For example, man may not be the center of the universe. However man may represent one of the most highly evolved physical systems in the universe. Exactly how high on the overall scale, no one really knows. But depending on whether it is "somewhere in the middle" or "near the top" the whole anthropocentric bias may have more or less validity and merit.

Personally, I think that it has some validity, but that it applies to the entire system to which we belong (i.e. along the lines of the Gaia hypothesis).

It just means the belief is proximally wrong, which for proximal creatures like us is all that matters. Believing Earth is "flat" or "hollow" or "only six millennia old" is not three approximate truths on par with Newton's gravity or Wallace-Darwin's natural selection. The most incorrigible form of ignorance, Pantagruel, is the illusion of knowledge (e.g. beliefs which are, in fact, just wrong – not even approximately true – such as e.g. "Earth (Man) is the center of the universe"). — 180 Proof

I'm not aware of any criterion of 'proximal truth' that would invalidate what I'm saying.

I think I made it quite clear that and how all beliefs are subject to revision based on the advancement of knowledge in general. It seems to me that much criticism of theism is a criticism of theists as people who are holding on to an outmoded conception of the thing that they are actually trying to conceptualize. Clearly, deism is a superior and encompassing category.

Just because someone believes in something under a flawed description doesn't mean the belief is ultimately wrong, only a poor approximation. Scientific beliefs are subject to the same caveat.

People once believed in "phlogiston," which does not exist. However the phenomena in question did have an explanation. So just because the specifically theist conception of "god" may be flawed, doesn't mean that there is not some explanatory correlate.

Can you expand on this? The expression (from the Gospel of Matthew) 'Ye shall know them by their fruits' springs to mind. — Tom Storm

Sure. Here's my take.

Atheism isn't so much a logical argument as it is a social position. If I don't believe in god, there's an end of it. But atheists are notorious for furiously proselytizing (hugely ironic as that is). SO you have to wonder, if everyone who believed in god also happened to believe that god decreed that you should devote yourself to learning everything you can about the universe (i.e. endorsed scientific knowledge), would the atheists still have a problem with theists? Atheism, from what I have seen, is highly correlated with a rather aggressive belief in the value of science, often to the point of scientism.

If you look at it as a purely logical or epistemological problem, the question of god is really one of definition. If you define god as "the most advanced form of sentient being" then there is a god. In which case, god isn't a specific being so much as a role, like "CEO of the universe." It's only when you start to heap a whole bunch of arbitrary qualities onto the concept of god that everything becomes problematic. Omniscient. Omnipresent. Sempiternal. Ex hypothesi, "god" is beyond the limits of our intellect. Can an amoeba conceptualize what it is like to be a man? Truly scientific reasoning suggests that we should be a little more...humble, about dismissing what we know to be beyond our current ken.

It seems to me that the reason people decide to argue against god isn't to contradict the idea of god so much as it is to contradict a whole set of "affiliated beliefs" that go tend to go along with the belief in the idea of god (but are not necessarily logically entailed). If this is so, then atheism is really just one giant red herring.....

The law of excluded middle appears to invalidate (C), but this is superficial. It is true that either god exists, or that god does not. No other possibility is available. It is also true that either one believes that X, or one does not. — Banno

No, this is actually an instance of the fallacy of the excluded middle. While it may be true that either god exists or doesn't it is not true that either one believes something or does not. I have no belief on the existence or the non-existence of god.

I can't get Chomsky out of my head. — Manuel

Quite.

For non-fiction, very often when I look at original sources I find unexpected and surprising information. Examples:

Special relativity - "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" - Einstein does not show or prove that the speed of light is a constant in all reference frames, he assumes it. — T Clark

I have Einstein's Special and General Relativity, I've been meaning to re-read it and your post reinforces that....

Looking at books in shops and libraries seems to me to be part of the research process. — Jack Cummins

Yes, the entire process contributes to the "informational outcome" is the abstract level takeaway I guess... :)

On Individuality and Social Forms by Georg Simmel

Arendt was excellent, albeit a dense read. More concept-driven than thesis-oriented, which suits me well.

We ratify our beliefs constantly because everything that we can perceive and can formulate and plan is ultimately dependent on what we allow ourselves to believe. I call this the "ontological gamble". We bet with our lives that what we believe is valid.

Yes, it definitely resonates with me also. I was referring also to his idea of the "metaphysical research program" which guides and shapes scientific discovery....

And yet do you not find he has a very keen respect for metaphysics?

Exactly. :up:

If you ask what something is, then you are asking how it is actually instantiated in the world (ie. this is a question of empirical ethics). There is no doubt that there are people who treat it as objective, as subjective, and as relative. Now if you had asked, ought morality to be.....

After reading Popper's Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery trilogy two years ago my lifelong "orientation" of idealism changed to scientific realism.

Gargantua and Pantagruel by Rabelais

I don't think wisdom is captured so much by what you say as by what you do, per Apollodorus' reply.

The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt

I think there's tension between the claim that matter can produce consciousness, but not vice-versa — RogueAI

I have always summed it up this way to myself: is it more unlikely that matter gives rise to consciousness, or that consciousness gives rise to matter?

flexible standards lead to favouritism and bias. — god must be atheist

No more than minority standards lead to elitism and exclusivity. Philosophy is not the exclusive domain of academics and should be friendly to a diverse background of genuine interest. If anything, I feel politeness should govern, and rudeness be excluded. But that's just me. I'll settle for the current scheme of "Moderation."

There was nothing superficial about my reading. You are attempting to impose your idea of a rule on the moderators and the forum. That isn't how the forum works. It's a diverse community and it demands a flexible standard, which is what is accomplished by having human moderators exercising human judgement.

It's highly speculative, I'll admit. Nevertheless, I don't think it can be specifically disproved. The ubiquity of fractals in natural systems in my mind is suggestive that information might have a kind of ontological independence. I often wonder whether there is such a thing as "information density"....

It appears then that the only situation in which this occur would be the end of the universe itself, in which the universe would be unable to retain any memory of the past. — Bradaction

Yes, this does look like a 'hard stop' to everything. Unless perhaps there is an "information dimension"?

An example of such a debate would be a situation where all traces of humanity were suddenly removed from the universe, — Bradaction

I think the key counter-argument involves the condition "where all traces are removed" - this is not what happens in reality. In reality, every event "shapes" subsequent reality, so nothing is ever really "forgotten" by the universe as a whole. Michael Leyton wrote an interesting book Symmetry, Causality, and Mind, in which he considers how the mind recovers causal history from shapes; it is a decent read.

It isn't the role of members to "oust" other members (that's cliquey and elitist) it's the job of the moderators. Anyone can censor an annoying post just by ignoring it. It's easy.

Here's how I conceptualize this apparent paradox. Think of the universe as a set of particles subject to a very basic physics, like a computer simulation. In that case, a Laplacian super-computer could, given a known set of starting parameters, accurately predict the state of the universe at any given time. But no new information is actually being revealed by the description of any subsequent state. Every instantaneous state already contains the complete picture of every force and particle in existence. Extrapolating one step (or a million steps) forward (or backwards) only results in a different description of exactly the same thing.

The most interesting thing about mechanical theories is the point at which they fail. Physics is the science of...approximation.

As in all things, I endorse the individual's right to choose. Medical science - all science - is inherently imperfect, as the history of science abundantly proves. The number of times that expert opinion has reversed even in the course of the pandemic also testifies to this. So if the majority of people choose to vaccinate out of self-interest that is great. I am going to avoid the vaccine just as diligently as I am trying to avoid the virus. I work in the medical field andcould have been fully vaccinated in January had I wished.

:up:

Yes, and I think there are different kinds intersubjective agreement as well. There is agreement of consensus (we agree that we agree) and there is agreement of understanding. I think that latter is far more substantial, in the sense that it perhaps transcends the limitations of symbolic meaning. One never quite knows to what extent meanings are truly shared...but having that as an ideal or goal is a start.

I think that your understanding of reality is your reality. Interaction with the universe is not optional. So people exist in the state of understanding reality, which is primarily performative. If that understanding reaches a certain level of sophistication, then it can rise from being performative to being symbolic. And if the symbolization is accurate, than it can be codified and transmitted. Subject to the condition that such understanding ratifies ultimately at the performative level. I doubt the value of any pure abstraction.

Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg
David Copperfield by Charles Dickens

You can if you want, but I doubt it's worth it. To me Habermas sounds just like neo-Marxism phrased slightly differently to the usual stuff. — Apollodorus

Habermas' theory of communicative action is much more anthropological.

what the apparatuses are through which control is exerted, how they operate, and who controls them. — Apollodorus

Habermas calls such "steering media" - money and power for example:

which bypass consensus-oriented communication with a 'symbolic generalisation of rewards and punishments'. After this process the lifeworld "is no longer needed for the coordination of action". This results in humans ('lifeworld actors') losing a sense of responsibility with a chain of negative social consequences. Lifeworld communications lose their purpose becoming irrelevant for the coordination of central life processes. This has the effect of ripping the heart out of social discourse, allowing complex differentiation to occur but at the cost of social pathologies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_Communicative_Action

I think our whole notion of land-ownership has led us to the brink of catastrophe. Nobody owns the land. We human beings share it with myriad other life forms. If we do think of ourselves as somehow privileged in our relationship to the earth, then it can only be as caretakers. So whoever is prepared to look after the land to the maximum benefit of the natural order is the rightful 'owner'.

Post it up! You can always start a new thread.

I created a thread on false beliefs, or should I say, "false believing," a little while ago. What you are talking about has been central to my personal approach to philosophy since about 1990, and I've read and written extensively on cognitive biases and the notion of the ego as an obstacle to knowledge. It's a topic I can't get enough of. :)

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10704/believing-versus-wanting-to-believe

Have you ever considered what is the fundamental process of learning itself? — Tiberiusmoon

I have. What we learn must be something new, but not entirely unforeseen. It must either fill a gap in an already existing coherent structure of thought; or else completely overturn such a structure and its presuppositions. And wanting to learn is not enough. Sometimes the learning most needed is the one not wanted.

Thanks! When you say that the teleonomy element bears scrutiny, do you mean you believe that our fundamental ethical motivations are utilitarian rather than intuitive? — Adam Hilstad

You've already mentioned "collective teleonomy" - I think that the actual results of our teleonomic endeavours are a product of our evolved capacities, which are a product of individual efforts insofar as the individual either understands or at leasts conforms to collective principles. This is why I've been focussing on the whole phenomenon of social interaction and communication for the last couple of years. The human species is a hive, no less than bees are. Think of what we could accomplish if our mutual-collective understanding reached the level of cooperation of more primitive species. The ego may be our biggest obstacle.

It seems to me that the is/ought dichotomy is false, and the illusion of dichotomy is created by placing the ‘is’ first. I tend to think that we believe what makes sense given the evidence precisely because we ought to. In this way, ‘is’ derived from ‘ought’. — Adam Hilstad

:up:

As I mentioned in your other thread, i think your gloss of the is-ought relationship in terms of the ethics of meaning is excellent. I was going to suggest extending this to the whole is-ought problem at that time. It makes absolute sense to me. As to the overall meaning or mechanics of teleonomy, I think that is the thing bears scrutiny.