History is part detective work part lawyering where a historian puts together some quotes from other historians and witnesses and presents a case based upon some biases. A history buff reads all of these biased cases and puts together their own story. It can be quite a lot of fun and a never-ending search.

That sort of expediency comes at a price and it's effectiveness is questionable to begin with. Also in context of the bigger picture it's just bad strategy, it's a bad idea to polarize society with deceitful — Sivad

I agree, but such people are rarely looking at bigger, longer term affects.

I've followed most of the major conflicts fairly closely and it's clear to me that there's dishonesty and delusion on both sides of these issues. Climate change is probably the best example, one side is claiming far more certainty than is warranted and being alarmist while the other side idiotically denies that there very well may be a serious problem developing. Both sides are mightily steeped in bullshit and neither side is coming off it any time soon. — Sivad

Rather right on point. The trouble is that nowadays, whatever position a group takes, undo (alarmist) great or undo (way over optimistic hope) is the fastest way to do it. If is not too difficult to concoct a story that serves such purposes.

I can detect at least four different issues raised in this thread:

[1] whether the word "science" is so hopelessly vague that it is devoid of communicative value;
[2] whether the disunity within science is so complete that any association between scientific disciplines is misleading or false;
[3] whether the deployment of scientific language for rhetorical purposes is ethical; and
[4] whether or not there is anything remedial we can do about issues 1-3.

Are there additional issues I have missed, or would anyone frame the issues differently? — geospiza

Very reasonable way to frame the issues.

Proof? If only the science industry held itself to the same standards that it holds everyone else, it would shrink to almost nothing overnight.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

This may be a good place to start researching the subject.

http://www.livescience.com/8365-dark-side-medical-research-widespread-bias-omissions.html

It is not necessary to apply a value judgement to Black and White. No more than value judgements can be applied to wave crests and troughs. They both must exist in order to manifest a wave and life is wave movements.

I don't believe the smaller circles were included in a versions of the ancient Dao symbol, but for me the connotation would be that within one opposite there also exists the other. Sort of an infinite loop.

I agree with the OP. Science is essentially an umbrella marketing term for fundraising and shielding against criticism. There are no standards, there are no methods. Just some claims that are rarely challenged since the industry has so thoroughly insulated itself both in academia and commercial industry. Once in a while though there are some articles that challenge the scientific method myth, that are accepted in some journal, which are quickly shot down by the industries' hired censors self-named skeptics.

:)

Is this the way things are, or one of the ways things are. — T Clark

I would say it is a perspective.

The Dao that we speak of is not the Dao.

Yes. Such a conception is common in Eastern cultures. Also, Heraclitus shared this view as his Lagos in flux.

There are those of us who don't agree, at least not in any absolute way. Facts are human. Stories we tell ourselves.

When you say you are a realist, do you mean you find that a useful approach to understanding and living in the world, or are you claiming some sort of privileged perspective? — T Clark

A universe in continuous creation and flux can be imagined as a continuously rotating kaleidoscope. This would be the one and only fact, as far as I can ascertain, using Terrapin Station's definition and ontological perspective. The Stuff or the Universe is The Fact.

I agree with you there. I just don't think that the world is our creation. — Terrapin Station

I clearly don't believe that we create the world (universe) but I do believe we are all involved (entangled) in a continuous co-creation (more Bergson).

I think that puts too much emphasis on us, which I think is an all-too-common error in philosophy. — Terrapin Station

A former English teacher of mine also insisted that an author's writing were completely distinct from the author. I argued back that it is impossible to separate the creator from the creation. They are entangled forever. Whatever we conceived creates a permanent entanglement. There is no way to disengage.

I wouldn't say there is anything immobile. And I'd say everything is concrete, in the sense of material. There's a flux out there, and a flux in here. Everything in in flux. And it's all material, in particular relations, undergoing particular processes. — Terrapin Station

If we agree all is in flux, then the fact must also necessarily be in flux, creating as far as I can tell a unique meaning to the term fact. It's OK, as long as everyone understands your meaning.

I'm terms of materiality, this term itself is rather malleable as the nature of stuff is not clear. Ultimately the nature of facts is directly dependent upon how one views this stuff and how the mind manifests this stuff as perception. So different ontologies will lead to disagreement as to the nature of facts.

I agree with that. The flux out there is the facts. — Terrapin Station

A fact to me had to be more concrete, immobile to be useful. It is a movement that had been conceptualized as from. A photograph.

What's out there, on the other hand, is just a mass of stuff (whatever it may be) that is constantly in flux. One can say that in total it is a fact as the Universe of Everything. This would translate to the Dao or God or whatever Absolute that one embraces.

It sounds like we have completely different ontologies. If I weren't a realist then yeah, I'd need some other conception of facts. I'm just a garden variety realist though — Terrapin Station

There is something real out there but whatever it is under constant flux. How we each perceive it is also under constant flux, but something about it may be just consistent enough for a long enough duration that humans may form a consensus to call it a fact. However, this is very much a rarety, which is why so-called facts are in constant dispute.

Facts are useful but unfortunately are subject to constant change.

Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs" sense.

As a realist, facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts. — Terrapin Station

As can be ascertained by my statement, I view facts as a manifestation of inter-human behavior.

What is out there is simply a mass of waves that are constantly in flux. It is the human mind (acting as a reconstructive wave) that manifests some images that we perceive from our individual perspectives.

What's out there and in here are undergoing constant change, the amount of change we are perceiving is dependent upon our internal time clocks, and when there is some agreement (because it is changing slow enough for agreement to take place) people agree to call it a fact.

I've been going through a bunch of posts which ask what firm base relativists nail their facts to. I have my answer ready, but you've beaten me to the punch. It's consensus. Even if you believe there is some final, definitive, concrete ground of being, e.g. objective reality, which I don't, the only thing we have to work with on a day to day basis is agreement among them what knows. Consensus. — T Clark

Yes. I agree. There probably is something out there. Probably some wave patterns that the brain reconstructs as some sort of hologram. But everyone is perceiving it differently so there are disagreements and agreements. You and I may agree and disagree on this question but we attempt to reach a consensus. We may call this consensus a fact if we wish, if we agree to call it such.

Facts are claims made with great certitude from a relative perspective.

There is stuff out there but everyone sees it differently.

What people do is attempt to come to some consensus based upon common experiences and call it a fact. Thus if it looks like a duck, and whacks like a duck, it's a duck-but maybe not. Consensus tends to change over time as perspectives change.

It is hopeless attempting to establish facts in a continuously changing universe where perspectives are constantly changing. We do the best we can for practical purposes.

Isn't choice primarily about the future (repetition is about the past), what we anticipate will happen when we act in a certain manner. We negate the present transforming it into the future as it were a completed action (as past). The force of that negation is the willing ego. — Cavacava

Yes. Very Bergsonian.

Do you have an example in mind of an alternative interpretation of "1 + 1 = 2"? — Srap Tasmaner

1+1=2 is essentially 5 arbitrary symbols strung together that we are taught in elementary school to accept by rote. Inherently it has as much meaning as any string of symbols. Without further meaning one can just stare at it with bewilderment​. It is when one starts applying meaning to it, e.g. one apple and another apple is two apples that we begin to inject relativism. Exactly what makes two apples? You would have to start defining an apple and then all heck breaks loose in the same way that trying to define relativism creates problems.

Let's consider the trivial notion that 1+1=2. It is five symbols strung together that is inherently meaningless. It has as much truth as covfefee. It is when one attempts to ascribes meaning to it that relativism floods in.

But we can even go further. There are people who cannot do arithmetic (learn the symbolic sequence) and for them there is disagreement with all those who can.

Billionaires usually protect each other no matter what but this time the Oligarchy decided they rather have Pence who is a good little soldier as Clinton would have been. Game of Thrones. They are all quite unsavory. I have no taste for any of them as they continue to steal $trillions while destroying the lives of millions upon millions.

Yes, we are in agreement. I am responding to your statement that you aren't sure, so I was providing some additional information. Sorry for any misinterpretation.

Preferences or strong desires (e.g. addictions) influence but do not dictate choices, as do innumerable other influences. Habits (memory) are influencers but they are not what chooses.

That no one can provide a universally acceptable definition of relativism (or any concept) should speak loudly.

Choice is an action in a specific direction. Perception can be viewed as potential (virtual) action.

Over time we do develop preferences (habits) in memory which are one of the factors affecting choices we take.

I'm not sure if I catch your drift. Laws of Nature per se lack that essential feature of a god-being to wit consciousness. — TheMadFool

That is the point. For those who use the term to explain the outside force thanks governs everything it exactly equivalent, in every way that you describe.

Do you think calling it a Law vs. God changes anything other than spelling? Do you think someone believing in Genesis is any more irrational or rational than someone believing in the Big Bang?

This is one way to look at it. However, those who appeal to Laws of Nature use it as a placeholder for the exact same theme as God, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, that excludes any notion of individual choice. In this regard, whether we discuss God or Determinism we are really discussing the same thing: i.e. no doubt there is no choice.

in the manner that the metaphysical concept is used, Laws of Nature, is usually used as a standalone concept as the first and constant force guiding everything. The is never an appeal to a maker of Laws of Nature that I have encountered.

As far as I can tell, God and Laws of Nature are used in equivalent manner by two separate groups who claim certainty. Either they are both acting rationally or they are both acting irrationally as per your question. The appeal to an outside, guiding force that is guiding everything is exactly equivalent.

As you defined God, it is exactly equivalent to the Laws of Nature, both of which are concepts and beliefs with no proof, and are used in an equivalent manner, i.e. am omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient force that is guiding everything in the Universe

.

Fascism is far from productive.

Hitler borrowed prodigiously from Western bankers who were financing him as a bulwark against the Soviet Union.

By 1939 Germany was super-deep in debt, which it incurred building its war machine.

To get itself out of debt, it simply started killing tens of millions of people, invading and taking over countries, so that it could loot their resources and take over their land.

Fascism is about as productive as the Mongol Empire, and other colonial empires that depend upon mass killing, stealing, subjugation, and slave/ultra-cheap labor to maintain a debt-driven, economy.

My argument, if at all it is one, is that the rational thing to do is be agnostic about God. The obvious existence of theism and atheism goes to show that the arguments from both sides are not convincing enough. Yet people affirm/deny God with a certainty that isn't justified. — TheMadFool

Would you say the same of those who appeal to the Laws of Nature.

Agnosticism, as far as I can tell, is equivalent to doubt. Should there be equivalent doubt about the Laws of Nature? Are those who are convinced that they exist/do not exist acting irrationally?

If you are saying that there are outside forces that are entirely deciding our direction in life (i.e.we have no say in what the direction we would like to take), whether they be called God or Laws of Nature,

then you are asking the question:

"Do you want God or Laws of Nature to exist? Would that be your question?

You could try to take up an art as a hobby. Personally, I enjoy Tai Chi, dancing, singing, piano playing and drawing. You'll find lots of new and wonderful experiences in the arts.

P.S. The God I'm referrig to is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God — TheMadFool

So you are referring to the Laws of Nature?

... impels us to abandon our rationality

I have no idea how one does this.

I believe what you are saying is that you disagree with a point of view and in order to gain some perceived advantage (among those who perceive some superiority of the so-called rational whatever that might be) for your perspective you label the opposing view as irrational. Would this be a valid way at looking at your statement?

In this article Shelter juxtaposes the two concepts. It is inevitable. Science ultimately does the same thing (i.e. juxtaposes neurons and human consciousness) but amazingly denies it in the same breath because of the materialistic foundation of their thought. Ultimately every theory has to put Consciousness somewhere - some Bergson are just more forthright about it.

http://www.sheldrake.org/research/morphic-resonance/part-i-mind-memory-and-archetype-morphic-resonance-and-the-collective-unconscious

As to the OP in question, we cannot doubt our experiences (memory) because we are quite literally memory. It defines everything about us. Doubt is a feeling created by conflicting memories. Different people will doubt differently depending upon the conflicts that memories inspire.

I don't even want to touch the idea that neurons are doubting themselves. That is how mysteries are created.

I provided you with a link of an actual experiment.

No, morphic resonance is Consciousness as are neurons. No matter what sleight of hand or magic is performed by any science, inevitably Consciousness will be imbued into any "explanation" for consciousness. It is unavoidable and irristible because it is consciousness. Neurons are consciousness as is Morphic Resonance fields. It is a simple hierarchy. Sheldrake explains this all though I don't think he actually labels it as consciousness.