Nobody here is saying that "knowledge is inherently flawed", we're saying that knowledge doesn't operate the way justificationists say it does, because if it did then the Munchhausen trilemma would in turn show that knowledge is impossible, which is exactly the kind of contradiction you're talking about. That contradiction is thus reason to reject the possibility of justificationism. — Pfhorrest

My point was that you were using justifications, or reasons, to show that justifications and reasons are not valid qualifiers for knowledge. If so, then your assertions are not necessarily knowledge. If they aren't knowledge, then they are either wrong or just scribbles on a screen. What you seem to be saying is that reasoning does not necessarily lead to knowledge. If not, then how do you know that you know anything?

Beliefs require justification to qualify as knowledge. How much justification some belief needs to qualify as knowledge can vary depending on the state of affairs being talked about which includes the origin or causes of said state if affairs. States of affairs created by humans (like Trump is the 45th president if the United States) seem to be easier to justify than facts not created by humans (the solar system was formed 4.5 billion years ago from a massive cloud of hydrogen gas). Presidents are arbitrary creations of our own mind and don't need justification beyond most people agreeing and using the words in that way. The latter doesn't depend on popularity as that would be a logical fallacy. It depends on the actual state if affairs being the case or not. Presidents are created by humans therfore knowing what presidents are is simply an act of you defining what they are at any moment. The solar systems formation is dependent upon facts not created by humans but facts that existed before humans and their knowledge of such facts. So there are some facts that we can know merely due to the fact that we created those facts.

Knowing that you believe something requires no more justification than you believing it.

No. I read it correctly. Comparing no experience with some experience is a comparison of experience.

Besides, what qualifies as experience and no experience for governing citizens? Does being a lobbyist give the necessary experience? What about donating to political campaigns in order to manipulate the politician?

Like I said, that you didn't read correctly, the problem is assuming that lawyers and soldiers are the only ones qualified to govern others.

Oh, and Obama did run on his "outsider" status in Washington.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/obama-cleared-way-for-todays-outsider-candidates.amp.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-who-once-stood-as-party-outsider-now-works-to-strengthen-democrats/2016/04/25/340b3b0a-0589-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html

The short version is: instead of saying that people should reject every belief until it can be justified from the ground up -- which as this trilemma shows either results in infinite regress, circularity, or appeal to something entirely unjustified being taken as unquestionable -- we should merely permit tentative belief in anything that has thus far survived falsification — Pfhorrest

Here we go again.

If the triemma shows something, it justifies something. Therefore the trilemma is a justification for believing that there are no justifications for beliefs.

I still don't understand these philosophers that just don't get the contradiction they make in asserting that knowledge is inherently flawed.

So in a disagreement, neither side is wrong by default until they can prove themselves right. Either side is possibly-right, until the other side can show some reason why they must be wrong. — Pfhorrest

If one is possibly right, they are possibly wrong at the same time. To be right, one must make all possible wrongs and learn from them.

No, my beef is less on term limit statutes and more with the erroneous belief that a lack of experience is a plus for performing the job of legislator, unlike every other job — LuckyR

So you voted for McCain over Obama? Because that was a race where one had far more experience than the other. I'm guessing you didn't because the will of the Party is more important than being consistent. Ever see 1984?

I think the problem lies in the idea that only lawyers and soldiers have the experience to govern its citizens.

I would say in a democracy the first step to better politicians is a better educated and less gullible population — Tzeentch

I agree, to an extent.
The politicians already decide how citizens are educated.
Making Administration, Debate, and Logic required courses can expand the pool of available viable citizens that can run for office, instead of being limited to only Harvard and Yale graduates.

Non-human animals can think rationally, I don't deny that but they can't do it as well as humans just like we can't ratiocinate as well as a computer can [given the right conditions]. It's in the difference of degrees that we see a distinction between computers, humans, and non-human animals. — TheMadFool

Exactly. That isn't any different than what I've been saying. All animals are rational with the information they have access to. The information that one has access to seems to be the determining factor in what degree of rationality you possess. And the information that one has access to seems to be determined by the types of senses you have.

What if an advanced alien race arrived on Earth and showed us how rational they are and how irrational we are? What if the distinction between us and them is so vast that it appears to them that we are no more rational than the other terrestrial animals?

To assert that animals are less rational than humans because humans can build space stations and animals can't is to miss the point that most animals have no need of space stations. It would actually be irrational to think that other animals have need of such things and because they can't achieve it, then they are less rational than humans.

I'd love to agree with you that "...other animals are as rational as humans" but I'm afraid that's incorrect . Moreover, I'm not claiming that non-human animals are irrational and humans are rational in an absolute sense but only that comparatively it's the case that either non-human animals are more irrational than humans or that humans are more rational than non-human animals. This difference, even if it's only a matter of degree and not kind, suffices to make the distinction human and non-human which Aristotle was referring to when he define humans as rational animals. — TheMadFool

Then you're going to have to define "rational".

Yet, when we interact with such perfect logic machines, we remain unconvinced that they're human — TheMadFool

Because they are not characterized as having emotions. So an absence of emotions does not make one more human. They are typically not thought to be like humans because they don't have minds, but then I'm just going to ask for "mind" to be defined.

People assert a lot if things, like that animals are not rational and computers don't have minds without even knowing what they are talking about. You call that rational?

Like I said before, animals act rationally on the information they have. Its just that the information might be a misinterpretation as when a moth flies around a porch light until it collapses from exhaustion, or a person acting on misinformation. From the perspective of those that have the correct information, or don't have the information and the interpretation that the other is acting on, it can appear that they are irrational. This falls in with what I've said about the distinction between randomness and predictability. Rational beings are predictable beings. Irrational beings are unpredictable beings.

Isn't thinking that you see things in a more objective light the very same thing as hallucinating? — Metaphysician Undercover

Only if you actually aren't seeing things in a more objective light. But if you dont think its possible to ever see things in a more objective light, then you'd be contradicting yourself. I'm more than happy to educate you about it if you'd like.

What you say here squares with how Aristotle and later generations of thinkers viewed humans, as rational animals. On this view, emotions can be considered remnants of our animal ancestry, subhuman as it were and to be dispatched off as quickly as possible if ever possible. From such standpoint, emotions are hindrances, preventing and/or delaying the fulfillment of our true potential as perfect rational beings. It would seem then that reason, rationality, logic, defines us - it's what could be taken as the essence of a human being.

So far so good. — TheMadFool

Not exactly.

This kind of thinking stems from the antiquated idea that humans are special, or separate from nature.

Other animals are just as rational as humans. We just aren't privy to the information that some other animal is acting on, so their behavior can appear to be irrational from our perspective. All animals typically act rationally on the information that they have. It's just that the information may be false, or skewed.

Human emotions only come into conflict with our rationality when we assume that the objective truth is dependent upon our emotional state, or when we project our emotions and feelings onto the world and assume that they are a characteristic of the world rather than of ourselves (like assuming that apples actually are red and are good).

Emotions are the motivators and inhibitors of our actions and thoughts. Learning how to navigate our emotions and use them rationally is what could be taked as the essence of a human being.

I'm all for spending your own money how you like, but when it comes to politics it creates an inequity in the power of people's votes. Everyone's votes should count exactly the same. Introducing money into politics tips the scales in favor of the wealthy, thereby diminishing the power of everyone else's vote. A candidates voice shouldn't be amplified because they have money backing them. Their voice should be amplified when they compete in the arena of free ideas and win.

:grin:
Mushrooms will make you hallucinate. The authoritarian socialists on this forum are already hallucinating that they know better than everyone and don't need to defend or explain their wild and vague assertions (just like the fundamentally religious). We don't need them hallucinating more than they already are.

Marijuana is also known as Wisdom Weed among Rastafarians. It allows you to see things in a more objective light, while calming the nerves. :cool:

Freedom is the power to act, speak, think what one wants

Free speech is the power to speak what one wants.

Spending money on a candidate is an act.

A subtle difference there but it's up to you whether you consider them to be either same [both expressions of freedom] or different [speeches aren't acts]. I maybe mistaken though. — TheMadFool

All candidates should get equal time to make their arguements and propose their ideas. Act with your vote, not your money when it comes to choosing your representative. Money should not be the arbiter of which ideas are good or not. Logic should. Money should stay out of politics

Like I've said, its much easier to respond emotionally- as in labeling my response as bizarre - than it is to actually respond to what I said. You people need to calm down. Smoke a joint or something.

We all know that between emotions and reason, what AI (artificial intelligence) can't emulate is emotions. — TheMadFool

Its very easy to emulate emotions on a forum. Any time some one makes any assertion, it replies back with phrases like, You're an idiot, racist, bigot, etc.

Its actually much more difficult to produce a logical response than an emotional response because it requires more work and energy.

Both sides are the problem, said the guy who paints people he disagrees with as pawns and pretending he isn't one himself. So we have non-pawns and pawns, and within pawns there's whatever you're alluding to on two opposing sides as well. Yawn. — Benkei

The world isn't black and white. Thinking that it is is only limiting your options and your freedoms. I'm not the one seeing the world in black and white. You are. Pathetic.

Your tactic seems be, "if I can't make a good arguement against what Harry said, then I'll just accuse him if being what he is accusing me of being."

Does thinking for yourself still mean that you are a pawn? If so then all you've done is relegate the word, "pawn" into meaninglessness.

It does seem like I'm the only one here advocating for the abolishment of political parties. So who am I a pawn of in saying such things? I really want to see you back this up.

EDIT: Now that I've thought about it a bit more, Benkei is taking a tactic out of the theists handbook in asserting that even atheism is a religion. Benkei is trying to assert being a-political is still being political.

Politics IS a religion - a means of controlling individuals.

Look, it doesn't matter much to me whether you want to come across as a liar or an idiot, so interpreting my statements as contrary ones is your call. Either way, all you're demonstrating is that you're not worth engaging with which you've over-established already. — Kenosha Kid

Forgive me if I don't really care what you think or say about me. When you can actually think for yourself and not just regurgitate everything you read, I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion with you.

No, it wasn't. Also, you quoted the text and it was perfectly explicit. It didn't require your layer of your bullshit interpretation. — Kenosha Kid

Yes it was. Also, no it wasn't.

A truly woke person realizes their pawnship and navigates within that role to peace, joy, and a fern garden with lots of moss and a little buddha statue at the end of the path that leads from the rock garden in a world where the weather has become the water feature due to el nino.

What were we talking about? — frank

Actually, for me, it would be a little statue of Shiva, in a garden of hemp. That is the epitome of peace and joy for me.

:cool:

Yeah, bruh. What were we talking about?

That is not what I wrote. — Kenosha Kid

You didn't have to. It is implied in what you wrote.

There can be different interpretation of facts but when people believe lies despite the availability of facts to the contrary there is no subjective nature to discuss. — Benkei

But when all of your "facts" seem to indicate that your side doesn't do anything wrong, isn't capable of oppressing others, and that the other side is the problem, then that should be a red flag that your "facts" are merely propaganda.

If it were actually a fact that one side is worse than the other, then what reason would we have in keeping the other side viable? And in eliminating the other side, did you just eliminate the available choices we all have?

The fact is that both sides are the problem. Political parties are the problem. There should be no sides in a political discussion. There should simply be individuals expressing their opinions, as no one else has the right to speak for someone else, especially if they can speak for themselves.

That said, assertions how other people are pawns is being emotionally invested in your own assertions as well. So by pretending you're above it all, you just demonstrate you're completely in the same game as those you tell yourselves it's ok to ignore. — Benkei

LOL. No, being emotionally invested means that you are afraid to be wrong. But being afraid to be wrong means that you will never make mistakes. If you never make mistakes, you will never learn. Have you ever been wrong in any of your political/ethical views, Benkei?

I am more than happy to be proven wrong that most Americans are pawns in the political game between Reps and Dems. I just need evidence.

BLM never called for violence. — frank

Yet blacks were causing violence. Who is BLM? They obviously don't speak for all blacks.

BLM never called for violence. They did their best to quell it. — frank

And not everyone at the Capitol was rioting. The fact that people can make these distinctions for one side and not the other is just more evidence of the propaganda bubbles that they live in.

But then, the Boston Tea Party was branded a riot at the time - the American and French revolutions began with riots. One man's terrorist is another man's martyr. This is the subjective nature of ethics/politics. This is why we need more level heads, that aren't emotionally invested in their assertions, and aren't trying to speak for others that they don't know, to have a reasonable discussion.

A simple solution would be to abolish political parties. That would ease the division between us, but division is what the Dems and Reps need to stay viable. So it is no surprise that they are the ones stoking that division and then people like KK, Banno and Michael are just a few of the pawns in their game. A truly woke person is one that realizes they've been a pawn and refuses to be one any longer.

Thought you weren't interested in reading my posts?

Anyways. I'm not interested in "winning", like you. You think this is a game, obviously. I'm simply interested in having a intellectually honest conversation, but you don't seem to understand the concept.

In short, either white privilege is real and denying it is denying its victims, or white privilege isn't real in which case we should see no evidence of it. Not sure how you're missing the connection here. If I live in a racist society, and I am advantaged by that, and I refute the existence of that racism, I am protecting a racist society, therefore am racist. — Kenosha Kid

If you live in a racist society, you're a racist. Duh! Everything else you said is totally irrelevant. Do you live in a racist society, KK? If all of society were racist, then you wouldn't have black presidents, vice-presidents, judges, and congressmen. So what society you're talking about could only be one that exists in your head.

Meh. Just not much interested in your posts. — Banno

Sure, because you know that a reasonable exchange between us ends up with you looking to fool.

But you are interested in accusing me if being companions with someone, who I spoke to once, that was banned for using racial slurs, without reading my posts?

Everytime you respond to me, you end up looking biased and stupid.

Riiiight. So now you're affiliating me with Brett when I've never spoken to the guy before now? If you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I have said that racial slurs are ad hominems, just like calling people racist is. But you and your companions aren't interested in facts, only propaganda.

The funny thing is that if Brett didn't use a racial slur but instead used terms like, "idiot", "moron", or even "shit-ass" or "fuck-face", he wouldn't have even given a second notice, because people think those names are OK to call people.

The fact is that not all blacks are offended by racial slurs, just like not everyone is offended by being called a "dumb-ass". So you are simply taking on yourself of speaking for others for which you dont know anything about, while at the same time generalizing all blacks as if they are all equally offended and interpret the word the same way.

Why? Did he question the existence of white privilege?

It's a large quantity of wrong. I addressed the part I thought most amenable to progress. If I need advice about what to address from you, I'll give you a heads up but frankly it's well outside your jurisdiction. — Kenosha Kid

Its not wrong that if you question the existence of white privilege you get called a racist. That was the point of what you quoted. Your reply simply doesn't address what I said, but that is expected from you.

Why don’t you actually try and address Harry Hindu’s post. — Brett

Brett, KK has difficulties answering tough, direct questions. Dont expect any substantive answers from them.

Who said anything about misusing "racist"? — Michael

I have. You obviously haven't been paying attention either, but that is expected of an authoritarian. They only care what they think.

I'm saying that if someone is a racist then it's acceptable to criticize them for being a racist, and that if someone is black then it's unacceptable to criticize them for being black. — Michael

Who and when on these forums has criticized someone for being black? If there hasn't been any, or the percentage is minute, then how can you argue that racism is the prevalent idea, or is even a serious problem?

Who and when on these forums have generalized whites by using terms like, "white privilege"? Lots of people in this forum. And when you disagree with them and point out the weak points of their argument, they call you a "racist".

If someone criticized a back for being black, it would be redundant to say, "racist". I mean, what do you really hope to accomplish by calling someone a racist whose racist actions are on display for everyone to see?

I've never used the term "white privilege". Others talk about it because it's a fact of life. And it is wrong that there is white privilege, but that's not to say that every white person is responsible for it. — Michael

You still seem to be focused on whites when whites are only a fraction of the world population. As I have been saying, white privilege is not a fact of life. Does that make a racist?[

People don't tend to have much control over what happens in other countries. There's nothing I can do to address racism in Japan or corruption in Russia. — Michael

What a lazy cop-out. This forum has members in many countries and this isn't the only forum on the internet. Thanks for showing everyone how truly biased and lazy you are.

No, white privilege refers to "the implicit or systemic advantages that people who are deemed white have relative to people who are not deemed white; it is the absence of suspicion and other negative reactions that white people experience." — Michael

Then what point are you trying to make, if not to guilt-trip whites into thinking that it is wrong to have this "privilege", when in Asian countries there is Asian privilege and in African countries there is black privilege? What should be done about the privilege in those countries? To say that we should only do something in this country is singling out whites to be criticized.

It had nothing to do with what people call each other on a philosophy forum. You were asking about the political views of progressives, and questioning what you believed to be an inconsistency in their position. I'm explaining to you that their position isn't inconsistent; their position is that it's acceptable to criticize people for unacceptable things — Michael

Sure it does. And it is morally inconsistent to call people names for calling people names. It is also unacceptable to misuse "racist", in calling people who are not racist, "racist" simply because you can't argue against thing they said.

On a philosophy forum logic should be the arbiter of what is acceptable or not. Ad hominems are logical fallacies. It is also lazy thinking. It is more work to attack an argument than it is to attack a person.

As I keep having to point out because certain people like to go off the tracks and attack something that I haven't said...
Calling someone a racist when they aren't is just as insulting. If you dont get that, then that's fine as it is just more evidence that there is no objective morality and we could sit here and argue all day about our subjective views of what is more insulting, but I'm not interested.

Calling a person a "rat" is a pejorative, calling a rat a "rat" isn't, it's neutrally descriptive. Calling a black person a "nigger" is a pejorative, calling a racist, a "racist" is neutrally descriptive. — Baden

LO-Fucking-L!

As I have been arguing all along is that people that aren't racist are being called racist! Pay attention!

If someone is a racist then it's acceptable to call them a racist and criticize them for being a racist. If someone is black then it's not acceptable to call them a nigger and criticize them for being black — Michael

What does calling a person a racist accomplish in a philosophy forum that calling someone a nigger, doesn't? Calling them a racist doesn't accomplish anything. Laying out the arguement of how it is a logical fallacy of a false cause and ad hominems is the acceptable path to take.

But your simple mind can only seem to understand how to lower yourself to their level of intelligence. Calling people names is just childish.

Disagreeing that white privilege exists isnt criticizing blacks for being black. It is criticizing the argument. That is the difference. So to call people racist because they are criticizing an argument is no different than calling someone a nigger or cracker for criticizing your argument.

Isn't white privilege criticizing whites for being white?

Any event can be characterized by a statement. Whether or not it ever is, is a separate matter. — Andrew M

A contradiction. If you dont know whether or not a event is characterized by a statement, then you can't say for sure that any event is characterized by a statement.

It is more accurate to say that any belief can be characterized by a statement however, whether or not the belief ever characterizes events that are not other beliefs, is a seperate matter.

Then you didn't properly answer my question.

Again, my point is that calling someone the R-word is just as unacceptable as calling someone the N-word because they are both examples of ad hominems, and ad hominems are logical fallacies that simply don't move the discussion anywhere. On a philosophy forum worth its salt, they should be kept at a minimum, but you seem to think that its acceptable for some to do it and not others. So much for your ideas of equality and eliminating privileges. :roll:

Lots of people. The Ku Klux Klan, for example. — Michael

Lol. The KKK is not lots of people, nor are all whites part of the KKK. Guilt by association is another logical fallacy. So much for engaging in philosophy on this "philosoohy" forum.

No, I think that my judgement of what is acceptable is correct. I believe that I am correct in judging pedophilia, racism, sexism, and homophobia to be unacceptable, and that anyone who judges any of these things to be acceptable is wrong, because the objective fact of the matter is that these things are unacceptable. — Michael

This is all based on the faulty idea that morality is objective.

My point all along is that you have simply redefined questioning a faulty premise that you have assumed to be true, to fall within the category of "racism". Its no different than a religious fundamentalist accusing me if being a devil-worshipper when I question their assertions about the existence of their God.

Talk of "white privilege" isn't criticizing people for being white. When people talk about white privilege they are making the claim that white people have certain advantages over non-white people because of racism against non-white people. — Michael

Who is being racist against non-white people?

Closing whine thread. — Baden

Puhh-leeez. This is so typical of the kind of stuff I see on FB and Twitter.

And if Trump had won, and you started a thread complaining about how he won illegally, it wouldn't have been a "whine" thread, but a "patriotic call for action," right?

This is what I'm taking about how one side defines the argument in such a way that makes the other side appear to be the "whiners", "racists" and "bigots". Name-calling isn't acceptable, period, especially on a philosophy forum that is seriously about philosophy.