But the parochialism lies in the idea that it follows even minimally from the failure of the mechanic philosophy — StreetlightX

When it comes to the mind/body problem, he argues that there hasn’t been a conception of “body” since this time. So ideas about the “physical world” isn’t formulable. That’s one point. But in terms of what’s understood — plenty is understood. Knowledge isn’t impossible. We just have a different conception of “understanding” — one rooted more in theoretical formulation than contact action.

So what about mysteries? Chomsky has made the point, for decades, that human beings have a scope and limits to their cognitive capacities. The same applies here. Perhaps issues like will, the creative use of language, and understanding the world in “physical” terms demonstrate those limits. Maybe. Maybe it will be resurrected — but as of yet, that’s not the case. We still don’t have a conception of “material.”

I think the points are obvious. Of course we have limits. What’s interesting in this particular case — with Descartes, Newton, and the mind/body problem — is that what’s traditionally (and still to this day) been taken as a “scientific” understanding of the world was actually abandoned long ago, and was never resurrected. Thus, there can’t be a mind/body problem — we still have no sense of “body.”

Who cares? Well, I see plenty of threads on this very forum endlessly debating the mind/body issue, discussing the “physical” world, trying to bridge the gap between consciousness and the material world, etc. So I think it’s worth listening to someone claiming that’s all pretty much a waste of time.

As if the whole of the intelligible was at stake in the mechanic philosophy, — StreetlightX

That would be ridiculous, yeah. But I don’t see that being the claim. That mechanical philosophy is just one example— but an important one.

Chomsky is probably right about two things: (1) the mechanical philosophy has exhausted itself; (2) We probably won't end up knowing everything. But that these things have anything whatsoever to do with each other is incredibly silly. — StreetlightX

We may not know everything, and perhaps one example is understanding the world in terms of bodies, material, and physical.

That’s the claim, and I still don’t see how it’s silly. In fact if it’s true I think more should pay attention, as I mentioned above.

then have the gall to suggest that the world is incomprehensible because of that. — StreetlightX

Where does Chomsky say the world is incomprehensible?

He's saying we have a much different understanding today, one not confined solely to mechanistic processes -- like contact action, which was what was once meant by "understanding."

And I'm at a place in my life where I desire having a clean clear mind more then anything and so if I take something that alters my state of being i actually get frustrated — MAYAEL

It really depends on what we deem "good" or "bad." What many may call "clean and clear" is actually an amalgam of unquestioned beliefs, values, and habits that embody themselves in "normal" behavior. Being briefly jarred from what we consider ordinary, "normal," etc., can be very beneficial indeed.

The line between "drugs" and "medicine" is a very thin one, too. I doubt very much you'd be against medicines.

In any case, I'd be careful about extrapolating from your own experiences to such a general degree.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the reference.

For anyone not willing to read:



See in particular the question and answer section.

What part of
cite where Chomsky clearly states what he Chomsky means by "understanding" and "mystery" and where he soundly demonstrates how he/we can understand whatever it is he/we "will never understand".
— 180 Proof
do you not understand, Xtrix? :roll: — 180 Proof

What part of the article don't you understand?

It's not offering "new" definitions for the words "understanding" or "mystery" -- and asking for such is, as I've said before, missing the entire point. Which you would know if you read it. He does talk at length about aspects of the world that appear to be incomprehensible to the human mind, in the same way that rat's can't run prime number mazes.

So take your rolling eyes and stop wasting time on a thread you never intended on engaging with. Go assign meaningless homework assignments elsewhere.

You kibbitz a lot, Xtrix, without staying on topic or addressing my explicit requests — 180 Proof

I, and others, have addressed your issues. But your requests are based on misunderstandings and arrogant presumptions.

cite where Chomsky clearly states what he Chomsky means by "understanding" and "mystery" and where he soundly demonstrates how he/we can understand whatever it is he/we "will never understand". — 180 Proof

Human beings have scope and limit in their cognitive capacities. That’s obvious. What was once thought as “understanding” — a mechanical view — is no longer the case. Ditto physical and material. This is the claim.

There are things we understand — within the scope of our cognitive abilities — and there are some things we don’t (and perhaps can’t) understand. He talks about rats and the prime number maze — that’s a mystery to them, just as will and the creative use of language is to us today.

If you’re looking for a technical definition of “understanding” or “mystery,” you’ve completely missed the point.

Again, best to start by reading the text rather than coming into a discussion with motivated reasoning, launching accusations which are demonstrably untrue.

t I need to know whether or not Chomsky says anything new on this topic — 180 Proof

It’s important to understand what the topic is first. If you’re unwilling to do this, that’s OK. But perhaps not waste others’ time on a thread you have no real interest in.

Anyway, so Chomsky's sense of "understanding" – by extension explicability and therefore inexplicability (i.e. "mysterious, mystery") – is anachronistic and related to / derived from an out-dated, surpassed, methodological paradigm? – okay, got it. — 180 Proof

No, that's not his sense. What Newton believed isn't what Chomsky believes. The passage you cite is a description of what Newton meant. Chomsky is not advocating "understanding" in the sense of the mechanical philosophy, i.e., contact action. This is very clear, if one deigns to read.

I've been to a few public lectures he'd given in the 80's & 90's and have read most of his books published before the turn of the millenium. — 180 Proof

An odd remark. What’s the relevance? That you’ve read a lot of Chomsky? That’s great— but what about the text in question?

finished reading the article thoroughly) I don't see any reason to adopt the vocabulary of what those in the 17th century thought was the criterion of scientific knowledge, that physical explanations equated to "common sense" and what counts as common sense were people's experience with engineered machines. Of course the world isn't a machine, the world is the world. The modern version of this nonsense is asking whether "if the universe is a simulation" now that we're familiar with video games. There's no reason the world has to comport with our everyday experience, but that doesn't mean increased knowledge of counterintuitive things isn't actual knowledge of how the world works. — Saphsin

Chomsky isn’t saying we don’t have knowledge about how the world works. He’s saying, at least in my reading, that our ideas of intelligibility have changed, and that words like “physical” and “material” are basically honorific. There can’t be a mind-body problem if we don’t know what “body” is, and there hasn’t been a conception since the mechanistic philosophy, which was destroyed with Newton. That’s basically the thesis.

Science of course did not end with the collapse of the notion of body (material, physical, and so on). Rather, it was reconstituted in a radically new way, with questions of conceivability and intelligibility dismissed as demonstrating nothing except about human cognitive capacities, though that conclusion has taken a long time to become firmly established. Later stages of science introduced more “absurdi- ties.” The legitimacy of the steps is determined by criteria of depth of explanation and empirical support, not conceivability and intelligibil- ity of the world that is depicted.

[my emphasis]

but I start from an understanding of scientific explanation in terms of conceptualizing what we know from the sciences today, so it doesn't matter to me if Newton's discoveries betrayed some old promise. — Saphsin

That’s the point: there hasn’t been a new conception of “physical” since Newton.

Well, there's no reason to take mechanical philosophy or its corollary seriously now that we have completely new notions, we know what Newton and his contemporaries did not know. The piece is one-sided, a long list of historical roadblocks of when we figured out how much we don't know as science progressed without mentioning any progressive changes of our picture in reality that science has given us. — Saphsin

What are these “completely new notions”? Chomsky is well aware of relativity and quantum mechanics. I’m not sure what you’re claiming he’s “conspicuously leaving out.” What is the new notion of physical/material?

Strange that you go around resurrecting all my old threads. But thanks!

I'm not a mysterian — 180 Proof

Neither is Chomsky. Try engaging with texts instead of labeling with an “ism.” Or send him an e-mail about his “ramblings” and teach him a thing or two — I for one would be very interested to see it.

Just wanted to say that I think you’ve understood Chomsky very well. That’s pretty rare, in my experience, despite him usually pointing out fairy straightforward things.

The mischievious thought that occurs to me is that perhaps what's being shown here is that matter is basically unintelligible. — Wayfarer

Exactly right. It’s perfectly fine to use in normal everyday discourse, but it has no technical notion.

Not mysticism, but he does include himself in mysterianism — Tom Storm

Really? I’ve never heard him say so, so I welcome the correction if I’m mistaken.

Human beings have a scope and limit. I don’t think that’s “mysterianism.” He uses the example of rats failing at a prime number made as an example. Their cognitive capacities are limited. Ours are clearly limited as well. We know this in terms of senses (we don’t have echolocation or the olfactory capability of dogs), perception (the moon illusion), and in terms of basic biology (we can’t fly like birds). I consider this just truism. Shouldn’t be controversial.

So maybe we can’t “understand” the world in the way understanding was once meant.

An important essay indeed. Chomsky's been saying this for years, and too few listen. He demonstrates, quite clearly, how there is no mind/body problem without the concept of "body," which was long ago destroyed as a technical notion -- and hasn't been replaced since.

I don't think he's advocating for "mysterianism" or mysticism. He's simply saying we have limits in our capacities to understand the world, and while we may not know exactly what they are, there are many hints. We seem to progress in some domains and hit brick walls in others, historically.

So any accusation that Chomsky, who's a scientist though and through, is simply becoming a mystic is unfounded. Rather, he's reiterating what Newton pointed out, and using this to demonstrate how little we really know about what's "physical" and "material."

For my money, Chomsky is likely to be better informed and smarter than possibly everyone on this forum. — Tom Storm

About nearly everything, yes. Philosophy, history, politics, and most of the sciences. But we could mop the floor with him if it came to popular culture.

Not sure if anyone saw this, but worth a read, and interested in reactions:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-american-polity-is-cracked-and-might-collapse-canada-must-prepare/

Religion →
→
Philosophy →
→
Science. — Agent Smith

I think this is exactly right, chronologically— with one important caveat: that the words themselves are being used in modern terms. Otherwise, all three share the common feature of dealing with basic human questions — they all begin and end with the human mind.

In the modern sense, I think science (as natural philosophy) is the most narrow. Its object is nature. Science, then, from one perspective is simply physics — and physics studies how the natural world works mostly using mathematics. Mathematics is a very unique activity, and calls upon different human mental capacities — what one might call logical capacities (and which is often meant by “reason,” “rational,” and even “thinking” — all potential translations or derivatives from the word “logos.”)

It’s also important to recall that both words, nature and physics, stem from the same Greek word: phusis, which was the early Greek word for “being.” Its more limited sense— nature (natura in Latin) — became predominant shortly thereafter.

So the lines between religion and philosophy aren’t as rigid as one might think. I sense the push of scientism has reinterpreted history as a story of overcoming myth and superstition through the powers of the scientific method — and so there’s endless debate about religion and science, faith and reason, etc. But this can be misleading. I myself for too long took this line of thinking.

But as in the case with Buddhism, ordinary conceptions of religion tend to break down. It’s better and easier, in my view, to see all of these words as referring simply to an activity of humans; specifically the activity of “deep thinking” (to distinguish from other kinds of everyday thought) in terms of fundamental questioning.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is a great example of what I mean.

I don't think there is much evidence for a general "discomfort associated with stopping.' If you try not to stop or sleep for long enough you will simply collapse. — universeness

There is a lot of evidence about it, actually. It's not a matter of not sleeping -- of course we all sleep. But the quality of sleep and the length of sleep has changed, largely due to cell phone usage. You can see it with prescriptions for sleep medications as well.

Go scientific! — Agent Smith

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Is going to sleep routinely kind of like an acceptance of death? Of the unknown? — TiredThinker

I think so, yes. It's similar to fear of the dark, in kids and adults. But it's even more superficial than that: it's the discomfort associated with stopping. This is why problems around sleep are so common -- it's cultural. We're overworked and overstimulated, and now technology has conditioned our brains to be constantly moving.

I think assigning some days to having no inputs, walking in the woods more often, and meditation can all help with this.

Assume R = Time is real — Agent Smith

"Real" is meaningless until it's explained, so the rest is also pointless.

I couldn't open the article for some reason, but this is the same thing:

No, although that is an interesting point. My point was that generally our thoughts aren't ours in a philosophical debate, which may or may not lead to an absence of "thought". The chess analogy was to demonstrate that the master is good because he's practiced recognizing specific solutions to a variety of situations, not necessarily because he's good at "chess". — john27

But isn't that like saying that everything we say is also not ours?

Regarding chess: I see mastery a little differently. I think the chess master is a master precisely because he's not theoretical, as perhaps a beginner might start out being. Like a musician, in fact. Anyone who's learned piano knows that you start with simple steps and basic theory (scales, etc) -- but the expert piano player no longer has to remember any of this. Both he and the chess master simply know what to do without thinking.

I think the question ought to be, what is rational thinking, because by introducing reason you have at least some common ground to start with. Otherwise it's so broad as to not be meaningful, 'thinking' in the loose sense being simply all of the spontaneous activities of any mind. — Wayfarer

I think there's a meaningful difference between more abstract thought and what's going on generally when we're talking to ourselves. To me, general thought is somewhat akin to action that is simply automatic, habitual, and not consciously directed.

So when I say not all thinking is philosophy, I'm getting at the distinction you're also making. But that spontaneous activity that isn't philosophy is still meaningful.

Thinking is generalizing, abstractive, associative, contextualizing, reflective,,logical, analogical, dialogical, dialectical, imaginative, conjectural, speculative. rational, irrational. — Janus

Wrong.

(kidding)

such that to think is, with sufficient grounds, to question (categorical) questions and/or to problematize (hypothetical) problems. — 180 Proof

Philosophy does seem inseparable from its questions. I think this is a distinguishing feature, along with the reflective aspect which separates it from other kinds of thought.

I would disagree on the fact that all philosophy involves thinking, so long as we attribute thinking to be an individual endeavour. — john27

A little like a chess master vs someone naturally talented at chess: one is recognizing patterns/arguments and resolving them with tried and true logical pathways, the other is relying on his gifted logical capacities to guide him. — john27

I don't think I'm fully understanding this point. Are you suggesting some philosophy takes place as a kind of instinctual activity?

As for "philosophy", this becomes terminological more than factual, and we tend to say that certain types of thoughts pertain to issues continuing to the beginning of humanity: what is a self, what is the will, what is an object, what is the right thing to do, what is experience, and so on. — Manuel

:up:

Thought is cognition by means of conceptions. — Mww

I think that's too narrow. I'm not always thinking conceptually. Seems more that this is one kind of thought, not thought itself.

take a stab at what thinking is: it’s allowing thoughts to occur, to come to me. — Srap Tasmaner

Is this like saying that thinking is thoughts? Which of course the next question is: "What are thoughts?"

I wouldn't say not all thinking is philosophy.

How would we know unless we do the appropriate analysis? — Agent Smith

Well I would say we're doing philosophy right now, in asking and analyzing "What is thinking?" But that doesn't mean that when we're not analyzing, we're not thinking. That would be like saying that all language is writing. I talk to myself all the time, and not all of it is philosophical -- in the sense of being reflective or asking basic questions.



The Stooges. Underrated philosophers.

The fact that the vaccine is safe and effective is not a policy. — Isaac

I'm not advocating a policy. The article I cited was advocating a policy of incentives, which I was examining.

The question here is whether vaccine avoidance is, in fact, irrational, not whether irrationality is a bad thing. — Isaac

I think I've made it quite clear that I'm referring to irrationality, and thus irrationality surrounding vaccine avoidance, of which there is plenty. Not all, of course, because there are always exceptions. But yes, when people refuse to get vaccinated because they think they'll be magnetized, or lose ability to have kids, or be implanted with a chip, etc., that's completely irrational -- and fueled by social media.

You're quite right that there's no point arguing over truisms. Yet this is what I've stated from the beginning, and here we are.

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? — Isaac

I see only what you post on the forum. Seems like you spend a lot of time on this topic.

No one is seriously talking about vaccines achieving herd immunity. — Isaac

Not now, no. But they were.

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

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

Disagree about what?

Your sycophancy has reached a new low. — Isaac

Yes, I hear this from 9/11 truthers as well. They're equally correct.

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. — Isaac

:rofl:

And this is exactly what conversations like this typically reduce to.

Yeah, maybe 2 + 2 will equal 5 one day -- who knows? Some people disagree. Some people disagree with the sphericity of earth.

There's no such thing as truth or fact, so anything goes. Pick your favorite experts, your favorite math, etc., and be happy.

I'll skip reading the rest of your posts. I'm no longer interested. Stick with your "experts" and be well.

It's incredible that we are still at this stage of things. Forget about "cooperation" with Global Warming, we can't deal with this BS. — Manuel

Both symptoms of the same problem. Irrationality.

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. — Isaac

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. That's the consensus to which I'm referring. You may go on thinking about something else; it's not what I'm talking about.

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. — Isaac

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.

Similarly, Covid is indeed an unprecedented event. Doesn't give people the right to become irrational about vaccines -- which is what I'm talking about. Whatever you're talking about, only you know.

Very little about mathematics or chemistry affects my life. — Isaac

It affects a great deal of all of our lives, actually. And I suppose if we wanted to, we could start "questioning" these fields as well.

force me to take medications I've no desire to take — Isaac

No one is being forced to take the vaccine. They're given a choice to take them or, in some cases, lose their jobs. 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. If we count this as "forced," then all these other aspects are forced as well. In schools and many places of employment, they've been around for decades. I had to take a Tb and hep vaccine for a job once -- it was required.

No one has a gun to your head to take the vaccine. And to take a stand on this issue, especially when we needed a high percentage of people for herd immunity, is simply ridiculous to me. Once again it's another example of something that has been around forever (vaccine requirements) suddenly becoming a hot-button issue. If you're truly interested in worker freedom, how about dedicating more time to unions instead of railing on about vaccines? You'd think you're being asked to undergo a kidney transplant. Many places allow for more frequent testing as an alternative, regardless. But continue on your quest.

searching around for some political reason — Isaac

Covid has been politicized, but that doesn't fully account for the irrationality surrounding it. The anti-vax movement has been around for a while. Social media echo-chambers and conspiracy theories abound.

Yes, but your posts are a performative contradiction. — Isaac

There's no contradiction in my posts, so far as I can see. Whatever you've pointed out has been shown, over and over, to be fabrications. So yes, if you want to put words and thoughts into my mouth, then I'm sure there are many contradictions. What's really going on is fairly simple, and has been from the beginning: you have a very poor understanding about what I'm saying. I feel I've been clear, but who knows? Maybe it's me. If so, fine -- my bad. But you'd think after telling you many times that what you're saying isn't what I'm saying, that you'd take a second to reconsider whether this entire line of discourse isn't really a complete waste of time, an outgrowth of misunderstanding.

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. — Isaac

How strange.

Because all the evidence I've seen presented thus far seems to indicate that the vaccines are safe -- and effective. I've also taken the vaccine myself. I know scores of people who have taken the vaccine. I've seen the numbers of vaccinations -- literally billions of people. I've seen the numbers presented for deaths, strokes, blood clots, heart attacks, and other side effects -- and, doing simple arithmetic, found them to be very rare. I read about vaccinated people having less severe symptoms and not requiring hospitalization as often as unvaccinated people. And so on.

Could all of these numbers be faked? How do I know where they come from? Isn't it just the same agencies giving me these numbers? Isn't it the corporations running the studies? Isn't the FDA bought by big pharma? Etc. etc. :yawn: Yeah, and maybe we faked the moon landing. I'm not interested in that discussion, in case that's where you're taking it.

But I trusted in the experts (including my doctor) well before many people were vaccinated. I was one of the first few who received a vaccine -- and had no hesitation. Could I have been wrong? Sure. People could have started dropping dead after three months, who knows? But I'm not surprised that I wasn't.

And we need to put to bed this idea that they were just 'wrong' on opioids. — Isaac

I'm not interested in the opioid issue. That's an instance of big pharma faking studies/data and pressuring doctors to prescribe their drugs, and many doctors going along with it. 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. If you want to obsess over it, start a thread.

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

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? :lol: Might as well make up whatever you like, I don't care.

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.

Again -- if you want to pick your own facts, you're welcome to.

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

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

Either argue against something I'm actually saying or don't bother responding. — Isaac

If you had taken this advice days ago, I would have saved several thousand words.

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

Where's your evidence that these experts are experts? (Just doing an impression.)

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, — Isaac

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/05/17/public-trust-in-government-1958-2021/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/352397/democratic-republican-confidence-science-diverges.aspx

It's exactly this trust that I'm advocating — Isaac

Again, I hear the same lines from creationists. Just advocating for "real" science. Because everyone has a lock on that -- especially laypeople who've made one issue the target of their OCD.

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. — Isaac

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.

Yeah, maybe some want to trust Alex Jones instead of the CDC on vaccines, or their local barber about the effects of smoking— whatever. But decisions that effect third parties — other people — are no longer simply a matter of personal preference.

Creationists pick their own experts too. They’re free to do so. They’re not free to have nonsense taught in schools. People are free to take horse de-wormers if they want to, they’re not free to infect others with COVID or use taxpayer money to pay for their hospital bills.

The norm was once to trust the institution of science and medicine. Ditto for government. That’s all changed. Deliberately so. When reality conflicts with your religious beliefs or your wealth, one move is to deny reality. That starts with undermining trust in experts. Vaccine irrationality is but one symptom of this — it was politicized from day one, and riding a wave of anti-vax bullshit that has been growing for 20 years and which has exploded on social media.

If you have specific concerns about the vaccines — and there are legitimate ones — fine. There’s not consensus about everything, and there’s a lot we don’t know about certain aspects. But that’s your pet project, not mine. Stop interjecting that into an entirely different discussion.

that...

The experts are wrong sometimes.
— Xtrix

So there remains the question of why you believe, on this occasion, they're not. — Isaac

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.

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, — Isaac

Unlike all other examples? Are you suggesting social media misinformation is never out of control? There are in fact many examples. I have no idea what “campaign” means here.

In any case, this is more fabrication. Social media in general is an accelerant of misinformation. Asking “where’s the evidence” about something you already have stated you agree with just shows you’re not interested much in what I’m saying. It gets tiresome repeating it over and over again.

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...? — Isaac

Fabrication. I haven’t once stated any of this. This is your own representation.

The vaccines are safe and effective. Thus, following the advice that every medical organization in the world is saying — that those who are eligible should get vaccinated — happens to be the right move. You disagree that this is what they’re saying — fine.

Experts are saying we should move on climate change. If businesses and governments start listening — should we be suspicious? Sure. It probably means that it ALSO makes them some money. It doesn’t mean we throw out the science of climatology.

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. — Isaac

I’m not getting into this again. I trust the consensus of experts. The reasons I trust them I’ve been over multiple times.

We can question anything at any time, including expertise. Indeed science, medicine and expertise gets it wrong sometimes — that’s not the point. They could also be wrong about climate change and quantum mechanics and evolution. 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.

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. To me there’s little reason to doubt why that is. You claim to be an exception, like everyone else does. Fine — I take your word for it. You’ve already stated the vaccines are safe and effective, so there’s little else to say. Why? Because 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.

The point I was making, and which remains true, is that the irrationality that exists about this issue — much like the election fraud issue, climate denial, etc. — has fairly clear causes, which is the neoliberal policies of the last 40 years, and the role of information — the “infodemic” as some have labeled it. The rest is your inventions and caricatures.

I think that the stock market is just a game that rich people play with each other and I don't care if a few hundred of them have advance knowledge to guide their buys and sells. — Michael

It's a mistake to characterize it in this way. The conflicts of interest should be hammered over and over again, and they aren't. I've heard more about the death of Betty White.

The events of January 6th is interesting in that it shows just how desperate, angry, and misinformed people have become in the US. What Democrats don't care to ask in any serious way is why these conditions exist. Why, for example, are so many working people now loyal followers of a New York billionaire? It is certainly connected to the stock market.

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

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.

The experts are wrong sometimes. They could be wrong about all kinds of things. Unfortunately, you're not an expert yourself. You're some guy on an internet forum who seems obsessed with this issue. 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. I get the exact same claims from climate denialists and 9/11 truthers, who will argue in great detail why they're correct. I have no interest in engaging with it on that level.

So the Republicans are persuading people to be anti-vaccine because it wins them votes because people are anti-vaccine? — Isaac

The Republicans are not persuading their constituents to be anti-vaccine. Many of their constituents were already anti-vaccine. Many of their constituents are also believers in the election lie. We see how Republicans are handling that as well.

Ask yourself why they go along with something demonstrably untrue. What do they gain? What's the Problem? etc. It's fairly obvious in my view.

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

Probably Alex Jones and some YouTube hucksters. But I don't think money is the reason anti-vax sentiment arose initially. I think it was originally sincere. Misinformation travels far and wide, and in social media at lightning speed. There doesn't have to be any money behind it, even if some exploit it. Same with QAnon -- I don't know who makes money off of it. I don't know who makes money off the election lie, for that matter.

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. — Isaac

No, you just want to make it so. The underlying issue is a erosion of trust in science, medicine, and academia. The anti-vax message has thrived on social media for years -- not on corporate media.

I'll repeat what I've said from the beginning: the anti-vax movement, and the millions of people who adhere to it, are but one symptom of a larger problem. That larger problem is irrationality driven by misinformation and an undermining of science for political and financial purposes by corporate media. This has now taken on a life of its own within social media.

Corporate America, and their media, by no means like the January 6th events. They don't like vaccine refusal either. This seems to continually trip you up. But it's not at all contradictory. They cannot control a monster they themselves helped to create. The underlying cause of all of it, I think, is years of neoliberal policies. But that's another story.

So science is untrustworthy.
— Xtrix

Science is an activity, not an institution. — Isaac

Science is an institution. Of course it's an activity. You're saying it's untrustworthy, apparently as both.

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

What political reasons? What have the Republicans got to gain from vaccine hesitancy? — Isaac

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.

But that wasn't the point. The point is that science has been undermined for political reasons for decades. I mentioned climate denial, but there are plenty of others. The sugar industry, the tobacco industry, etc. The connection to politics is obvious.

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? — Isaac

For the corporate powers, people don't fall in line even when the message is legitimate, as with vaccines. This is bad for business. For political powers, they risk losing the election. Just ask Liz Cheney how it's going.

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? — Isaac

Not only scientists, but science and expertise in general. What's the problem with this? What's the problem with a majority of Republicans thinking the election was stolen? Because I believe rationality and truth matter. Believing nonsense leads to very real and very damaging actions -- whether regarding the environment, or food, or drugs, or vaccines, or free elections.

Go on... If the Republican doctors are not mislead then how do you support your claim that a majority of Republicans are mislead? — Isaac

Some doctors are Republicans. Misled about what, exactly? Vaccines? Elections? A majority of Republicans claim the election was stolen -- does that mean a majority of Republican doctors believe the election was stolen? Not necessarily.

Are you claiming that doctors are somehow immune from the forces of misinformation that mislead all other Republicans? — Isaac

No, but given their expertise in medicine, I assume they are less likely to be mislead by a Facebook post about how vaccines magnetize you than the average person.

If so, then what's their secret? — Isaac

Their "secret" is that they've studied medicine. So education, I guess? At least when it comes to medical misinformation. When it comes to election fraud claims, who knows? I haven't seen any evidence that about it one way or the other.

...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? — Isaac

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.

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.

When called upon to believe that Barack Obama was really born in Kenya, millions got in line. When encouraged to believe that the 2012 Sandy Hook murder of twenty children and six adults was a hoax, too many stepped up. When urged to believe that Hillary Clinton was trafficking children in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor with no basement, they bought it, and one of them showed up in the pizza place with a rifle to protect the kids. The fictions fed the frenzies, and the frenzies shaped the crises of 2020 and 2021. The delusions are legion: Secret Democratic cabals of child abusers, millions of undocumented voters, falsehoods about the Covid-19 pandemic and the vaccine.

While much has been said about the moral and political stance of people who support right-wing conspiracy theories, their gullibility is itself alarming. Gullibility means malleability and manipulability. We don’t know if the people who believed the prevailing 2012 conspiracy theories believed the 2016 or 2020 versions, but we do know that a swath of the conservative population is available for the next delusion and the one after that. And on Jan. 6, 2021, we saw that a lot of them were willing to act on those beliefs.
[...]

Though when we talk about cults and conspiracies we usually look to more outlandish beliefs, climate denial and gun obsessions both fit this template.

Both originated as industry agendas that were then embraced by both right-wing politicians and the right-leaning public. For decades, the fossil fuel industry pumped out ads and reports, and supported lobbyists and front groups misleading the public on the science and import of climate change. The current gun cult is likewise the result of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry pushing battlefield-style weapons and a new white male identity — more paramilitary than rural hunter — along with fear, rage and racist dog whistles. I think of it as a cult, because guns serve first as totems of identity and belonging, and because the beliefs seem counterfactual about guns as sources of safety rather than danger when roughly 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides and self-defense by gun is a surpassingly rare phenomenon.
[...]

Issues from climate to Covid are anathema to the right because solving them would require large-scale cooperation, in conflict with the idea that individual rights should be paramount. That may be why conservatives framed all Covid precautionary measures as violations of individual freedom. Dying for your beliefs has taken on grim new meaning: Since vaccines became widely available, counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump have had nearly three times the Covid-19 death rate as counties that voted for Joe Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/opinion/republicans-trump-lies.html

How about the medium to small businesses? Would you be good with doing away with private ownership of capital heights (the really big corporate guys) and but keeping it for smaller industries (which still make up a significant amount of the economy)? Why or why not? — schopenhauer1

There's two separate points I'm making.

#1. Capitalism itself, based on the definition I prefer and explained, should be dismantled. I don't think the system is legitimate.

#2. Given that we're most likely a long way out from dismantling this system, something should be done in the meantime. This means dismantling neoliberalism and, perhaps, returning to the era of "regimented capitalism" -- strong unions, high growth, more egalitarian distribution of wealth, etc. The kind we saw in the 50s and 60s. This seems more within reach and a good stepping stone to phasing out capitalism altogether in the long run.

So to answer your question: I'm not against business. Many businesses are small, yes. But just because they aren't multinational corporations doesn't negate the fundamentally exploitative relationship at the heart of them, if indeed they are capitalist -- meaning they (owners, employers) pay their workers a wage for their labor. Again, this would be as inconsistent as arguing that because there were very kind slaveowners, who treated their slaves well, that we should overlook the illegitimate nature of the system of chattel slavery.

But that's not the only way businesses can organize. You can still have profits and markets. What you can do is make it democratic -- i.e., organize the workplace democratically. I mentioned worker co-ops as model. This would mean that the workers decide how to run the business -- what to produce, how to produce it, what to do with the profits, how everyone gets paid, etc. Mondragon is often used as an example -- a very successful, large corporation. Happens to a be a cooperative.

When you say "private ownership," it's not so simple. I'm not against private ownership in the case of the co-op, where the workers own the business. I'm against a handful of people (or even one person) owning the business and making all the decisions, while hundreds, thousands, or millions of workers -- who are the majority of the company and who generate the profits -- are completely shut out of all decision making. In other words, I'm against totalitarianism and tyranny.

Modern capitalist corporations are private tyrannies. Those who want to rail against government, which is at least partly democratic, while ignoring the corporation, where there is no democracy, have simply fallen prey to the sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) capitalist apologetics that have been bought from so-called intellectuals through the decades. All under the guise of "freedom" -- free enterprise, free markets, free trade, etc. All complete nonsense.

So most Republicans are mislead by the media - we know they're being mislead because they deny the truth. The truth that has been told to us by our physicians...most of whom are Republicans, the ones who are mislead... — Isaac

No.

I disagree. I think it's come from those institutions themselves being demonstrably untrustworthy. — Isaac

So science is untrustworthy. Yes, I do disagree with this. I think science is, in fact, trustworthy— and the best enterprise we have for determining what’s true.

But it’s been undermined for political reasons. Climate denial, election fraud, vaccine irrationality, etc. All symptoms of the same underlining issue.

suggest that this crisis is a 'monster out of control' — Isaac

No one once said that “this crisis” (here I assume you’re referring to th pandemic) is a monster out of control. Rather, it is a symptom — along with election fraud and other instances you want to ignore — of an underlining problem. It is that underlining problem that is the monster. That underlining problem is a systematic, deliberate erosion of trust in science and expertise.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01115-7

You're clearly a well informed person in general. Has the whole debate passed you by. It was all over the editorials of the BMJ for months. The Editor in Chief there wrote directly to the FDA about it...but for you, a non-story? — Isaac

About corporate malfeasance? I guess it did— but I have a feeling we’re talking passed one another.

If you want to support an argument that the numbers are significant, then give me the numbers. — Isaac

I have many times on this thread and others. It’s all over the papers and polling. Republicans, Trump voting districts, evangelical Christians, etc — all much more likely to refuse the vaccine.

And no, 'the majority of vaccine deniers are Republican' is not the same as 'The majority of Republican's are vaccine deniers'. — Isaac

True. But if not a majority, it’s significant. Regarding election fraud claims, which I also mentioned, it is indeed a majority. Consider that fact — is that a problem? I think so.

Your claim that "a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things" is not supported by your evidence that "unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans" Do you see the difference? — Isaac

A majority of Republicans believe these things, yes. Both statements say the same thing. The former statement was referring to both vaccine refusal and election fraud. The former claim about "majority" may be wrong now, however -- I think it's over 50% who are vaccinated now.

According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats.

Brookings

So a large minority of Republicans are unvaccinated, and a majority believe in election fraud. Both are deeply concerning, and there's no coincidence why this is so.

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

Again, your 'point' is flawed. — Isaac

You've repeatedly been corrected about this. I'll do so again, and for as long as it takes.

The media they consume is wholly owned by rich corporations. The same rich corporations who have made more money than they've ever made out of this crisis including the profits and share hikes from the vaccine. — Isaac

No, they are not the same corporations. Believe it or not, but media conglomerates and large pharmaceutical companies have different interests, despite both being part of corporate America.

Regardless -- as I've said before, I also include social media, which has become unhinged. That's not quite the same as CNN, Fox, and CBS. Corporate media, in this case, has been fairly unified, rightly, about the vaccine. But that's because it serves their interests.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the last 30 years of undermining the institutions of academia, science, medicine. That has mostly come from conservative media, accelerated in our time by social media.

Why, that would only work if the group who'd been fed the pro-vaccine line spent all their time focussing on the group who'd been fed the anti-vaccine line so that the people in charge of both messages can bring in even more money without anyone paying them the slightest attention at all. But hey, who'd be daft enough to fall for that...again? — Isaac

Yeah, it does seem there's a lot of messaging out there, particularly on social media (with strands of it on Fox and talk radio), that are continuing the long tradition of undermining trust in institutions, particularly when the "other party" is in charge. That creates yet another wedge issue and keeps everyone divided. Not once did I say I lay the ultimate blame on the people, however. I blame the elites and the media they control, for continuously undermining truth and sowing division. They created a monster, and now they can't stop it (particularly on the social media front).

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant.
— Xtrix

Well, then show me the significance. Your word obviously isn't good enough. Where are your numbers and measures of effect? — Isaac

The numbers of unvaccinated are well known. 62% are fully vaccinated in the United States. 73% have taken at least one dose. Many were coerced into doing so by their employers, etc. But regardless, let's say the number is 20% of the population. If you don't think 70 million people is significant, you're not paying attention. In order for herd immunity to be achieved, the numbers should be in the 80s at least. But that's a pipe dream now -- there's already too many variants.

As far as social media-driven irrationality, there's a lot of good work on this. The effects are everywhere and obvious.

Social Media as a Primary Factor of Irrational Behavior

Trystan Harris also articulates the phenomenon very well. But there are plenty of articles and studies done about the negative effects of social media. I've no interest to give more than I've already cited. I find the question itself disingenuous.

you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines.
— Xtrix

Yet earlier you were saying that you might have missed it. Which is it? It isn't there, or you haven't looked? — Isaac

Yes, I may have. I have looked, quite a bit, but haven't found much in terms of "malfeasance." I mentioned the J&J bloodclot issue, etc. But given that you already accept that vaccines are safe and effective, I don't understand what you're driving at. You also refuse to explain what you're driving at or provide any references whatsoever. Your prerogative.

I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles.
— Xtrix

What problem is it causing? — Isaac

See above. The more people vaccinated, the better. Less people get sick, less people spread the disease, the symptoms are milder, less hospitalizations, etc. Good for everyone.

But it's another disingenuous question. Why do you think doctors are recommending the vaccines so much? We're in a pandemic and we have safe and effective vaccines, and so those who are eligible should take them. Fairly simple, so I look forward to seeing how you misrepresent it.

If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc
— Xtrix

I don't. I think Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are responsible for an enormous amount of the problem we face. I'm just not so stupid as to think they only stoke one side. — Isaac

Yeah -- I never said they did. In the cases I mentioned, vaccines and election fraud, it so happens that this is coming mostly from Republicans. But not long ago there was widespread hysteria about "Russia stealing the election" of 2016, mostly from left-leaning sources. Which was obvious from the beginning was a complete waste of time. But Twitter and SNL loved it.

Many people don't research the vaccines at all, they just follow the advice of doctors. Those doing so in this particular case happen to be doing the right thing. The same is true of following other advice of medical experts -- if they say you need surgery, I would argue it's rational to take that advice even if you haven't done a deep dive into surgery.

Media influences many people. Still, that doesn't make them all the same, just as the political parties aren't the same, despite having some common ground (like both being corporate parties).

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized.
— Xtrix

By whom? — Isaac

By the scientific and medical communities, and by the general public. I've yet to hear anything significant in this regard. I asked for what you were referring to and got nothing, so there's that as well.

When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny.
— Xtrix

But they clearly don't. — Isaac

Yes, they do. The unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans. Party affiliation is one of the best predictors. In terms of election fraud claims, it's off the charts. Something like 60-70% of more.

Many people are scared, many confused, many just incorrigible procrastinators. — Isaac

I think you're underestimating the percentage who are refusing for irrational reasons because of the information they consume. This is why party affiliation is such a good predictor.

The list of those actually going along with the sort of irrational misinformation you're referring to is vanishingly small and, most importantly, have virtually no power at all. — Isaac

I suppose the same is true about election fraud? Could be, I suppose -- there's no way to see into every individual's mind. But 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.

So why are so many hung up on this group? Why is so much hatred being stoked up for a small, easily defeated straw-enemy which never had any real power, whilst those with real power continue to rake it in whilst you look the other way? — Isaac

There are properly powerful people making enormous amounts of money at the expense of oppressing an increasingly subjugated working class. They don't give a shit about a few nutjobs, but they sure as hell give a shit about making sure that's the only thing you're thinking about. — Isaac

Unfortunately, the world is a complex place. Making general statements about corporations and the subjugated working class, while true, doesn't simply explain everything. As I said before, I'm against the entire capitalist system, I'm against the private medical and pharmaceutical companies, etc. But that has nothing to do with whether the product, no matter if it's Viagra or the vaccines, are safe and effective. If they created a vaccine at a private company, great -- they should share it with the world. The malfeasance you spoke of, I see no evidence of -- despite the attention its garnered. Again, if you have some I've overlooked, fine.

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant. And you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines. Not a bad instinct -- corporations will cut as many throats as they can get away with -- but not applicable in every scenario.

So yes, I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles. If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc., we should simply agree to disagree and move on.