Go on... I'm fooled because...

Give me some examples of people being canceled because of their pro-wealth positions, or for supporting slave labour companies like Apple....

Something to back up your claim that this is about oppression in general and not just about the kind of oppression that the rich can have a slice of too.

Without a shadow of a doubt the most oppressed group on the planet are poor children working in near slavery to support Western consumerism. Explain to me how forcing Kathleen Stock out of her job helps them.

@Benkei

For the removal of doubt. This is what I mean by cancel culture...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock

https://www.imore.com/spotify-overwhelmed-requests-cancel-following-joe-rogan-saga

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/05/21/why-is-peter-doshi-still-an-editor-at-the-bmj-rfk-jr-version/

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jk-rowling-speaks-out-on-being-cancelled-084934390.html

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/06/25/blasphemy-is-now-a-sackable-offence-asda-islam-billy-connolly/

https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/06/05/transphobia-has-no-place-in-the-whoniverse/

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/07/07/gillian-philip-publisher-sacked-warrior-cats-author-jk-rowling-harpercollins-uk-transphobia/

Are you seriously trying to argue there's a class warfare thread running through those?

I have absolutely no complaint about the many legitimate 'cancelations' of people who have turned out to be racist, homophobic, sexist, far-right sympathisers, holocaust deniers... These people intend harm (they might believe the harm is deserved, or for the best, but they actually intend harm of some kind to their victims).

Disagreeing about the use of the term 'woman', or the best public health strategy, or the proper use of cultural terms might cause harm (depending on who's right), but it is not intended to harm. There's a huge difference

You talk about elites and the powerless, yet every issue at stake in 'cancel culture' avoids class like the plague.

Are there no rich black people, no rich homosexuals, no rich transgender, no rich transsexuals?

Are there no black CEOs, no homosexual CEOs, no transgender CEOs, no transsexuals CEOs?

I'll tell you what there isn't. There's no working class rich people. There's no working class CEOs.

You want to turn the woke agenda into a class agenda when class is the one thing it avoids mentioning at all costs.

There's a difference between taking grievances serious and taking lies seriously. — Benkei

There is indeed. That doesn't mean anything you think are lies count as lies. That way no discourse can ever take place. You have to have space for something you think is a lie, but might not be, otherwise you're just a dogmatist. So the point is not the existence of a threshold beyond which we don't 'debate', the point is it's location.

Case in point follows...

Talking shit about transgenders, gays, lesbians, transsexuals etc. just has to stop. Joking about disabled people has to stop.

People fought wars over justice to get it. — Benkei

No they didn't. It's one of those 'undisputed facts' we like so much that absolutely no-one ever fought a war over "transgenders, gays, lesbians, transsexuals". They fought wars (or serious violent protest) over slavery, racial segregation, female emancipation... The fact that you've piggybacked off those conflicts to add your campaign de jour is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't just say that because some matters are beyond reasonable discussion, any matter you care to raise can be put into that pot. If we want to get along, rather than just break into permanently warring factions, we have to hold to some reasonably well-agreed upon common ground.

The point is not whether we should always debate and never fight, I'm with you on that one, there's a time for fighting, there's a time to stop talking and just kick people out of polite society...

...the question I'm raising is how we decide when that time is, not whether it exists at all.

Februrary 18th already. Typical Russians. Late as usual. Too busy organising Canadian truckers and missed their deadline most likely.

If we're all going to be annihilated in world war three it could at least start on time. I had tickets...

Is this something you accept? — frank

Absolutely. What I object to is the insinuation that it's paranoid conspiracy simply to argue that people haven't had good intentions in any given case. They might have, they might not have. It's perfectly legitimate to argue either case in any given set of circumstances.

Personally, here, I see a lot of effort being put into silencing opposing narratives and that immediately makes me suspicious that intentions are not good, but it's only a suspicion, I'm only arguing for the right to hold such a suspicion and not be branded a lunatic or anti-social for doing so.

It does not follow that since government has failed in some ways to protect public health that it can't be doing that with pandemic measures. — frank

I didn't say it did. It's a constant theme here (in reflection of wider society)... Glance back over my contributions on this thread. Who's making the claims? It's not (largely) the anti- side, it's the pro- side. I'm happy for you to think the government are being super helpful this time. The problem here is that you (generic you) are not so happy for me not to think that. It's my legitimacy in reaching different conclusions that's being constantly called into question, not your legitimacy in reaching the mainstream ones.

What I'm arguing against is not your opinion that the government have it right this time, I've no problem with you thinking that. I'm arguing against the repeated assertion that I can't even argue the opposite without having my mental health called into question.

I'm not arguing that the government actually are colluding with corporations for their benefit in managing this crisis, I'm arguing for the far lesser claim that it's not 'paranoid conspiracy' to think that they are... It's absolutely uncontested fact that that's what they do at least some of the time.

Sorry for being centrist and not going with the given stereotypical characters. — ssu

You realise passing off moderate centrism as the only truly wise assessment in all situations is a 'stereotypical character'. It's pretty much the archetype.

Some things actually are bad, sometimes there is massive collusion, sometimes the group that seem like the 'bad guys' seem that way because they actually are the bad guys.



Wealthy corporate CEOs and shareholders lobby, bribe and coerce governments and media outlets to act in ways which increase their wealth, that's not even in dispute. Every time you explain away some situation of benefit to them as something that just 'happens anyway' you take the spotlight away from that behaviour, you underplay it's significance.

If you had a portfolio of absolutely conclusive evidence that no collusion took place I'd understand your position, you might want to take down the unmitigated greed but are compelled by the evidence to admit no such thing this time...

...but you're not. There's no wealth of evidence either way, so the question is why your default position is to underplay the influence of the super wealthy. Are you hoping they'll let you into the club if you show a decent amount of servility?

if we point to the failure of governments to do anything about the sugar and tobacco industries, we're saying the government should have far reaching power to protect the health of citizens. Measures taken to control the pandemic were exactly that. — frank

Not at all. The point I'm making is that it's ridiculous to argue that the government's draconian interventions in this pandemic are all for our own good and not for any other motive when the history of successive governments has been an unbroken run of unwillingness to even so much as lift a finger to prevent the deaths of millions every year.

Those who argue that the suggestion of ulterior motives is 'paranoid conspiracy' are asking us to believe that governments who have done absolutely nothing about the deaths of millions again and again, from crisis after crisis are suddenly possessed of a hand-wringing concern for humanity which somehow eluded them when millions were dying from opioids, obesity, smoking...or simple poverty.

The common theme is that in those other issues, corporations (who spend billions lobbying those very governments) stood to gain by the government dragging its feet. This time they stand to gain by the government laying it on thick.

Cui bono.

No, that's just how the modern media works. — ssu

Uh huh, nothing to see here, everything as it should be, always was, always will be...

Appeal to mediocrity isn't an argument, no matter how well it fits with the script for the 'worldly wise voice of centrism' character you like to play.

From Vinay Prasad (the well known fringe extremist and far-right agitator - apparently!)

Omicron has 3 characteristics different than prior variants. First, it spreads very fast. Second, it is less lethal, and, third, vaccines do less to stop symptomatic infection. These 3 features mean that in this wave, or in a series of subsequent waves, the virus will eventually reach all people. You cannot avoid it forever. There are 5 key policy lessons from all this.

First, mask mandates make no sense. Almost all community wide mask mandates this entire pandemic asked people to wear any mask, and most people chose a cloth one. Cloth masks never worked to slow the spread of the virus. We analyzed all relevant studies months ago, and found no benefit, and a cluster randomized trial in Bangladesh found that cloth masks failed. Recently, CNN admitted as much.

Now, some argue that we need to wear higher grade masks, such as n95s or equivalent. Anyone who wishes should be free to do so, but they should not be mandated. We have no evidence such population wide mandates will help, and the truth is, even if worn perfectly, the mask might only delay the time until you are eventually are infected, and not avert it. Worse, along the way you will suffer the discomfort and inconvenience of the mask.

Second, schools should not close. Closing schools was always a fool’s errand. High quality studies show school closure does not even slow spread in communities. Kids, working moms and society suffer significantly when schools close. Kids have bigger worries in life than COVID19. Outcomes for healthy kids are excellent and on par with seasonal flu. School closure in the USA was disproportionately an indulgence of liberal cities with strong teacher’s unions.

Third, we cannot keep the brakes on society. People are voting with their feet, and outside of urban liberal enclaves, people are enjoying restaurants, bars, and vacations. In many regions, you would not know a pandemic is going on. This reflects a fundamental exhaustion of the public. Given that so much of the public is done with restrictions, placing extremely harsh ones on college campuses, for instance, makes no sense. Colleges are full of the healthiest members of society. Asking these kids to be imprisioned in their rooms or dorms or on campus neither helps them or broader society.

Fourth, we have to focus on the most vulnerable people in society, as we always should have. The CDC director has now admitted this, in a remarkable turn. Nursing homes should get booster shots right now. We should think about improving staffing and infection control at these settings.

Fifth, hospitals should improve their capacities. Some health care workers were fired or forced out because of not receiving the vaccine. Some of these people had already had COVID19. These people should be permitted to return to work, with appropriate precautions, because at this juncture we need them far more than any risk they pose.

I've just been getting some continuing education about tobacco abuse. It's stands out starkly that governments do nothing about it when it's clearly killing people: about half a million Americans each year. — frank

Yep. 8 million deaths a year and still no simple ban on sales. But not only tobacco.

Obesity (4.7 million deaths) - fuck all, not even a sugar tax, let alone any restrictions on advertising.
Pharmacuticals pushing opiods (half a million deaths) - fuck all, they're back at it pushing for even less oversight.
Banks laundering money for drug cartels (tens of thousands of deaths) - fuck all (to be fair HSBC did get a very stern look from the AG)
Endemic alcohol abuse (3 million deaths) - fuck all, not even so much as funding support groups
Companies supporting child slavery (79 million in hazardous work) - fuck all, voluntary schemes for whitewashing.
Pesticides, PCFEs, greenhouse gases... all treated like side-issues which must be weighed carefully against economic interests and personal freedom

And yet the idea that the mandates, lockdowns and censorship over covid are all done out of our government's concern for human welfare is somehow supposed to be not only plausible, but so much so that alternative narratives are dismissible as 'conspiracy'.

Well...they really have had a Damascus moment haven't they, what a stroke of luck. I guess we're all saved.

No doubt they'll be flexing their new found legislative muscle on all those other issues any minute...but I won't hold my breath.

It's not like there is an Canadian owned arms industry, but the following: — ssu

Well we hear now that the truckers are all American infiltrators, or Russian plants, or both possibly, so clearly Canada has no limits as to the jurisdictional scope of it's clampdown on terrorists. Not really the point, though.

the Canadian government hasn't noticed that after omicron the attitudes have changed and this is the time when ordinary, let's say even non-Trumpian not populist-governments, are easing the restrictions and are going the way Sweden went long ago. — ssu

Yep, the narrative is losing it's sway. It's as if some other distraction has come along to take its place. Oh look...https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-a-full-invasion-by-russia-could-trigger-world-war-three-warns-government-minister-in-kiev-12496570. Look over there! Another shock crisis the solution to which will make the largest industrial lobbies even richer, who'd a' thought it, what a coincidence.

All the toilets at a nightclub I go to are unisex. — Michael

Yeah, compared the efforts (though still woefully inadequate) to ensure disabled access to buildings, baulking at putting up a few MDF partitions seems like a manufactured problem to me.

That is important but not quite the subject of this thread. Or am I missing something you're alluding to that I'm not understanding? — Benkei

Reading through, there seems to be a central issue about the tri-fold difference between self-identification as a criterion for 'womanhood' vs identification on the basis of various indicators of biological origin vs the deliberate medical creation of those indicators. It's the resolution of this issue that impacts the concerns I mentioned. For example, if 'womanhood' is universally measured by self-identification, then redress for discrimination (based on biological features of birth) becomes impossible.

Of course, a very simple solution exists, which is to have criteria for 'womanhood' vary by context. Which is why I mentioned the toxic environment in which these matters are discussed, an environment which essentially excludes nuance and contextualisations.

complaints about "cancel culture" from right wingers who then turn around and prohibit the teaching of evolution theory or critical race theory should simply be ignored. — Benkei

Should they? I'd rather both than neither. If you ignore their complaints are you not handing them ammunition to ignore ours. The issue seems to be about whether we 'cancel' on the basis of intent to harm or mere disagreement. The moment we set the criteria to mere disagreement (from a left wing agenda), we put in place social structures to do exactly that same thing (from a right wing agenda) depending entirely on who has most social capital at the time. I think that's a dangerous place to be.

The other nature of news nowadays is a lot reporting on opinions, instead of facts. — Benkei

The threshold of justification at which an opinion can be declared 'fact' is a social agreement and as such vulnerable to political influence. We've seen (in this topic, and others recently) considerable leverage applied to redefine that agreement and render a range of propositions as 'fact' because of political expediency.

I try to not read the news anymore unless it's an investigative journalism piece. — Benkei

Likewise. The sycophancy makes me sick.

In case the point remains opaque.

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-neocons-primary-war-tactic-branding

Yeah, right.

Good to see the Canadian government really pull out all the stops to sort out these terrorists.

The sooner these extant threats to civilization are dealt with the better. Then Canada can get back to decent civilzed behaviour. Like...

Letting it's major mining companies shrug off gang rape...http://protestbarrick.net/article.php@id=971.html and collude with slave labour...https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/eritrea-fifth-estate-1.3444779.

Letting oil companies walk over tribal rights.. https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/85-first-nations-tribes-call-on-trudeau-to-condemn-enbridge-for-involved-in-dakota-pipeline-project/.

Selling arms to regimes responsible for human rights abuses...https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-now-the-second-biggest-arms-exporter-to-middle-east-data-show/article30459788/.

All without touching a penny of their money.

But protestors disagreeing about public health strategy, well...clearly they must be stopped at all costs.

I think the only worthwhile discussions to be had are what to do about bathroom stalls, sports and spa and the like. — Benkei

Bathroom stalls are easy (cubicles for all), sports are easy (who gives a fuck).

Of far more importance, I think, is addressing the concerns of women about safe spaces, reporting of crimes against women, the security of lesbians (and gay men) as protected identities...

Society doesn't discriminate against dresses and long hair, it discriminates against women. Right from birth. If that discrimination remains then redressing it requires the identification of the oppressed group and the limiting of measures of redress to that group, not to anyone who might want to join later, after all the privileges of their birth sex have been enjoyed.

Notwithstanding, the more urgent issue is the degree to which the resolution of such issues is being dealt with in an increasingly hostile and partisan way, ensuring that moderate voices on both sides are muffled in favour of the more media-friendly dogmatists who seem to be increasingly the only voices given air.

What! Governments exaggerating a threat so that powerful industries can benefit. Sounds like some kind of crazy conspiracy theory to me.

Best just trust what the official experts have to say on the matter...

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/russia-ukraine-news-latest-today-nato-us-reject-putin-claims-withdrawl/

...so that's settled then. The experts say Russia is preparing for war and I'm sure the billions that the pharmaceuticalarms industry will make is just a coincidence.

Of course, you might find some experts disagreeing, but with none of you being military strategists, you wouldn't want to be 'doing your own research', would you?

Besides, have you not read the news? Those nasty truckers are funded by the Russians, best be on the safe side, lest they fund any more peaceful protestsdomestic terrorists.

It's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. — Xtrix

Seeing as you're having trouble with this.

You've made three claims.

1. That a 'significant' proportion of the 20-30% of people still not vaccinated have been "irrational" in making that decision.

2. That this "irrationality" is driven by social media.

3. That this is a major problem we need to be concerned about with regards to global issues.

I'm disputing (1) on the following grounds

i. Many experts do not agree with 100% vaccination as an aim, many dispute the government's roll-outs to certain age groups. Following experts is perfectly rational. You've failed to make the case for your claim that we somehow ought to find out what the majority are saying and follow that, and even if you had, you've failed to provide any evidence of this majority other than your say so. Note - the action you're describing as irrational is {not taking a vaccine}, that's different to the opinion {vaccines are unsafe or ineffective}.

So to be clear. Following the advice of experts is perfectly rational behaviour, it does not become irrational if those experts happen to be in a minority.

ii. Many people, quite rationally, don't trust the institutions advocating the vaccine. The pharmaceutical companies are routinely involved in lies and misinformation, often escalating to criminal activity, doctors are easily pressured to prescribe whatever the pharmaceutical companies tell them to, and regulatory agencies have been shown to be unduly influenced by industry and government - the director and deputy director have just walked out of the FDA over undue government influence, 11 of 16 FDA medical reviewers involved in approving 28 products now work for the companies whose products they regulated. Mistrust of the FDA is entirely warranted. Your counter that this issue is more heavily scrutinised is, again, without a shred of evidential support.

So to be clear, it is not irrational to assume institutions will behave in a manner you've conclusive evidence of them having recently behaved.

iii. Your characterisation of the vaccine hesitant as gullible rednecks is inaccurate. Here, for example is a consultant anaesthetist with the NHS - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jan/08/nhs-doctor-challenges-sajid-javid-over-covid-vaccination-rules . Here's the government's own chief vaccine advisor

Mass population-based vaccination in the UK should now end — Dr Clive Dix

.

I'm not disputing (2), I agree that whatever irrationality remains, it is driven by social media.

I'm disputing (3) on the grounds that the major lobbying powers have little to zero concern for the opinions of a small amount of people who were going to vote Republican anyway. Voters make almost zero difference to policy which is driven entirely by lobbying. I suspect your already agree with this and are just making a pointless exception, but if you don't I can provide a detailed argument in support.

The reason this irks me so much is that labelling everyone who disagrees with you as 'irrational' prevents us from actually reaching any kind of cooperative consensus, but rather just perpetuates the toxic tribalism that social media has been stoking for these last few years. It also undermines the legitimate use of the category to exclude from the conversation those who are genuinely irrational, all you do is give them ammunition with which fight their 'we're being silenced' campaign.

I trusted in the experts — Xtrix

Here's what the 'experts' are saying...

Every single paper, pre-print, opinion piece, consultancy report, podcast and blog written by someone holding doctorate level qualification in epidemiology, infectious diseases, immunology, pharmacology or public health policy.

That includes the Great Barrington declaration, Stefan Baral's concerns about myocarditis, Vinay Prasad advising against masking children, Pete Doshi asking that FDA approval be withheld, Katherine Yih's concerns about pulling funding away from public health, Martin Kulldorff's worries about the effect of lockdowns on medical treatments, Andrew Pollard's concerns about pursuing a herd immunity strategy, Marion Gruber's concerns about booster doses, Sarah Walker's concerns about vaccination in children, Alfred Sommer's advocation of natural immunity, Matthew Memoli's advice about focussing vaccines on the vulnerable, the JCVI advising against vaccination for children, Aaron Prosser's work on the NNT of vaccine passports, Norman Fenton's concerns about how we record Covid cases, Paul Hunter's worries about how we record Covid deaths... I could go on

Every single one of these people is a qualified professor of medicine or statistics at a respected university, all have a large body of published work in their field, some are even government advisors. Every single one of them raises a question about the government's response to Covid which could rationally give people pause when considering the best course of action for them.

If you want to lump them in with Alex Jones then you've lost any right to be taken seriously. These are scientists at the top of their field.

The only claim on which rests your entire argument, is that government policy (or policies you support), are the view of a 'consensus' of experts. The very claim for which you've been unable to provide a shred of scientific evidence.

Nor do I need to, since you already agree with it. Unless you want to take back your statement that vaccines are safe and effective. — Xtrix

'Safe and effective' is a statement of fact, a property of the vaccine(s). You're advocating policy. The fact that the vaccine is safe and effective is not a policy.

I'm disputing policy, not a property of any vaccine.

You're advocating policy, not a property of any vaccine.

If you seriously can't tell the difference then you really are a lost cause.

Peoples lives are devastated when bridges collapse as well. Doesn't give everyone the right to pretend to be experts in engineering. Peoples lives were devastated in 9/11, as well -- doesn't give the millions of "truthers" out there the right to pretend to be experts in the structural integrity of buildings. — Xtrix

I agree entirely. No one should go around pretending to be experts. Again, there's not much point in arguing about matters we agree on, it's in the post you responded to.

it is our moral responsibility to base our actions on the opinion of relevant experts — Isaac

Doesn't give people the right to become irrational about vaccines -- which is what I'm talking about. — Xtrix

Yes, but you're talking about it on a public platform, not your own mind. It's like me saying at a murder trial "I'm just saying murderers ought to go to prison". No one's disagreeing with that, the question is whether the defendant is, in fact, a murderer. The question here is whether vaccine avoidance is, in fact, irrational, not whether irrationality is a bad thing.

Or did you seriously come on to a public philosophy forum to make the point that irrationality is a bad?

No one is being forced to take the vaccine. — Xtrix

And yet...

They're given a choice to take them or, in some cases, lose their jobs. — Xtrix

In what bourgeois privilege do you live in which the threat of losing your job doesn't constitute 'force'?

That's a decision the employer makes, and is unfortunately within their rights to -- just like wearing a uniform, being on time, saying certain words, etc. — Xtrix

Yes. And when employers use these rights to impose excessively on their staff those of us on the left speak up about it. We don't just say "well, it's their right, so...whatever"

If you're truly interested in worker freedom, how about dedicating more time to unions instead of railing on about vaccines? — Xtrix

How do you know what I spend my time doing?

No one has a gun to your head to take the vaccine. — Xtrix

No, but I suppose if they did you'd still say "well, you're free to get shot, it's their right to hold a gun to your head, so...whatever"

we needed a high percentage of people for herd immunity — Xtrix

No one is seriously talking about vaccines achieving herd immunity. The UK's chief vaccine advisor called the idea "a myth".

trusted in the experts (including my doctor) well before many people were vaccinated. — Xtrix

Good. Other people trust in experts too. Experts who disagree.

I'm not interested in the opioid issue....This didn't receive 1/100th of the attention the COVID vaccines have from the beginning. It's a completely different issue from what I'm talking about. — Xtrix

Yeah, right. You're talking about why people don't trust experts. I give you an example of experts being responsible for the deaths of nearly a million people and you're seriously trying to claim it's irrelevant?

We're talking about why people don't trust the pharmaceutical companies, the Journals, the FDA, and doctors. I offer a recent event in which the blatant, undisputed, corruption of the pharmaceutical companies, the Journals, the FDA, and doctors caused the deaths of 720,000 people and you're seriously fucking trying to say it's irrelevant. Your sycophancy has reached a new low.

720,000 people died and you're trying to brush it off as if someone forgot to shut the gate and some cows got out. Sickening.

Why am I not in agreement with a "theory" that I put forward several pages ago and have been repeating as one major cause of the irrational behavior we see? — Xtrix

Yes, that's right. I don't know if you're familiar with the concept but people sometimes say one thing but believe another.

Really? You're saying that we can't choose which mathematicians to listen to either? Why in earth not? — Isaac


I didn't say mathematician, I said math. — Xtrix

Then what's your point? That no one disagrees in mathematics? That's not the case.

Niether Alex Jones, nor the local barber are experts. — Isaac


Says who? As long as anything goes, so does who we consider an expert. — Xtrix

Seriously? It would explain a lot if you can't tell the difference between a professor in the medical sciences and a radio DJ.

For fuck's sake, you know what 'expert' means. — Isaac


Where's your evidence that these experts are experts? — Xtrix

Their diplomas. Their university pages, their body of published work.

Here, for example is Paul Hunter.
https://research-portal.uea.ac.uk/en/persons/paul-hunter
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=xhp8aXsAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

Here's Stefan Baral
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/faculty/2433/stefan-baral
https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=UtjhWp8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

It's not difficult. Now you do the same for Alex Jones and I'll believe your ludicrous claim that they're the same.

Just advocating for "real" science. — Xtrix

So you think that's a bad thing? Again, that would explain quite a few of your posts...

So what are we, as outsiders, supposed to do? — baker

Engage as the context determines. If I can't see a way in which someone's belief could harm my community, then I've no business interfering. If I can, I've reasonable ground to interfere.

Same for states of affairs, behaviours, books, laws...whatever.

What's not reasonable is suggesting that I ought to base my interference on someone else's judgement of whether the belief/text/law might harm my community. That would be absurd. We don't routinely act on the basis of other people's beliefs.

In the ordinary sense (of folk language games, of the type we would play when we say "the table is solid"), "R murdered W" can only be true if the state of affairs is such that R murderedkilled W, regardless of what a community of peers agrees on. — InPitzotl

Yeah, this is the point I thought you were making. If I agreed with it, I wouldn't bf making the point I'm making would I?

they are more critically points being made, with said points challenging some previously made point — InPitzotl

But there's no challenge. You're just repeating a basic correspodence theory of truth. I don't hold to such a theory. As I said, you can either shake your head in disbelief or discuss the reasons why you hold to a correspondence theory, but as yet, all you've done is simply declare it to be the case as if I might have somehow missed the concept.

I've heard nothing here challenging the notion of sufficient to warrant belief. — InPitzotl

The aim is not to challenge sufficiency of warrant, it's to say that it is, on occasion, no different from a pragmatic notion of truth, or a deflationary notion of truth.

if PO and PS have different truth values, they cannot possibly be applying the same truth criteria. Since they have different truth criteria, they cannot possibly be the same proposition. So all that really follows is that a particular sentence can express different propositions in different contexts. — InPitzotl

Again, this simply assumes a theory of truth (here a coherentist theory it seems). I don't hold to those theories of truth. Truth is not, for me, a property of propositions at all.

I’m not getting into this again. I trust the consensus of experts. — Xtrix

What consensus? You've not provided a shred of evidence for this supposed consensus you're following. When asked you provided me with a mainstream media opinion piece from a single scientist.

The more interesting question is why expertise and consensus gets questioned in certain circumstances and not others. Why the sudden controversy and deep questioning (all the way down to “What is truth? What is a fact?”) about *this* topic and not about others? That’s the question. — Xtrix

Are you seriously unable to think of a reason why people are questioning the response to Covid and not, say, black holes? People's lives have been devastated.

You’re not an expert on this matter. Yet you question this and not other areas you also aren’t an expert in, like physics and mathematics and chemistry. — Xtrix

Again I just can't believe you're really that blind. Very little about mathematics or chemistry affects my life. The government's response to Covid can variously lose me my job, ban me from seeing my loved ones, keep me shut in the house, force me to publicise my private medical data, force me to take medications I've no desire to take... What theory in mathematics or chemistry does that?

I'm just baffled as to how you'd be searching around for some political reason why people have taken a position on this particular theory but not others.

I haven’t once made the claim that everyone should be forced to take them. Not once. That seems to be your worry, along with the power of the pharmaceutical industry, which I’m also strongly against. — Xtrix

Yes, but your posts are a performative contradiction.

The vaccines are safe and effective. That’s what they’re not wrong about. Whatever you’re referring to is your own fabrication. Maybe they’re wrong about the moon landing. — Xtrix

I didn't ask you what you thought they were not wrong about, I asked you why you thought they were not wrong, on this occasion.

And we need to put to bed this idea that they were just 'wrong' on opioids. Massive corruption and complacency lead to the deaths of nearly a million people. They didn't just forget to carry the fucking one, or mislabel a sample. It wasn't an error, it was system-wide deliberate failure to protect people. Unless you're claiming the system's been completely rebuilt from the ground up since then, then we're just going to get the same failures over and over again.

Are you suggesting social media misinformation is never out of control? — Xtrix

No. Some social media is out of control, some clearly isn't, so simply pointing to the fact that some social media is out of control is clearly insufficient as an argument that this particular message is one of those messages which is out of control, as opposed to one of those message which isn't.

I'm completely in agreement about the social media out-of-control theory. I'm asking why you're not.

Which is just nonsense. It’s like saying it’s rational to base your decisions on facts and math, but we should be able to choose what facts and what math. — Xtrix

Really? You're saying that we can't choose which mathematicians to listen to either? Why in earth not?

Yeah, maybe some want to trust Alex Jones instead of the CDC on vaccines, or their local barber about the effects of smoking— whatever. — Xtrix

Niether Alex Jones, nor the local barber are experts. Either argue against something I'm actually saying or don't bother responding. This disingenuous manoeuvring is tiresome. I'm talking about choosing which experts to listen to. Experts. You know - epidemiologists, infectious disease experts, immunologists, medical scientists. For fuck's sake, you know what 'expert' means.

The norm was once to trust the institution of science and medicine. Ditto for government. — Xtrix

I don't see any evidence of such times, but regardless. I think it's a good idea to trust in science and experts (not sure about governments though). It's exactly this trust that I'm advocating, against your promotion of a trust in media, government and zeitgeist.

They cannot control a monster they themselves helped to create. — Xtrix

I'm quite in agreement with you about the way social media creates narratives which are outside of anyone's control, so we needn't disagree on that point. My disagreement with you is over the God-like ability you think you have to identify which messages are in the 'out-of-control' pile and which aren't. From where I sit, the rabid, spittle-flecked invective aimed at anyone so much as raising a doubt about vaccines sounds indistinguishable the dumb redneck version of 'them's takin' ma freedom'.

The same thing I hear from Alex Jones followers, creationists, and election fraud enthusiasts. They'll gladly point out how everyone once thought the world was flat, and the many instances where "science" got it all wrong, the experts were all fooled, instances of corruption, etc. — Xtrix

I didn't ask you for a list of tenuous candidates for your laughable attempt to defame by association. I asked you why you thought we could trust the experts. It should be a fairly simple question to answer. You admit that...

The experts are wrong sometimes. — Xtrix

So there remains the question of why you believe, on this occasion, they're not. Your argument that 'it's what the medical professionals are saying' is circular, because they're the experts who are "wrong sometimes". Your argument that it's social media out of control is circular because you've admitted to social media campaigns which are very much in control.

So, notwithstanding the lame attempts to dodge the question with "it's just obviously true and I won't discuss it", you've yet to provide any justification at all for your belief that (unlike all other examples) this social media campaign is out of control, and (unlike loads of other examples) the experts have it right this time, and (unlike practically every other example) the corporations are working in our best interests this time, and (unlike just about every other example) the government has our back here and we ought to do as we're told.

You're making vaccines the exception to just about every other trend in left-wing thinking for the last 50 years. This time, the government aren't in the pocket of lobbyists, this time the experts aren't in the pay of corporations, this time the media message isn't being manipulated to favour the status quo...no, apparently this one is different. Because...?

What's truly naive, however, is thinking you've cracked the case that thousands of experts are currently studying because you've spent several hours selectively perusing. — Xtrix

Where have I written a single post claiming to have 'cracked' anything? I've not made a single claim that is not supported by a relevant expert.

I'm arguing one thing and one thing alone...

That whilst it is our moral responsibility to base our actions on the opinion of relevant experts, we must be free to choose which experts we decide to trust. Governments cannot be allowed to mandate or coerce us into trusting the ones they choose.

The track record of governments, institutions and even individual experts en masse, demonstrates clearly that scientific accuracy is not a reliable motivating factor behind majority opinions in any of these camps.

Your first question ("who says?") is answered by yourself in your response to me. — Hanover

No. The first question is about the meaning of texts, the second about the observed consequences. If I wrote, at the top of my 'Rules of My Gang' - "Everyone must have a skinhead", and no-one on my gang has a skinhead, that doesn't change the meaning of the expression "everyone must have a skinhead", it's still an ordinary expression in English with a fairly uncontroversial meaning that any English speaker could have a crack at. The adherence, or not, of my gang members to that instruction isn't what all that determines it's meaning.

Every document can be hypothesized into a bad document. — Hanover

Nonsense. A document which said nothing but "You ought to be kind to others" is not on an equal footing with a document which says nothing but "you ought to rape children". It's utterly absurd to suggest that the former is no better a document than the latter because "Every document can be hypothesized into a bad document.". Yes, every document can be interpreted badly, what matters is the ease with which that can be done.

Their "secret" is that they've studied medicine. So education, I guess? At least when it comes to medical misinformation... — Xtrix

Lets review this claim...

The opioid crisis has killed more than half a million people. It's responsible for the first decline in life expectancy in the US for a hundred years. Let's see how the medical training of the experts helped us during that unprecedented slaughter.

The Government wouldn't risk such a thing would they...?

The groundwork for the crisis was laid in the 1980s, when pain increasingly became recognized as a problem that required adequate treatment. US states began to pass intractable pain treatment acts, which removed the threat of prosecution for physicians who treated their patients’ pain aggressively with controlled substances. — Nature - Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots

But the journals would have spotted such obvious misinformation surely...?

In the United States, the idea that opioids might be safer and less addictive than was previously thought began to take root. A letter to the editor in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 reported that of 11,882 hospitalized people who were prescribed opioids, only four became addicted, but the short letter provided no evidence to back up these claims. A widely cited 1986 study, involving only 38 people, advocated using opioids to treat chronic pain unrelated to cancer. The prevailing view is that these studies were over-interpreted. But at the time, they contributed to the perception that opioids were addictive only when used recreationally — and not when used to treat pain. — Nature - Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots

Those Pharmaceutical white knights, we can trust them though...?

Purdue Pharma and other companies promoted their opioid products heavily. They lobbied lawmakers, sponsored continuing medical-education courses, funded professional and patient organizations and sent representatives to visit individual doctors. During all of these activities, they emphasized the safety, efficacy and low potential for addiction of prescription opioids. — Nature - Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots

In fact, opioids are not particularly effective for treating chronic pain; with long-term use, people can develop tolerance to the drugs and even become more sensitive to pain. And the claim that OxyContin was less addictive than other opioid painkillers was untrue — Purdue Pharma knew that it was addictive, as it admitted in a 2007 lawsuit that resulted in a US$635 million fine for the company. — Nature - Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots

But the family physicians, the surgeons, the medical experts with all their training...?

Doctors didn’t question what they were told by pharmaceutical representatives and on continuing medical education courses about prescription opioids, in part because of a lack of experience

Because many doctors are in private practice, they can benefit financially by increasing the volume of patients that they see, as well as by ensuring patient satisfaction, which can incentivize the overprescription of pain medication.

The incentives were there for people to prescribe more and more, particularly when they had already been convinced it was the right thing to do — Nature - Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots

Doctors are routinely overprescribing—giving every patient a bottle of 30-60 highly addictive opioid tablets. Most commonly this is oxycodone written with instructions to take 5-10 mg as needed every 4-6 hours for pain. But if patients follow these instructions, they will be taking up to 90 MME (morphine mg equivalents) a day—a dose nearly double the threshold above which the US … — BMJ - Overprescribing is major contributor to opioid crisis

But we're all saved because of those experts at the FDA who'll step in to make sure everything's safe and sounds, no...?

In 2017, the President’s Commission on Combatting Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis found that the opioid crisis was caused in part by “inadequate oversight by the Food and Drug Administration,”

Over the past 25 years, despite mounting evidence that a surge in opioid consumption was resulting in adverse public health consequences, the FDA continued to approve new opioid formulations for chronic pain

the FDA’s conduct is all the more troubling in light of the close relationship between the agency officials responsible for opioid oversight and opioid manufacturers. For example, the 2 principal FDA reviewers who originally approved Purdue’s oxycodone application both took positions at Purdue after leaving the agency.

To be clear, the revolving door between the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry is not limited to opioids. A 2018 study found that 11 of 16 FDA medical reviewers involved in approving 28 products now work for the companies whose products they regulated. — AMA Journal of Ethics

Well. After all that, the 'experts' will definitely put systems in place to make sure that doesn't happen again...won't they?

Some researchers are concerned that benzodiazepines, a widely used class of sedative, are being overprescribed. — Nature - Tracing the US opioid crisis to its roots

Despite this mounting criticism, FDA policies for approving and labeling opioids remain largely unchanged. The FDA has not undertaken a root cause analysis of its regulatory errors that contributed to this public health catastrophe, let alone instituted any major reforms. — AMA Journal of Ethics

What kind of kindergarten-level naivety makes you think we can trust 'the experts'?

You're saying it's untrustworthy, apparently as both. — Xtrix

From where are you getting that? I think science is the ultimate method for discovering what is the case about our world. I don't think scientific institutions are doing it very well. Is that so hard to understand?

That's like asking what they have to gain for going along with the election lies. Their constituents believe it -- a large number of them -- and so they cater to them. — Xtrix

So the Republicans are persuading people to be anti-vaccine because it wins them votes because people are anti-vaccine? Do you realise how daft that sounds?

The connection to politics is obvious. — Xtrix

Not to me it isn't. Climate I get, sugar I get, tobacco I get. All big industries, big lobbying power. The connection is indeed obvious. Money.

So anti-vaccine sentiment. Who's earning the money out of that?

For the corporate powers, people don't fall in line even when the message is legitimate, as with vaccines. — Xtrix

So people don't fall into line? Yet...

I'd say it's no coincidence that those who profess vaccine "skepticism" or refusal, and those who claim the election was stolen, happen to be majority Republican. There's no mystery as to why that is, all you have to do is take a look at the media they consume. Which was my point. — Xtrix

Which is it? Do people fall into line according to the media they're fed, or not?

Believing nonsense leads to very real and very damaging actions -- whether regarding the environment, or food, or drugs, or vaccines, or free elections. — Xtrix

That's just a truism. Believing something which is false is obviously risky, I asked you why believing the anti-vaccine message was problematic.

A majority of Republicans claim the election was stolen -- does that mean a majority of Republican doctors believe the election was stolen? Not necessarily. — Xtrix

I wasn't suggesting it was necessarily the case. I was asking why you thought it wasn't.

Their "secret" is that they've studied medicine. So education, I guess? At least when it comes to medical misinformation. — Xtrix

The vaccines were developed two years ago. How would their medical training tell them whether they're safe or not?

Where was all this medical training when they were over prescribing opiods in return for a sandwich hamper?

What went wrong with Pete Doshi's medical training that caused him to be so concerned? What's gone wrong with Vinay Prasad's who's concerned about myocarditis in the under 40s? Did their medical training not stick? Odd that they made it so far up to now.

Ask Trump, who was booed by his crowd when he said "Take the vaccine, it's good," what he stands to lose. He quickly pivoted to nonsense about "freedom." That's what the Republicans have to lose: their voters. — Xtrix

We're talking about why people have been fed an anti-vax message in the first place. Your argument here is circular.

Vaccination is, without a shadow of a doubt, as well supported by the industrial and legal system as guns, fossil fuels and vote gerrymandering. Yet you're trying to paint them as the victims here. The poor oppressed pharmaceuticals who no-one trusts, how will they ever sell their products now, with so little trust. — Isaac


?

How strange. — Xtrix

I'm asking why you think that suddenly the most powerful industry in the world has so little influence you're worried about it's key message not getting through.

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. — Hanover

Who says?

If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon. — Hanover

That's not the point. The point is that if the law is ambiguous, ie one person thinks it prohibits stealing another that it doesn't, what matters is the interpretation of the legal community. That's where the consequence will be determined.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know. — Hanover

No I don't, I can just observe their actions. It'd be a better test than asking.

you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been. — Hanover

That's exactly what I am saying.

In the ordinary sense (of folk language games, of the type we would play when we say "the table is solid"), "R murdered W" can only be true if the state of affairs is such that R murdered W, regardless of what a community of peers agrees on. — InPitzotl

Counter: In the ordinary sense (of folk language games, of the type we would play when we say "the table is solid"), "R murdered W" can need not only be true if the state of affairs is such that R murdered W, regardless of what a community of peers agrees on.

See just repeating an assertion about what you believe to be the case doesn't constitute a counter, I'm already quite clear on what you think is the case. Either find some common ground from which to build up to your position or walk away shaking your head at my heterdoxy. Just repeating your opinion over and over doesn't get us anywhere.

The underlined already concedes the point as far as JTB is concerned; "good enough for most purposes" and "sufficient to warrant belief" mean the same thing. — InPitzotl

The first was a long exchange following on from the example of using tarot cards, the second was about warning a companion about the weather. Two different contexts. Of course the criteria for sufficiency are going to be different in each.

So what, then, are you arguing Isaac? — InPitzotl

I'm arguing that both 'know' and 'true' have different meanings in different contexts and as such JTB has no special claim to be a definition of 'knowledge'. Further, that issues like Gettier problems are best resolved by other definitions of knowledge.

I think what's happening is that you start by arguing that the truth is what someone believes, I prove that wrong, you try to save your position by saying that you really mean that the truth is what the language community believes, I prove that wrong, you try to save your position by saying that you really mean that the truth is what a community of epistemic peers would believe were they to comprehensively test some hypothesis, I prove that this undermines your position against the claim that truth and justification are distinct and both required for knowledge, and so you circle back to saying that the truth is what the language community believes. — Michael

See above.

'True' means different things in different contexts.
'Know' means different things in different contexts.
'Actually' means different things in different contexts.
'Fact' means different things in different contexts.
and so on...

You keep asking in one context, then when you bring up a different context claim that I'm being inconsistent, despite me explaining every time that these words have different meanings in different contexts.

And after you have admitted that the T and the J in the JTB definition are different conditions you must either accept that both are required for me to know that there is a desk next to my bed or you must explain which (if either) is sufficient. — Michael

OK, that'll do now. It's no use flogging a dead horse. If you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge (even for that sake of argument) that the same expressions can mean different things in different contexts, then I can't possible explain my preferred model to you. It's like trying to explain atomic theory to someone who refuses to acknowledge that atoms could, even in theory, exist, it just can't be done

So science is untrustworthy. — Xtrix

Science is an activity, not an institution.

But it’s been undermined for political reasons. — Xtrix

What political reasons? What have the Republicans got to gain from vaccine hesitancy? The vast majority of their shares are in the companies who'll benefit from vaccine uptake, the vast majority of their lobbying money comes from those who'd benefit from vaccine uptake, so what have they got to gain from vaccine hesitancy? In fact, what has anyone got to gain from vaccine hesitancy?

No one once said that “this crisis” (here I assume you’re referring to th pandemic) is a monster out of control. — Xtrix

No, I'm referring to the 'crisis' you were talking about - that people believe any old crap they read on Facebook.

it is a symptom — along with election fraud and other instances you want to ignore — Xtrix

What am I ignoring?

That underlining problem is a systematic, deliberate erosion of trust in science and expertise. — Xtrix

Right. So a minority of people not trusting science and expertise is a monster for the powers that be? Why? What have they got to lose from that state of affairs?

You've not linked any of this to a 'problem' yet. What's the problem that's being caused by this minority not trusting scientists?

No. — Xtrix

Go on... If the Republican doctors are not mislead then how do you support your claim that a majority of Republicans are mislead? Are you claiming that doctors are somehow immune from the forces of misinformation that mislead all other Republicans? If so, then what's their secret? What's the source of this powerful immunity to influence they have - and more importantly, why did it fail them when a few complimentary soaps were enough to sway them toward prescribing lethal amounts of opioids?



From your article

When called upon to believe that...

Both originated as industry agendas...

...all good so far. Republicans win seats if Obama is pilloried, The gun lobby get sales if guns are still legal, the fossil fuel industry swell profits if climate change is denied.Then...

...vaccines...

Republicans gain if people take vaccines (the whole thing was developed on their watch). Industry gains if people take vaccines (by the billions of dollars), the most powerful lobby in the world is pushing for it and most countries (US included) are falling into line with increasingly draconian measure to make it impossible not to be vaccinated). So where's the problem here? Are there laws being avoided which could increase vaccine uptake? No. Are there budgets being cut which could have gone to vaccine manufacturers? No Are there regulations being put in place which make it difficult for vaccines to be produced and marketed? No. Are there pecuniary restrictions in place which artificially restrict vaccines in favour of their alternatives? No.

Unlike fossil fuels, voting shenanigans, gun laws, and every other right-wing lovechild. The entire system is already set up to make vaccines the clear winner. Vaccination is, without a shadow of a doubt, as well supported by the industrial and legal system as guns, fossil fuels and vote gerrymandering. Yet you're trying to paint them as the victims here. The poor oppressed pharmaceuticals who no-one trusts, how will they ever sell their products now, with so little trust. they've hardly got anyone rooting for them - just the largest lobbying group the world's ever seen, virtually every major news outlet in the country, a legal team the Gods themselves are frightened of and political support so strong that many countries are considering making it a legal requirement to 'enjoy' their products...

Sob! However will they cope!

I see I've created some confusion, I've probably veered too far from the topic and it's making it hard to see the relevance of what I'm saying.

Behaviours can be 'bad'. States of affairs can be 'bad'. Judging people as 'bad' I don't think makes any sense. I'm arguing here that the state of affairs where there's an influential narrative with such contradictions is 'bad', the state of affairs where a Christian believes in a vengeful god is 'bad', not that the Christian themselves is 'bad'.

The argument that their involvement in moral discourse should be questioned is...

When faced with a moral dilemma, I might ask myself "what would Aragorn do?" by which I mean what behaviours would fit with the story of Aragorn - the hero narrative, nobility, sacrifice etc

When faced with a similar dilemma, the Christian might ask "What would Jesus do?" by which they mean what behaviours would fit with that narrative, and they may well thereby come up with some 'good' behaviours. But with the Christian, they may also ask "What would God want me to do?", or "What would the pious do?", or "What would the Pharisees do?". They've got numerous (contradictory) narratives to choose from. The problem here is in deciding on behaviours where one course of action has a strong pull (such as much selfish behaviour does, instant gratification, hyperbolic discounting etc), the availability of an 'easier' option, but still very much fitting with the narrative is problematic (for the community).

The relevance of cognitive dissonance - the reason it's painful - is that we need to keep a united sense to the disparate internal models (which don't really discuss their outputs with each other much!). We do this by narratives (stories), the pain is when an understanding/behaviour doesn't fit with the story. If the story is a good one, this can keep us on the straight and narrow (it's actually painful to stray from it). If the story is full of holes, get-outs and contradictions, virtually any behaviour can be made to fit, there's hardly any dissonance, no pain, nothing to keep us on the straight and narrow.

So basically, it's not so much about judging the person, it's about judging the state of affairs where there's a weak narrative. The molesting priest will find it harder (experience more dissonance) if the only narratives available to him are those in which molesting young boys is always and unconditionally abhorrent, without redeeming consideration. As it stands, he could come up with a narrative where it's a grey area - the children should submit to his authority after all, shouldn't they; he is very pious, isn't he; he's got the frock on and everything...looks the part, does the speeches... Christianity is not the only flawed narrative in this respect.

None of this is intended to deny the fact that people compartmentalise, run two narratives at a time, it's only meant to emphasise that this usually comes at a cost, and the cost is the extent to which the two narratives are at odds. It takes a specific type of personality disorder to act like Aragorn in some instances, but like a slave-driver in others. That's because the two narratives are so radically opposed, it would create a lot of painful dissonance every time they crossed over (exploring these cross-overs is another therapeutic technique), but with the molesting priest, his two narratives aren't so different. In the vestry, the molester exerts his authority, for his own glory, believes he's owed the gratification - in church, he might have the story of Jesus to create a little cognitive dissonance (Jesus would protect the innocent wouldn't he?), but he's also got the story of the vengeful God, stopping at nothing to extract his right to adoration. So he can re-frame his past actions in the vestry to reduce the pain of these two stories clashing.

There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation. — Hanover

Nonsense. The legal interpretation can land me in jail or set me free. It has just about one of the largest meaningful consequences it's possible to have. Were it not for such s consequence I might well not give two figs for how legal instructions had been historically interpreted by the legal community either.

It makes no more sense for a Ugandan to interpret the US Constitution and tell me what it really means than it does for you to tell someone who relies upon the OT that it really means that stoning is acceptable. — Hanover

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit.

The difference is one of pragmatism. I can quite legitimately, intervene in people's interpretation of religious texts. I might say to the Pope "look at this line from the bible, isn't this all nonsense", and he could say "yes, you're right, sod this for a game of soldiers". In contrast, I could provide the best argument in the world to a judge about some line in a legal document and he'd still have to say "well, that's the way the legal community have interpreted it so there's little I can do".

Each individual member of the legal community is constrained to some extent by the others and subject to their interpretation regardless.

Each individual member of a religion could make up a new rule, walk away entirely, or not as they see fit and they'd be in no way bound by traditional interpretations. They could invent a new church, a new cult, an entirely new religion, or abandon the project entirely.

You're treating biblical law as if it applied in the same way as actual law. It doesn't. Biblical law is entirely optional. Take all of it, some of it, none of it, as you see fit. Make it up as you go along, stick to 2000yr old edicts, listen to your pastors, ignore them entirely, whatever you like. As such, there's no reason at all why a complete outsider might not take part in the discussion on the basis of what each line/section/story means to them, it's possible that their unique take might change the understanding of any individual, since there's no practical constraint on what the 'right' interpretation is.

So you agree the largest wealth transfer in history didn't just happen. — frank

Not sure how you get that from what I've said, but...

No, I'm not talking about Sam Sheppard in real life; fiction uses language as well. — InPitzotl

regarding the question of how individuals should form beliefs, it is you, sir, who is kicking the can; because according to your theory of truth, it is categorically impossible. — InPitzotl

Well then I'm afraid I have no idea what point you're making. What you've said doesn't seem related to what I'm arguing in the slightest.

You've been saying that the truth is what a community of epistemic peers with access to every conceivable technology would believe were they to comprehensively test a hypothesis. — Michael

Argh! The meaning of words is different in different contexts. I just don't know what more I can do to get this seemingly simple notion across to you (even if you don't agree with it, you seem to keep acting as if I hadn't even mentioned it). 'Truth' in one context might mean "what a community of epistemic peers that has access to every conceivable technology would believe were they to comprehensively test the hypothesis", in another it might simply mean "everyone agrees with me", or "I'm really, really sure about this".

You keep comparing my use in one context with my use in another.

One difference is that the first is about why I believe what I do and the second is about what they believe. — Michael

You're just assuming correspodence again. It's not 'what they believe', it's what the speaker believes they believe.

Two justifications for a belief "it's raining"...

1) My head's wet.
2) My epistemic peers have done some exhaustive testing and agree that water is falling from clouds.

Both are of the form "I believe that...", I don't have unfiltered, infallible access to either. (1) is good enough for most purposes, but with (2) the speaker might say "I know that it's raining - their justification is sufficient to use the term.

For a third party, it's different (different context, different meaning). Here it's the observer's belief about what their epistemic community have concluded that matter, but the subject's justifications. Here, I'd agree they're of different sorts.

Surely you understand the difference between good reasons for believing something and bad reasons for believing something? — Michael

No. Not in the least. That's why I'm asking for you to explain it to me. I understand reasons can be better or worse, but I've no idea how you might (in your scheme), go about putting all reasons into one of two bins, those that are 'good', and those that are 'bad'.

What did you mean by the justifications being good and strong? Were you saying that the reason you believe that it is raining necessarily entails that it is raining - that you can't possibly be wrong? I don't think you were. — Michael

No. For me, in that context, 'good and strong' just means that I'm confident enough that other people around me will reach the same conclusion. If you say, "I'm going out", and I say, "you'll need a hat, it's raining". I'm confident that's what you'll think too when you go out, so I'm not going to treat it as a subjective opinion, but an objective state of the world we share. With more doubt I might say "I believe it's raining, emphasising that I don't have the sort of justification I expect you to share.

As I said right at the beginning, the difference in use mainly has to do with the expectation that others (epistemic peers usually) will share my belief. "I know" means that I think other will share my belief, "John knows" means I think others will share my belief - which is the same as John's. "I thought I knew, but turns out I didn't" means I though my epistemic peers would agree, but turns out they don't/wouldn't. And so on...

And do you really want to argue that I'm not justified in believing any of my friends' names because it's possible that they lied to me and have fake IDs? — Michael

Again, you're assuming there's two bins 'justified' and 'not justified'. No-one behaves that way outside of these types of academic discussion. Your belief in your friend's names is justified enough for some uses, but insufficiently justified for others.

I'm alone in my room right now. A community of epistemic peers has never been here to exhaustively test any hypothesis. The truth of "there is a desk next to the bed" has nothing to do with what the language community believes about my room. But there is a truth. Either there is or there isn't a desk next to my bed. — Michael

That's juts you re-asserting your original claim. I disagree. We've gone through this - you can't just argue by assertion, it doesn't lead anywhere. Why do you believe that to be the case - on what grounds do you claim that "The truth of "there is a desk next to the bed"" is determined by "Either there is or there isn't a desk next to my bed"? You're just asserting a correspondence theory of truth. There are other theories of truth, it's insufficient, then, to just assert one of them is the case.

You have defined the truth as "what a community of epistemic peers that has access to every conceivable technology would believe were they to comprehensively test the hypothesis". — Michael

...in one example...

We each use the word "true" when we believe something to be the case. If the meaning of a word is to be found just in the actual occasions of its use then how have you come to define truth in such a complicated, counterfactual way? — Michael

Because those seem to me to be the actual occasions of it's use, obviously. Again, that they don't seem to you to be doesn't alone constitute an argument that they aren't, we need to build from shared beliefs to reach any conclusions. If all we're going to do is assert contrary positions there's little point in continuing is there?

And how about the meaning of "knowledge"? If it's possible that an ordinary language approach would have us interpret "it is true that it is raining" and "I believe that it is raining" as meaning the same thing, but that a deeper analysis of the word "true" would have us define "truth" as "what a community of epistemic peers who have access to every conceivable technology would believe were they to comprehensively test a hypothesis" then it's possible that even if an ordinary language approach would have us interpret "I know that it is raining" and "I believe that it is raining" as meaning the same thing, a deeper analysis of the word "know" would have us define "knowledge" as "a well-reasoned belief that corresponds to the facts". — Michael

Possible, yes. But you're assuming your 'ordinary understanding' is shared universality. And your assumption is so strong that you've even determined to take the line that I 'm lying here and don't really believe what I say I do. It isn't. People really do believe different things. they really do reach different conclusion from the same evidence. Your 'deeper analysis' is was seems superficially obvious to some, your 'ordinary use' is what seems detached and academic to others. To me, understanding truth as "what a community of epistemic peers who have access to every conceivable technology would believe were they to comprehensively test a hypothesis" (in some uses) doesn't seem at all 'a deeper analysis' it seems the obvious ordinary use of the word (in those cases).

To me, if someone says "I didn't take the last slice slice of cake" and I say "nonsense, you're lying ", they say "no, it's true!", their meaning seem absolutely transparent to me. It means 'believe me!'

I don't know why you're wording this as if I'm doing something wrong by pointing out the inconsistencies in your arguments. It is entirely proper for me to do so. — Michael

Because there's two paths. (1) I've made a mistake - you can ask for clarification or suggest that I might have done so, or (2) I've no idea what I'm talking about and keep irrationally changing my opinion. (1) is the most charitable, you're repeatedly choosing (2) seems odd in the circumstances (a discussion forum). If you're not interested in what I actually believe about this, then why are you here? Is it very important to you that I retreat, tail-between-legs, for some reason? I could understand that in an ethical or political discussion - there might be some import to 'winning', but in an academic one...? If you've no incentive to actually find out what I really mean, I'm unclear as to what the purpose of this discussion is.

Notwithstanding the evidence of transfer, the point I was making was simply that it's absurd to suggest the corporations have 'created a monster'. They've created the exact thing they intended to create - a distraction from their continued oppression of the working class. Same old...

If you could provide evidence that the covid response was the biggest transfer of wealth from poor to rich in history, that would be much appreciated. — frank

Well it appears to have been done already (thanks @StreetlightX).

Also there's https://ips-dc.org/us-billionaire-wealth-584-billion-20-percent-pandemic/

Billionaire wealth surged over $584 billion as $6.5 trillion in household wealth vanishes during first Quarter.

As the Federal Reserve reported during the week of June 10th, more than $6.5 trillion in household wealth vanished during the first three months of this year as the pandemic tightened its hold on the global economy. — IPS

This is the biggest economic shock in the U.S. and in the world, really, in living memory — Fed Chair, Jerome H. Powell

And https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/pressure-builds-repeal-135-billion-millionaires-giveaway-cares-act/

If you prefer your news in the right-wing flavour

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2021/04/06/meet-the-40-new-billionaires-who-got-rich-fighting-covid-19/?sh=5f66e0b117e5

https://inthesetimes.com/article/covid-19-coronavirus-wealthy-corporate-welfare

https://www.ft.com/content/747a76dd-f018-4d0d-a9f3-4069bf2f5a93