the opposite side, and last to believe anything bad about the people they support. Lot's of people are delighted that "Trump is just like us".

3) The rationalizers - they supported Trump over "Crooked Hillary", and once a decision is made - they are psychologically disposed to continually rationalize their prior choice. Like the alleged frustrated democrats who haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election; they behave as if the election is still in progress and they must continually to rationalize their choice. You continually hear, "but Hillary...." as part of their rationalization.

But when it comes to before the beginning nobody knows anything. — SteveKlinko

That's self-contradictory. A beginning has no predecessor, or it's not the beginning.

His alleged behaviour is consistent with a virgin who has repressed his sexuality.

I went to an elite, boys-only Catholic High School in Houston, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn of one my rich, entitled classmates doing what he is alleged to have done. Plus, the cliques stuck together, so it would be easy to get a friend to corroborate an alibi.

Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"

Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"

Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science. — SnoringKitten

Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable. In addition, it diverges from common usage. A "theist" believes there is a god (or gods). A-theist (or atheist) is taken as the converse, so there's a clear dichotomy: everyone fits into one or the other buckets.

The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods). One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing? The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague. Agnostic is best thought of as a different dimension.

Your definition of "theist" is fine because it's consistent with typical self-identification: everyone who considers himself a Christian, Muslim, religious Jew, Hindu, or any other mono- or poly- theistic religion fits. But again, it is equally reasonable to identify the set of people who do not fit into the "theist" category.

Does anyone think the following are both true:

1) Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been removed from office because he committed perjury - lying about getting blow jobs
2) Trump does not deserve to be impeached if he broke laws during the campaign (such as might be uncovered by Mueller's investigation).

My impression is that Lindsay Graham believes this, so I'm curious if anyone else does.

— tim wood

There cannot have not been infinitely many paths TAKEN, there are only infinitely many possible paths that could potentially be taken, but it is impossible to actually follow them - no matter how long we have to try. So these paths exist in the abstract, but not in the real world. — Relativist

Why do they have to be taken to be real? If they're not taken are they not real? .... Each is a possible path. It's the "taken" you object to? But whenever was a clock attached to a number?

Arguably: no, they aren't real.

For starters, look at this physically: it is impossible to determine a position with any precision smaller than a Plank length (1.6 x 10^-35 meters.) Therefore there is a minimum width for possible paths, and thus the number of paths that could possibly be taken is finite. (source).

But what I'm actually objecting to the treatment of abstractions as existents. Triangles do not exist; rather: objects with triangular shapes exist. We form abstractions by contemplating objects with similar features and mentally omitting the non-common features. Philosophers call this the "way of abstraction"). This is not actual existence. For this reason, it is inadequate to point to abstractions (or mental objects) as examples of actual infinities. If someone can come up with an example of an infinity in the real world, that is not just a mental object, then I'd jump on the pro-infinity bandwagon.