I think you and I have very different ideas of what 'charitable' means. To me it refers to seeking the most agreeable interpretation of someone's expressions. — Isaac

Yes. It means something very different to me. So I would never assume within the limits of ambiguity, that you said whatever is most agreeable to me, but rather I make the interpretation that maximises your clarity and consistency. Thus wiki:

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

These are not rhetorical questions, I seriously want to know what was going on in your head when you read that one sentence "I want either for you to adopt my methods or for me to find out from you that my methods were flawed and so arrive at better ones" and despite all our talk about respect, trust and charitable interpretation, you decide you're left with no choice but to presume it means I've no interest in hearing anyone else's opinion? — Isaac

I seem to be very good at upsetting people with my proposals in this thread, including myself. This is not surprising to me. I wrote:

this agreement cannot be a victory for one or a defeat for another, because they are not in agreement. — unenlightened

And when you replied in terms that I was at pains to rule out, it would not be charitable to assume you understood and agreed. This is my first duty as I see it; to make as clear as I can that every difficulty in discussion has its root in identification of the participants with their views. And whenever I point out that this is what is happening in the very discussion we are having, I get another demonstration of the truth of it from myself or someone else.

So let me try and piss everyone off at once with a proper pontification:

The only pain that can be felt in a discussion is that of a bruised ego, and there is no place for ego in a discussion.

I couldn't care less if, after a discussion (disagreement) about the place of music in human culture, we remained entirely at odds. — Isaac

If we're discussing how best to help the homeless, however, I really want us to agree. — Isaac

We might not agree about what is and isn't important. I'm not clear what the distinction is for another.
__________________________________________________________

I want either for you to adopt my methods or for me to find out from you that my methods were flawed and so arrive at better ones. — Isaac

Ok, I'll adopt your methods.
_____________________________________________________________

I put it to you that this would not be at all a satisfactory discussion. You see the way I wish you would have put it is that you don't care whose method, all you care about is to find the best method. Because then you want to hear my method, and you want me to hear yours, and you want to hear what I think about your method and what I think about what you think about my method. That's a discussion.

So these two threads of the discussion strike me as two sides of the same thing. I don't know what they're two sides of, but I'm very convinced they're the same thing. — fdrake

Elsewhere, I have claimed that community is made by communication, and communication is a movement of truth. But I'm not sure if I am understanding you or @Isaac. I wonder if it will help if I describe an ideal:

The end point to be ensvisaged, would be for us to reach the state of agreement that might be called 'being of one mind', about whatever our topic is. So if there is an action that follows, we cooperate to act. And this agreement cannot be a victory for one or a defeat for another, because they are not in agreement.

I happen to have mentioned this ideal, because it just seemed to come up for examination, but it is not my possession, and it does not possess me. Perhaps it will inform some state of mind that some people might share at some point, or maybe not. But if I am still counting how many of my ideas reach the final draft, compared to how many of yours, then we are not really resolving a conflict or properly communicating. So from this perspective, Game Theory is the structure of non-communication. It is that to which solitary silence is preferable.

Thank you. I will do likewise.

No. I'm saying that I am upset by our conversation, and I am asking you to please stop. I cannot oblige you to.

Harry, will you do me a favour?

Stop quoting me. It disturbs my peace of mind.

The common ground is logic. — Harry Hindu

I don't think I want to go round again, even if you do.

Someone's authority is contextual/domain specific. — fdrake

It didn't work that way with the original example. A bad call on one illness undermined other advice on another illness.

If a group of doctors who think HIV doesn't cause AIDS say we should end the shutdown, I say that's an excellent reason to keep it going. — Baden

I'm not calling out the hyperbole here, but making a serious point. The state of society is parlous because trust has been too often betrayed. Authority is institutional, and if the institutions are not trustworthy, there is no context in which they become trustworthy.

If a group of doctors who think homosexuality is an illness say chips make you fat, I say that's an excellent reason to eat more chips. Yes, no, maybe?

no medical professionals can be regarded as deriving any authority at all from their professional qualifications. — unenlightened

I've asked my doctor — Baden

I asked my cat and she said you are not following your own guidelines.

for medical claims, scientific evidence, should be required, such as the studies or supported statements of reputable scientists or medical professionals. Needless to say, scientists or medical professionals who are known to make pseudoscientific claims cannot be considered to be reputable and it is legitimate to dismiss their claims on this basis. — Baden

So on the basis of a long long history of officially sanctioned invented mental illnesses, (hysteria, Drapetomania, homosexuality, etc etc, along with a whole range of frankly sadistic and obviously highly damaging "treatments", no medical professionals can be regarded as deriving any authority at all from their professional qualifications. Do I have that about right?

Trusting authority is a huge part of research. — Outlander

It is the only currency of culture. Trust, or start civilisation again from scratch and alone.

When someone keeps contradicting themselves when asked to clarify their beliefs, how are we suppose to know whether we are disagreeing or agreeing on anything?

It seems like the first step would be to clarify each of our beliefs in such a way that the other side can determine whether we are actually agreeing or disagreeing. — Harry Hindu

Yes indeed. One of my very early suggestions was that to resolve a conflict we have to establish the conflict.

if one is unable to begin this dialogue with an equality and an engagement that will look for first common ground and then for the detail of disagreement, then it all becomes impossible. — unenlightened

And again, later on.

If I am not to be trusted in what I say, no amount of logic can resolve that. Our disagreement cannot even be expressed. — unenlightened

This is why I talk about wooly concepts like trust and respect. I cannot find a better way to express that necessary intention to find out what the other chap is saying, rather than to prove him wrong or contradictory regardless.

If we discuss combatively, but also cooperatively, then no one loses because we are all on the side of truth and understanding. To be deprived of one's error is a privilege even if at times it is a painful and laborious process. And if we are not on all on the side of truth and understanding, then there is zero point in our talking at all. But now I am actually somewhat frightened, because I have been persuaded back to this discussion, and find myself saying the same things again and at least half expecting another four pages of the same back again.

Today I had the covid rash. Well last night I started feeling itchy around the waist, and didn't sleep too well. Today I had a patch about 20cm diameter of angry red skin with like a nettle rash mottling. Who knew it was even a thing? I cannot show you a picture because after lunch, it just subsided and is gone. This is one weird fucking illness. The other day, all my teeth ached for no reason.

Yesterday I was feeling a bit better and managed a half mile walk, and today is about the same. I seem to be recovering fingers crossed and apart from an occasional cough and a general weakness and headache, I feel almost human. Mrs un is a bit more pathetic than me still but even she has made it to the end of the road today. She has lost about 6kg, but I haven't because I have been eating. So if you want to come by and infect yourselves, you'd better get it together soon.

There's a certain amount of vulnerability involved in discussions that actually change how people think. I mean, we have them with our partners (or, ideally, should be able to); I've realised I've been an arse for reasons that were hitherto that moment beyond my comprehension due to a strong emotional reaction or castigation a lot. A performative demonstration of the effects of my commitments or lack of care. I've had that a lot when seriously studying something; like, reading a book, taking notes, finding secondary literature; but a lot less in debates and discussions. — fdrake

I have had discussions that have changed the way I think less than I would like, but more than once, and more than once someone has told me that a discussion has changed their thinking. So I know that communication is possible, and I know it is difficult, and uncertain.

Vulnerability is exactly the right idea, I think. One discovers that one was wrong, that one was not good, or logical or clever, or honest or whatever virtue one had awarded oneself by way of identity, and one is wounded. A good friend, or a good lover, is not afraid to wound one the way a surgeon does, and a good friend can be trusted to do so when necessary. We fight; we are wounded; and if our egos are well pruned, they will bear more fruit.

I feel logical. You say that I am illogical. That it offensive to me. — Harry Hindu

Yes, I realise that. I'm sorry it offends, and I wish it did not. I don't suppose you want to hear anything much from me, but I wonder if you think that feelings are logical? If I feel attractive, I might have good evidence in the way the girls swoon around me, or I might just be flattering myself. When someone calls me ugly, I'm offended because I feel attractive.

I know I have all sorts of feelings and very easily take offence, and I know that these feelings have a major effect on the way I respond. I think everyone is sensitive like that, everyone is not entirely logical, but also emotional. I think philosophers and scientists forget this at their peril.

You have suggested strongly that one cannot argue against logic except by employing logic. So I accept this, and suggest back to you that you never need to defend logic, since it can never be attacked.

I think appeals to vague concepts such as 'fair-mindedness' and 'honest engagement' cause more problems than they solve by distracting from the actual point of dispute to dispute about those terms. They should be avoided. — Isaac

You could be right, but I think differently. We haven't resolved that conflict, so neither of us has demonstrated our method successfully.

Let me ask my own challenging question - to anyone who cares to consider it.

If we resolve our conflicts, have we produced an echo chamber?

Just going to tell me I'm wrong in a single sentence. We're three exchanges in to our disagreement and already you're either breaking your own rules or you've decided that I'm so outside of the pale that I'm not worth engaging with in the spirit of resolving conflict. — Isaac

Sorry, I didn't realise we had a conflict going; I thought we were discussing. I'll lay it out in a bit more detail. There is a deal of literature one this stuff - 'cognitive bias'.

What I understand you to be saying is that everyone agrees the rules of engagement, and everyone always thinks they obey them and the other chap is at fault. I agree that the rules are widely agreed, and I agree that there is a widespread tendency to think it is the other chap that has a problem. But not always. The fact that thou and I have acknowledged the tendency is part of our resistance to it.

I disagree that most people are self critical (effectively so), Whilst I agree that some people are more fair-minded than others, I disagree with the implication that our judgement of this property is sufficiently objective not to just create our own echo chamber. I disagree that simply flagging up the danger is sufficient to illustrate how it can be overcome. — Isaac

This is not a disagreement you have with me, because I agree with you. Flagging up the danger is not sufficient, but it is a sign of awareness of the problem, and the first step. There are no guarantees.

So how do we proceed to resolve those disagreements if you're already at the stage where potentially mutually-respectful in-depth answers are already being discarded in favour of unsupported declarations of what is and is not the case? — Isaac

We cannot, in such a case. The whole thrust of my argument is that conflicts cannot always be resolved, and it at least takes a willingness to engage and attempt to be fair-minded in the knowledge that it does not come naturally.

But my style in the previous post was predicated on an assumption of agreement that I now see was mistaken. When we are in our echo-chamber, we can pass over what we agree without comment, and focus on where there seems to be a lack of clarity, or disagreement. I like to converse with naivety. You ask a question, and I do not look for a trap, but try to answer. But now you are moving towards at least an accusation of hypocrisy, so perhaps it is time to ask you, if you disagree with my proposals, to bring forth your better ones.

Everyone agrees with them, and yet think their interlocutors are the ones not adhering to the rules, it's always the other party being unreasonable. So 'the rules' do not, in fact, manage to specify anything useful, — Isaac

I wrote a long convoluted answer to you, and then realised that what you say is simply not true. Anyone can be self-critical, and most people are to some extent. some people are more fair-minded than others. If you think it is always the other chap, then you are part of the problem, but by flagging up the danger you illustrate how it can be overcome.

- self-contamination that can occur by touching and reusing contaminated mask — NOS4A2

Forgive the naivety, but if my mask is contaminated, and there is a danger of it contaminating me, doesn't that mean it's working?

1. As long as there is a a shortage of PPE, the public cannot trust advice about PPE for the general public.

2. The main function of a mask in public spaces is to protect other people from the wearer's possible infection. It doesn't stop one breathing it in, but greatly reduces how much one breathes out. This is why it is a virtue signal.

3. It worked in the middle ages against the plague.

4. After all the kind words about Muslims covering their faces, masks have enormous irony value.

I'm particularly interested in how you avoid simply enjoying your own echo chamber (by declaring all opposition as simply not treating you as an equal); also in how you treat those who are not your equals - you wouldn't expect to be treated as an equal contributor to a discussion about all topics regardless of your expertise on the matter, so what approach delimits such interactions (again without simply declaring opposition to be non-expert)? — Isaac

Well you treat me as an equal by quoting what I say, and asking me for expansion, justification an so on. I treat you as an equal, hopefully, by taking your comments seriously too. Are you part of my echo chamber? I don't think so, and I don't think any of the other contributors to the thread are either. We treat each other as equals by admitting our fallibility. I could be wrong about this... you might know more than me... let's try and find out.

So we are always in an echo chamber to the degree that we are speaking the same language, and we are both humans of the 21st century. So here we are discussing conflict resolution, and my first suggestion is that we need the common ground at least of a general agreement of the topic at hand. Not that we cannot discuss other things in other threads, but here we are discussing conflict resolution.
Hopefully we can have that much agreement so that we can then disagree about how to resolve conflicts.

Because I am a generalist, most topics here have a contributor who has more expertise than me, but where I think I can sometimes make a serious contribution is at the intersection of philosophy and psychology, and particularly matters of identity. But if I have some expertise, I still treat others as equals by laying things out clearly, and giving explanations and references as appropriate, and by being willing to reconsider in the light of the discussion.

Say we have common agreements about some set of ideas {x} and we can thus discuss the disagreement about the nature of subset {xi, xii}. What's to stop us from simply declaring that we can only have a reasonable discussion with those who agree with us about set {xi} ("those who believe in set {xii} are simply not worth arguing with " ). — Isaac

Well there's nothing to stop us. But if someone does that habitually, they are probably not going to get on very well in a forum like this. This is a good game, that i like to play, to put my ideas out there and see how they stand up in public. Sometimes I have to go quiet and reconsider. But It is not even a problem. Serious philosophers of mathematics do not want the likes of me dragging their discussions down to a schoolboy level all the time, and should tell me to butt out whenever they want.

Nobody has to debate with another, but if you debate, then debate as equals until you have had enough. Equally entitled to speak, to argue to contribute, not equally knowledgeable or equally right. One can treat a 3-year-old as an equal, it's a matter of respect of the individual, mainly.

More rhetorical questions. And very silly questions too. Of course in a discussion one brings in terms that were not in the op. Terms like "logic" for example. And no, an authoritarian does not cease to be an authoritarian because people ignore him. So yet again your rhetoric doesn't even disagree with what I have said. You claim logic, but you cannot construct an argument of your own or understand one when presented with it. Make an argument Harry, I dare you. Or link to an argument you have made in this thread. So us this all powerful logic you possess.

↪unenlightened So are we to take this post as true simply because you said it, or do I get to disagree? How authoritarian. — Harry Hindu

You get to disagree. But you actually have not disagreed. If you want to disagree, say something different. A question and a random insult is not disagreeing, merely disagreeable. But anyone else can see very easily that it is substantially true because it actually quotes you traducing my argument in order to pretend that I am being political (and you of course are being logical). It's hilarious in fact.

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic?
— unenlightened
If you don't have a problem with logic being the answer to the question as posed in the OP and then clarified as referring to what is true, then you have just made it more apparent what your actual problem is. — Harry Hindu

Fucking hell Harry! Your logic is a fucking joke. You are totally irrational. You make shit up left and right and you cannot follow the simplest argument because you don't even read properly. As I just said, because you have no charity, there is no talking to you at all. There is nothing between us to be resolved, because you are inventing my position and defeating it and I literally have nothing to say in the matter. That is the extent of your authoritarian arrogance. Not only is there no common ground between us and no common language, we are not even on the same planet; you are off in a little world of your own where you are very clever and everyone else is a bit slow. Enjoy.

We are rational, honest and good. — unenlightened

So here's the fundamental difficulty. I, as a rational honest and good person, am perfectly willing to admit you also to that status, and then we can talk things over and see where we differ and where we agree and so on. All those practical things that @fdrake listed come into play, sources can be compared etc. But if you are not prepared to admit me to that status as well, then we will be talking at cross purposes at best. Without the equality and mutuality of equality. 'we' does not exist. There is not a common language in which common sense can be expressed and prevail, for all that it may appear that there is.

What ought we do given the way things are.

First...

Spell out the way things are. Second, discuss what we ought do as a means to effect/affect the change(s) we would like to take place. — creativesoul

I'd like to flag up the assumption built into your recipe, that I think is exposed in the conflict we have been having, that is always a central concern of my own philosophy - identification.

This 'we' - a lot of the time it can be taken for granted, 'we' agree already who 'we' are.

We are rational, honest and good. We are ready to subsume our personal interests to the collective interest. We cooperate. We are Americans.
_______________________________________________________

I am logical. (identification)

Therefore I have the best possible and only possible equipment for reaching the truth.

Therefore, if you disagree with me, you are illogical, dishonest, or deluded.

Therefore I have already resolved any conflict.
________________________________________________________

You cannot argue with a virus. And you cannot argue with the illogical, the dishonest, or the deluded.

To resolve a conflict with corona, or with Hitler, or whatever we are calling the unreasonable enemy this week, I.S. or Daish, or terrorism, or the Republican Party, you just have to completely destroy them.

Only 'we' can resolve a conflict, because only 'we' have the common ground. So the very first step must be one of generosity, of inclusivity, the admission that the other is not other, and has a point.

The definition of art: — Pop

Why?
Define and control.

Don't.
Let.
Anyone.

Tell you what is art.

Because...

It' ain't philosophy. It's fucking the whole world.

Every time you use logic to show how logic isn't useful, you defeat your own argument and strengthen mine — Harry Hindu

Do you seriously think I have made an argument against logic? I'd like you to quote me on that or withdraw the claim. If the question is "what do elephants eat?" and unenlightened says 'well they don't eat logic.' that does not amount to a rejection of logic. Again, you don't have an argument of your own, but only the negation of a ridiculous straw man.

I notice you have not attempted to substantiate your previous claim that am confusing logic with delusions, but here you are with another invention. It's rather sad, and a waste of time, because we cannot possibly resolve anything while you are arguing against your own fantasy.


Again and more strongly than ever, the impression is that you are not engaging with what anyone here is saying, but using our posts to conduct an internal argument of your own, presumably against some non-rational aspect of yourself that you find difficult to reconcile yourself to.

if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? — Harry Hindu

I see now, it is a cry for help. But alas "Reason is and ought only to to be the slave of the passions." Hume's insight would be a liberation for you if you let it.

You're mistaken. — Harry Hindu

No Harry. As you see, I am not mistaken. @Pantagruel, @creativesoul and myself, (and @fdrake can speak for himself), but three of us are fairly clear in our continued disagreement with you. You cannot "show" that people agree with you and call that a resolution, you have to allow their autonomy and persuade them to agree.

You're confusing logic with delusions. — Harry Hindu

Well I hope,Harry, that you have some fairly clear evidence of my making that confusion, because otherwise it would be a rather cheap rhetorical (not logical) ad hom. But again, it rather looks as though it is you that has the delusion that you have been persuasive when you have not.

I think you might begin to see a pattern for yourself in these interchanges that treats the other's view as pathological whenever it differs from yours, or else as secretly agreeing even when they avowedly disagree. I have always found you to be a frustrating person to try and dialogue with, but here, I feel I am finally getting an insight into what is going on for you. You seem to have a great intolerance for ambiguity and disagreement that comes over to me, and I think to others, as a rather bullying arrogance that probably masks a deal of insecurity.

It does it for me... — Harry Hindu

I didn't realise you suffered from internal conflict.

if someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic? — Harry Hindu

Well I don't think logic can create values. It might be that you have found for yourself a limitation of logic, unless you have an answer to your own question.

But what I was asking, was about the conflict between you and everyone else commenting. And I can see of course that that conflict has not at all been resolved. So I wonder if it is to some extent an externalisation of that internal conflict that you claim is resolved by logic?

So, how's the conflict resolution going, chaps? Is all that truth and logic doing it for you?

Erwin Schrodinger and Arthur Schopenhauer among them. Also, Daniel Kolak, a living philosopher, has written an interesting book called I am You: — petrichor

Also this guy. https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/structure-self-centred-concern

I laughed. — DingoJones

So did I, but this thread has been left; the one that was deleted lacked the passion and humour of this one.

it is clear that the vast majority of people that die with covid 19 are already seriously ill. — Chester

It is clear that you are complete tosser. Asthma is a chronic condition, as in one that persists over the long term. Most people with asthma can expect to live a normal or near normal life-span with some medication. So in most cases it is not 'serious' in the sense of being life-threatening. Likewise Diabetes is a condition that with treatment people live with for many years. My son-in-law has been insulin dependent type1 diabetic since childhood. That's 35 years of 'serious' illness.

And you, you arrogant little turd, think all these people can be written off as seriously ill anyway so we don't have to care.

Well fuck you and your pathetic racist slurs.

"What is geography?" is not a question addressed in the topic of geography. It is not pondered or debated by geographers. Rather, along with "What is philosophy?", it is a question in the topic of philosophy.

And one might notice that the questioner already knows this, as it has been put to a philosophy forum. Such a question is a reflexive problematisation, guaranteed to produce a fine collection of muddles, from the radically circular 'it's what philosophy departments study', to the equally radical denial of subject matter in favour of method or attitude. As if one were to ask 'what is government?' and the reply was that the government of a steam-engine is not the same as the government of a gardening club.

Sharpening the chisel is a part of woodwork, that works the metal with the stone and involves no wood at all.

Probably just having a bad day? — Outlander

Look at the post history. Every day was a bad day. And this particular thread did not even reach the dizzy heights of wooly un-researched theological speculation. It was incoherent garbage. The standards are very low and flexible here, but stuff has to have some merit - if not intelligent or polite, then at least amusing.

Imagine me standing at my front door behind a suitably pretentious podium, and flanked by my Chief Street Gossip-monger. The chap opposite has asthma (a chronic condition) and was seen having severe breathing difficulties this morning; we hope it was just the asthma. He will not be tested unless he is admitted to hospital and he may well not be admitted because he is fairly old. Our next-door neighbour, who celebrated his century a month or so ago, continues to be visited by two carers twice a day They always have masks, but usually only surgical ones and sometimes one will have an eye shield. And they look as though they are keeping the same masks for the next people they visit.

But at least some people are getting the proper protective gear. Whenever I start to think the UK government is the absolute pits, the US is right there, ready to show how much more awful it can get.

https://theintercept.com/2020/05/17/veterans-affairs-coronavirus-security-police/?fbclid=IwAR1fNMR3-3daKHxM4DqQs9PYaAQVFkhLHmncaP7bUsrS6WRZpU9xV4wTQbM

I didn't realise that this was a discussion over whether I have misused certain words. — Chester

There's no discussion being had. You contradicted the usage of a professional in the field and have been corrected. An apology is in order, rather than this bluster, as though everyone else is really wanting to agonise over your nonsense. What a wanker!

Who can help biology sustain itself the most. So, scientific innovation? — Outlander

I think if you study it, life has sustained itself through many crises without the help of humans or scientific innovation. Over several billions of years.

We need to reinvent success to mean who can help biology sustain existence the most, not who can grab the most stuff. — Lif3r

To become extinct is the goal of every species. Nearly all achieve it sooner or later, but mankind with the aid of science our well trumpeted sapience, seem set to achieve it unusually quickly.

This by way of riposte to the anthropomorphising of 'Life'; by way of denial of survival as anything but a human fantasy.

So your question becomes, 'how can humans best realise their fantasy of survival?' And obviously, it is more likely to be approachable in alliance with a biosphere that has already existed for billions of years than by seeking to declare independence from it, let alone opposition to it. What is needed is a cure for the pernicious illness known as 'Western Civilisation'.