blundering through. — Tom Storm

rigor — Tom Storm

Experience and intuition are not "blundering through." I was an engineer for 30 years. When I took a look at a new project, I could often tell how it would turn out at the very start. I'd seen so many. Later in the process I needed to look at project specific data and apply rigor - calculations, mapping, regulatory and permit evaluation...I wasn't always right in my intuition, but it gave me a framework on how to proceed.

Can an amateur learn how to enjoy "academical" philosophical discussions — Ansiktsburk

Have you thought about the kinds of things we talk about here? What are your ideas on the nature of reality, the basis of morality, the source of political authority, the meaning of art...? Can you write well enough to express them clearly? Anyway, have at it, keeping this from Emerson's "Self-Reliance" in mind:

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, — that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost, — and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

Not trying to be a dick but how about this? My daughter has a one year old son. She has embraced an Evangelical form of Christianity and believes vaccination is a conspiracy and prayer will suffice to keep her and her boy safe. I believe in vaccination. Do I care and accept this situation as 'her version of truth/facts'? Do I care if it's the right decision? What would you do? — Tom Storm

We're talking about different things. My post was a cutesy and a bit too obscure statement that truth, knowledge, facts, and beliefs are not something we normally use directly in our day to day lives. Is "This is the right club for me to use," a true statement? A fact? A belief? Knowledge? Mostly it's a judgement.

As for your situation...

My daughter has a one year old son. She has embraced an Evangelical form of Christianity and believes vaccination is a conspiracy and prayer will suffice to keep her and her boy safe. I believe in vaccination. Do I care and accept this situation as 'her version of truth/facts'? Do I care if it's the right decision? What would you do? — Tom Storm

Getting a vaccination is a good and responsible thing in most cases, but not getting one is not normally life-threatening or especially dangerous. For better or worse, your daughter gets a lot of leeway in deciding how to raise her child. And that's a good thing. Do you accept her version of the truth? No. Do you accept her right to raise her child? Yes.

The child comes first. Normally that means the parents get to make the decisions. It's a bad, serious thing to take that away. There's a line - if her decision does put her child in serious, immediate, and avoidable danger, maybe something has to be done to force things.

Not to me. Maybe to some people. The challenge to educate them that such is against both reason and their own self-interest. — tim wood

Seems like you're just classifying anything you don't like as stupidity. Jamming reality into your stupid shaped boxes.

what do you hold to be the source of the greater dangers in the world, both to individuals and to society at every scale? — tim wood

Willingness to treat other people as objects.

Stupidity: an affliction of all at one time or another, for most to a lesser degree, but for some a career. — tim wood

Your manifesto would be more meaningful to me if I thought what you consider stupid and what I do are the same.

fact, belief, knowledge, and truth are all pretty much the same thing.
— T Clark

Hanged for one hanged for any, no difference to you? — tim wood

I'm on the golf course. I look at my lie. I look at the flag. I turn to my caddy and say "What do you think?" He reaches in the bag, pulls out a club, and hands it to me. I turn to make the shot. Now... What do I care about? I don't care if he believes it's the right club. I don't care if he knows it's the right club. I don't care if it's a fact it's the right club. I don't care if it's the truth it's the right club. Just give me the fucking club.

I don't play golf. Everything in this scenario is based on my understanding of golf based on watching "Caddyshack."

I am unconcerned with whether a state of affairs obtains or if I am wrong if my epistemology cannot account for such. I am much closer to using ideas as tools to help obtain my ends and those of people/things within my scope of moral regard (to whatever level they fall within it). Either acting as if is efficacious or it is not. The world imposes itself on me and I try to mold it to my desires using whatever contrivance available. All “facts” are understood contingently and abandoned/modified as necessary. Facts are understood in a political context (all speech is political speech) and assertions of fact which you insist other people acknowledge as being such is a ploy. — Ennui Elucidator

I find myself agreeing with this, although differences in our language make that agreement tentative.

I don’t understand what I have written well enough for me to know if I agree or disagree. I was hoping “Banno” would tell me. — Ennui Elucidator

That @Banno, he knows everything. What would we ever do without him?

Hmm. I'll invite T Clark and @Olivier5 to respond to Ennui, given what they have claimed here. — Banno

It is far preferable to be beaten up by you. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't understand what EE has written well enough to figure out whether I agree or disagree.

Yes, but voting with our feelings instead of a deliberate attempt to understand the choices, does not lead to a healthy Republic and it puts our liberty in jeopardy. — Athena

You seem to think that we can separate the part of us that feels from the part that thinks. Can't be done. At least by me.

You do not think gravity is what holds things to the earth? You don't think we have day and night because the earth turns? You don't think plants and animals die when they do not get water? You think all the forces of nature could suddenly be completely different for no reason at all? — Athena

Reason is a human mental process, a tool. Sometimes we use it to try to understand the world and how it works - gravity, planets, biology. You've turned that around to say that somehow that mental process actually controls the behavior of the world. I don't think that's really what you mean to say.

Do you think knowledge of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, i — Athena

I don't think reason is the controlling force of the universe, if that's what you're asking. I don't really think there is a controlling force.

If we do not realize the difference between emotional thinking verse logic and reasoning nor the difference between non-fiction and fiction, — Athena

I think everyone's thinking is both intellectual and emotional. You clearly are emotional in your opinions.

I don't see my opinions as non-fiction vs. the opinions of people I disagree with as fiction.

And there was me thinking it referred to the Cool-Aid Acid Test. — unenlightened

If you're interested, look up "People's Temple" and "Georgetown."

I'm not quite drunk on the Kool-aid, — Zugzwang

Maybe you don't know this. The correct saying is "I haven't drunk the Kool-aid." It refers to the People's Temple cult who all drank poisoned Kool-Aid given them by their guru. "Drinking the Kool-aid" means buying in to a deluded way of thinking.

The best one is theoretical high energy physics. That story is heavy and very enjoyable science fiction/fantasy. The really strange thing is that it's rooted in reality. — Inplainsight

I take a longer range view. "Once upon a time there was an objective reality..." I can't remember the rest, but I do remember the ending - "And they lived in reality ever after."

Thank you a sane post. — Athena

Not to look askance at a compliment, but are you implying my previous posts were not sane?

The fact that science is one story amongst many. — Inplainsight

I agree with this, but it's a really good story.

Well, maybe we would be done with Covid if Trump had not dismantled the department that was about preventing or at least controlling pandemics, and maybe the economic pain would have been much less if the pandemic had been handled properly from the beginning instead of having a President who denied science and lied to everyone, and is still the king of ignorance flooding our hospitals and requiring refrigerator trucks long after everyone should have been vaccinated. — Athena

Again, I don't get your point. I don't and never did support Donald Trump. I think he was a bad president. What does that have to do with this discussion?

Nothing is more important to this thread than understanding the importance of science, and citizens who understand what science has to do with our survival and democracy. — Athena

If that's the point you've been working toward, you set the OP up badly. This thread so far has not been about what you refer to. It's not what I've been talking about. It's a bit late to turn it in that direction.

You must be a citizen of the US or maybe a member of the Taliban in Afghanistan? What is your understanding of democracy if it is not understanding what reasoning has to do with democracy? Do you understand what freedom of speech has to do with democracy? Science gives us information that is essential to good moral judgment. The whole climate change discussion is about what has caused climate change and if we can and should do something to correct a manmade problem. There are political and economic and life and death ramifications, to understanding science and what behaviors will increase or decrease our shared problems. — Athena

I don't get your point. I value democracy. I value reason. I just don't see that they are necessarily strongly related.

For me (and perhaps this is where T Clark and I may differ) qualitative ideas in experience interact to form concepts but have no form themselves. — Possibility

You and I don't generally see these things the same way. It seems like you are using "qualitative idea" as your version of what I am calling "experience." I think that's misleading. As I said, to me, a concept, an idea, is a linguistic entity.

As for what we can describe without language, isn’t this what art is for? — Possibility

I think you and I are in general agreement, but the use of the word "describe" bothers me. Descriptions are generally done with language. Again, I think that will be misleading, perhaps not to you and me, but to others.

But can't concepts be derived from experiences? — Noble Dust

Sure. That's what happens. Experiences go in one end of our minds and come out concepts at the other end.

Indeed, you did. — Banno

Yes, Mr. Snoot.

So truth matters. — Banno

Let's talk about the Trump/Biden election situation. Truth no longer matters. Biden is president. That's not going to change. The people in power were convinced. What's important now is being able to work with those who don't believe. We can 1) Rant and rave and feel superior 2) Try to convince the disbelievers or 3) Work to reduce the level of animosity so we can work together going forward.

A lot of people who hate Trump want to drive the bus off a cliff as a matter of principle.

I like the focus on decision making. — Zugzwang

I've come around to the understanding that the question "What is true?" is not the right one. The one that matters is "What do I do now?" Truth is just a tool we can use to make the decision.

'a fact is the kind of statement that all us reasonable people consider true, for now.' — Zugzwang

Gould was one of the primary people who went out as an expert witness at trials involving creationism and intelligent design. This is something he was passionate about. One of the reasons I like his quote is that the passion shows. Your statement isn't strong enough for him, or for me. There is a bite in "perverse."

if you begin by agreeing with Trump, you've lost. — Banno

I didn't say I agree with Trump, should agree with Trump, or will agree with Trump. I said what I believe is true doesn't matter if we can't convince others.

Good question. If you've been cavalier and indiscriminate in understanding and use of "fact/belief/knowledge/truth" then how are you gong to decide? — tim wood

Once you flush out all the bullshit Philosophicationismness®: fact, belief, knowledge, and truth are all pretty much the same thing. That's a new word I made up today. You'll be seeing more of it in the future. And that brings us back to Gould:

In science decision making, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.'

But if the counter to lies is just alternate belief, what's the point?

Isn't the point that the election was fair, vaccines do save lives, climate change is man-made?

If you start from the premise that truth doesn't matter, you've already lost. — Banno

If we can't work with people we disagree with strongly to work out a way forward, we can have a great feeling of satisfaction about being right while the country goes down the fucking toilet.

You're right, TC, but what hope for us all if politics, on whatever side, becomes immune to facts and will only accept and disseminate beliefs of increasing bizarreness? There's work to be done. — Tom Storm

I agree, but I know if we treat people we disagree with with contempt and derision, it just won't work.

Nicely done, TC. It does however make me feel quite justified in walking away from any kind of fathomless, inscrutable writings. What possible use can they have (for me)?

Have to say (and this is not a criticism) I find it interesting that you can reconcile this with your model of pragmatism. — Tom Storm

I'll just say - for me as an engineer and usually a pragmatist, Lao Tzu's way of seeing things is the one vision I've found that provides a convincing foundation for everything I believe. Nothing else I've found provides a better metaphysical basis for science, engineering, and problem solving. That's another way of saying I don't find them fathomless or inscrutable at all.

Now you'll ask me to explain. I'll just say first, I don't think it's really relevant to this discussion. And then, It's something I've discussed many times on the forum, including in discussions you've participated in. I haven't really tried to convince people. I'm mostly just trying to express my thoughts and feelings - my experience - clearly enough that people can understand them, whether or not they agree. Looks like I haven't done a good job with you.

The OP is ambiguous to the extent one wonders if it's asking (1) whether English in particular offers limitations in what it can describe as opposed to what might be only explainable in French, for example or (2) whether certain concepts are ineffable and not reducible to langauge. — Hanover

I thought it was clear from the OP that this discussion was about question (1). I didn't see any ambiguity. That's what my responses started out as answers to. Perhaps I was wrong. Now we've moved over into a discussion of facts vs. truth vs. knowledge vs. belief.

As to (1), I think the consensus is no, that all langauges in principle can equally explain things, even if it requires more words or longer explanations. — Hanover

I might have some quibbles with this, but generally I agree.

What you've addressed iare the sociological biases inherent in language, which I'd agree with. If our houses are built for our particular needs, I can imagine langauge would be similar. I don't think that what I've said regarding #1 impacts #2, but i can see debate there. — Hanover

Again, I generally agree.

(2) whether certain concepts are ineffable and not reducible to langauge. — Hanover

As to (2), I've argued they are, and that's what I addressed. — Hanover

If you're saying that certain concepts are not reducible to language, I'm in agreement with a major qualification. I've spent a lot of time discussing The Tao Te Ching on the forum. To me, it's message is that there are experiences that are not reducible to language, not concepts. For me, concepts, ideas, are creatures of language. I think the distinction is important. It's central to how I think about reality. And I'll say it again as I always do, that's a metaphysical judgement, not a fact.

Well, I am. It might help ↪tim wood if he is able to say that Kelly-Anne Conway is wrong. That's harder to do if you are going to maintain that its belief that counts, not truth. — Banno

I think Trump has shown that it's not facts or truth that matter, it's belief. If you can't convince people, get them to believe, that you're right, you might as well not be. Perhaps you'll get some satisfaction so you and your political buddies can rant, rave, and feel superior, but it doesn't mean anything in terms of doing what politics is supposed to do - govern.

That's exactly the distinction marked by distinguishing belief from fact. — Banno

As I noted before, I'm not sure fact/belief/knowledge/truth distinctions are worth the trouble. When we get to the end, the only question that matters is "What do I do now?"

To me this sounds very clunky. Do you think all of reality is clunky? — Yohan

Reality isn't clunky. Human thought is clunky.

I think pain pills and hypothermia might be interesting, a whole psychedelic death journey, with my last moments being perhaps the most exciting. If I did have to hang, I think I'd want to the broken neck. I'd prefer the guillotine though, if I had to offer my neck. — Zugzwang

Yes, well. We'll save this for another discussion.

An earth worms world is dirt. A bird's world is the sky. Dirt and sky are not the same thing thought about differently. — Yohan

We live on the surface of a planet surrounded by gaseous nitrogen with a temperature range between -10 C and 50C and able to perceive a limited range of sound waves and electromagnetic radiation yet the Andromeda Galaxy, x-rays, and quarks are part of our world.

In my world there are many worlds. In your world there is one.
Who is right. — Yohan

Neither of us. The idea of "world" as we are using it is a metaphysical term. As such, it is not right or wrong, only useful or not in a particular situation. It's just our different ways of looking at the same thing.

Yeah that is what I'm saying, but only in the damnably long term. — Srap Tasmaner

Perhaps.

No, our knowledge of facts is tentative. The true is always satisfiable. Else true doesn't mean true. This, or there is no difference between fact and true. — tim wood

Knowledge, truth, belief, fact. All tied up in knots of language and meaning.

Once you've institutionalized such practices, you can even overcome failures like the replication crisis. The faith is that democracy can support similar incremental progress towards a just society, despite its failures. — Srap Tasmaner

Both science and democracy are important to me and I agree with you about both involving self-correction mechanisms. That's not the same as saying that democracies are more likely to make their decisions based on reason than other forms of government. Perhaps that's not what you were trying to say.