The number I found was 34.000. Having 34.000 dollars in assets is not "poverty" according to any definition I am aware of. It's also for every single person, not household assets. For the vast majority of the population, that would be significant wealth. — Echarmion

That would be very good for the millions of people who have negative net wealth.

What we call science can be rather arbitrary. Are the social sciences really science, for example. Do they have all of the necessary conditions to be science or are they missing some? Psychology is science. A dog is a type of cat.

For example, if I enumerated all of the specific locations on earth that are sufficiently on earth, you would arrive at the necessary condition of being on earth? All that amounts to is being on earth is being on earth. So, yes, I think I agree with you? I’m confused.

A sufficient condition is always a superset of a necessary condition right? — leo

Does this mean that if you enumerated all of the sufficient conditions you would also end up with a necessary condition?

But I personally don’t know anything about particle decay.

Basically it's a brute ontological fact. — Terrapin Station

But protons must surely be identical apart from inhabiting different locations and having different relative motion, no? But that has nothing to do with evolution.

Actually, you were right. There was no subtext. I bet there is a champion of the amoebas, though.

Well, it kind of follows from the nonidenticality of discernibles in general. If we can discern two things, they can't be identical. — Terrapin Station

Yes. I guess a better question than where is how individuality happens. I think that was the subtext.

Right. By definition then if one accepts nominalism.

A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. — Harry Hindu

This seems like it could be justified, possibly, by the meaning of “necessary.”

Those are the only powers a government should have. — Harry Hindu

This cannot be justified, or I at least don’t see how it could be.

I must be manic because it seems like everyone is bored, confused, or dumbstruck by my responses and questions.

A government is only necessary to provide protection against external and internal threats to the free system, and to build and maintain a system of roads and bridges to make the free market more effecient. Those are the only powers a government should have. — Harry Hindu

Is this just an opinion of yours or do you have justification for these assertions?

I mean, how much philosophy can a person grind through? — god must be atheist

I guess for me it’s not grinding through it. It’s just something I must do. Some people philosophize about everything all the time. Others do it rarely, but it’s something we all do.

Peter Griffin’s ancestor philosopher’s wife told him to get a job. He asked, “but why?”

:wink:

Almost all human endeavor is philosophy or an attempt to answer why questions. The rest is animal instinct.

:smile:

S just wants all people to think and value how he thinks and what he values. S supremacy. It’s like using a blunt object. Instead of guiding people by asking the right questions, he wants to force his will on the world. Asking the right questions gets others, as well as oneself, to discover new truths. S seems to think he already has all the answers, and the unthinking masses need to be subjugated and tamed.

In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense? — Noah Te Stroete

And they must do this out of necessity. Medicine is another example. Trends are found and treatments are based on these trends instead of treating the individual’s unique physiology. Although, it would be easier to treat an individual as an individual in medicine than to, say, determine what a particular cloud is going to do. It wouldn’t even be worth the effort to determine what a cloud is going to do. It would be worth the effort to find treatments for the individual, but it is not economical or even viable in practice.

In meteorology, for example, they cannot determine what is going to happen in a specific location, only a general trend over a generally large area. They can only do this because the science ignores individuality, and so ignores most of reality. Does that make sense?

And there is growing evidence that they may be local and time bound - iow not really laws, but patterns. — Coben

Such as, how do you model individual clouds or people. Generalities are easy because it ignores most of reality.

Ah. I see. Never mind. Actually, that doesn’t answer the question of HOW individuality happens. Now I’m not sure what the initial question was supposed to be. Individuality, the why, the how, or the what.

Now that Big Brother is watching you, and prevents you from ambushing, attacking, and violently confiscating stuff from weaker-looking suckers, trade can resume again. — alcontali

Big Brother watches me specifically so that I don’t put someone in the hospital again but also to ensure my safety that people don’t wrongly accuse me. I’ve learned to love Big Brother because the alternative, a mental institution or jail, would afford significantly less freedom. “Slavery is freedom” is literally true in my case.

And what was nominalism an answer to? You said “where nominalism begins.” What was the question?

Hmm. Philosophizing while questioning the value of philosophy... EVERYONE philosophizes and values philosophy even when they don’t realize they are DOING IT!

The only way to move away from realism with respect to experience is to introduce theoretical explanations for what's really going on. — Terrapin Station

If you mean a way of organizing experience, then yes, noting that certain things (trees) are equally capable of evoking the concept <tree> does organize our experience. — Dfpolis

This requires a more in depth discussion to distinguish the differences.

Can you remind us what nominalism is in your own words?

This discussion of the theoretical of universal collective vs. private ownership is just that, theoretical. Practical implementation is much more complex and messier than the discussion seems to take into account. Neither side is in reality doable, but I still think the discussion is worthwhile to try to solve the systemic problems of the status quo. This is my opinion.

I love Nerd Wars.

Ah yes, well spotted. — Wayfarer

I know. I’m an ass.

I guess. Hey I'm a grand-dad now, don't want to corrupt the youth. — Wayfarer

You seem like you have a lot of wisdom to impart. You must be a cool grandpa! :cool:

*discreet

:razz:

No! Don’t GO! You just got here, and this forum needs irreverent, dark humor! You add a needed flavor, and it won’t be as good if you leave! :groan:

Let's talk about something else. — Bitter Crank

Joe Louis vs. Rocky Marciano, who was better? Never mind. That could get racial.

Unfortunately, my wife falls for these snake oil vendors frequently. I haven’t been immune myself in the past. This is an important thread that you’ve started here.

I see knowledge as being in three guises; knowing that, knowing how and knowing with. They are often conflated which creates much confusion and controversy. — Janus

Can you give examples just for clarification? I think I agree with you, btw.

I’m beginning to think that knowledge is a belief that things work a certain way, the belief that they will continue to work that way until they no longer work that way. Once that belief is shattered, it is no longer knowledge. The belief must have its foundation in empirical experiences.

An example is the function of bows and arrows. Properly functioning bows if used properly will continue to shoot arrows away from the user. As long as this is the case it is knowledge given someone believes this. There can be knowledge of proper use of bows and arrows, the making of bows and arrows, and the repair of bows and arrows. As long as these things continue to work and someone believes they will continue to work, then they know about the use, construction, and repair of them.

Scientific knowledge is something else. It employs explanatory models. Once something doesn’t fit into that model, the model is modified or scrapped. Scientific knowledge is much more tenuous and less useful than the example I gave above, but this needs justification:

Technology precedes science in a lot of cases. Bows and arrows preceded F=MA, for example. However, E=MC^2 preceded the atom bomb. Bows and arrows will continue to work even without scientific knowledge. Atom bombs can be built by step-by-step instructions (simplistic, I know) without understanding E=MC^2 as North Korea probably did through the aid of Russia. Explanatory models are modified all the time. Sometimes they are even scrapped. However, the knowledge of the steps to build an atom bomb are true as long as atom bombs continue to work, regardless of whether E=MC^2 is modified or scrapped for something that works better as an explanatory model.

Thus, useful knowledge is more compelling than scientific knowledge.

I've learned, however, that the generations that have come since seem to have missed all of this - the 'window closed again', so to speak. But that's more about the background, and I'm afraid without some grasp of that, then the distinctions between belief, realisation and experience can never be articulated. — Wayfarer

I was born in 1979 (at the border of Gen X and Millennials). My parents were a part of the counter culture. I grew up with their rock and roll. I had long hair as a toddler, and nudity wasn’t something to be ashamed of.

When I got a little older, my dad told me about his and my mom’s experiences with acid and pot (or “grass” as they said in the 60s and 70s). As a 17 year-old, in the early days of the World Wide Web, a friend of mine showed me Timothy Leary’s website and also a website containing the Tibetan Book of the Dead. My dad, although a Protestant for most of his life, introduced me to Buddhism, the Tao Te Ching, and “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.”

So when I went off to Loyola University Chicago, you could say that I had an open mind and a liberal attitude. I had emotional problems, too, so experimenting with drugs seemed like a good escape. I smoked a lot of weed second semester, and I did acid (what were called “gel tabs,” a specific form of delivery method for LSD) once. I can only describe the experience as “being one with the world” or having no boundaries between me and the outside world. It was a nice trip.

I only did acid that one time. Haven’t done it since. However, I have had experiences since then that were similar when not taking my medication for six months a while back. This with no drugs (although I thought a few times that someone was drugging me).

I do not recommend the use of drugs to anyone.

All I can say is that one can experience things that do not seem natural. Interpretation of these experiences (such as thinking that people were drugging me) do not rise to the requirements of knowledge, but one can feel wonder or awe or Oneness while withholding judgment as to what the cause is.

Thank you for your consideration.

:starstruck:

Do I get a ribbon? Just kidding.

There seem to be a lot of people trying to avoid belief, I don't get it...only an all knowing being could avoid belief. Isn't avoiding belief like avoiding emotion? We do it all the time whether we like it or not (and redefining words doesn't help us avoid it). — ZhouBoTong

When you say, “I don’t know,” you are avoiding belief. Right?

A transcendental idealist says that some things are empirical experience and other things are mental constructs. Sense data are by their nature from outside reality. Space and time and frames of reference are mental constructs or inside projected outside. Did I get that right, @Mww?