Ask yourself where does this compulsion to disagree come from.
— Olivier5

You should ask yourself that.

I agree with plenty of people on plenty of things. — baker

You disagree with yourself, though. First you vaccinate, then you argue against vaccination online... Not very logical all that, and quite confused.

I hope people in the military in the US don't get vaccinated because it will weaken the position of the government in effectively forcing people to take medication. — I like sushi

That is a very bizarre idea. A debilitated army is what you want? An army sick in bed so that anyone can attack and destroy your nation? The militaries all over the world are vaccinating because nobody wants to have to fight a war when all the army is sick... It is as simple as that.

You want to see this till the end.

Now for an Italian entry, very folkish which is rare in these parts, by Edoardo Bennato. About Utopia I guess.


Second star on the right, this is the path
And then straight until the morning
Then you'll find the road by yourself
It leads to the island that isn't

Maybe this will seem strange to you
But reason has got you carried away a little
And now you are almost convinced that
There cannot exist an island that isn't

And to think about it, what madness
It's a fairy tale, just a fantasy
And who is wise, who is mature knows
It cannot exist in reality

I agree with you, there is no land
Where there are no saints nor heroes
And if there are no thieves, if there's never war
Perhaps it is precisely the island that isn't

And it is not an invention
And not even a play on words
If you believe it, that's enough for you because
Then you can find the road by yourself

I agree with you, no thieves and no gendarmes
What kind of island is this?
No hatred, no violence, no soldiers, no weapons
Perhaps it is precisely the island that isn't

Second star on the right, this is the path
And then straight until the morning
You can't go wrong, because
It's the island that isn't

And they'll make fun of you if you keep looking for it
But don't give up, because
Who has already given up and laughs behind your back
Maybe is even crazier than you are

I'm actually left feeling quite disturbed in the end and find myself in no mood for good terms. — Isaac

Maybe a little prudence would have been in order, like not spreading artificial doubt and confusion in the midst of a crisis. That could be a useful lesson for the next end of the world.

That's also a kind of realism, right? Allowing the other to lead. Reality's going to do what it's going to do, so our dance cannot be completely choreographed but must also be at least partly improvised. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes of course, it's not perfect. Keeping up with the tempo is important, in real time. More important than perfection.

. isaac points out that such surprise is expensive, so we try to make good predictions that will minimize the expense of revising our model. (And you get institutional momentum there that can lead you to throw out outliers in the data that you should have updated on -- you continue to follow the choreographed dance despite your partner's deviation.) — Srap Tasmaner

Deviation is also creative though, as in your jazz example. As is darwinism. By definition, all surprises are not bad. Some surprises are good so we need to keep our mind and our societies open to novelty and change. A balance between the expected, the classical, and the novel. Something like that.

On the first beat of the waltz
All alone you smile already
On the first beat of the waltz
I am alone but I can see you
And Paris who beats the tempo
Paris who measures our emotion
And Paris who beats the tempo
Whispers to me, whispers softly
A waltz with three beats
Which still offers the time
Which gives itself the time
To offer itself detours
On the side of love
How charming it is
A waltz with four beats
It is much less dancing
It is much less dancing
But just as charming
As a three-beat waltz
A four-beat waltz
A waltz at twenty / with twenty beats
It is much more troubling
It is much more troubling
But much more charming
Than a three-beat waltz
A waltz at twenty / with twenty beats
A waltz with a hundred beats
A waltz in a hundred years
A waltz you can hear
At each crossroads
In Paris that love
Freshens up in the spring
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz that took the time
To wait for twenty years
For you to be twenty
And for me to be twenty
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz with a thousand beats
Offers alone to the lovers
Three hundred and thirty-three times the time
To build a novel

On the second beat of the waltz
We are two, you are in my arms
On the second beat of the waltz
We both count, one two three, one two three
And Paris who beats the tempo
Paris measures our emotion
And Paris beats the tempo
We go hum, hum already
On the third beat of the waltz
We waltz finally all three
On the third beat of the waltz
There's you, there's love and there's me
And Paris who beats the tempo
Paris who measures our emotion
And Paris who beats the tempo
Let finally burst out its joy
A waltz with three beats
Which still gives itself the time
Who still has the time
To offer itself detours
On the side of love
How charming it is
A waltz with four beats
It is much less dancing
It is much less dancing
But just as charming
As a three-beat waltz
A four-beat waltz
A waltz at twenty / with twenty beats
It is much more troubling
It is much more troubling
But much more charming
Than a three-beat waltz
A waltz at twenty / with twenty beats
A waltz with a hundred beats
A waltz in a hundred years
A waltz you can hear
At each crossroads
In Paris that love
Freshens up in the spring
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz with a thousand times
A waltz that took the time
To wait for twenty years
For you to be twenty
And me to be twenty
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz with a thousand beats
A waltz with a thousand times
Offers alone to the lovers
Three hundred and thirty-three times the time
To build a novel

(Thank you DeepL)

Thus the only question of import is, given any particular belief, to what extent is is caused by an external reality and to what extent by internal assumptions. That it is, in some proportion, caused by both, is something we can't help but agree to, so it drops out of the conversation (or should). The actual proportions, in each case, are what matter. — Isaac

I half agree. On the one hand I see no reason to limit realism to semantic realism. Realism is about the existence of a mind-independent reality, not about how we try to describe reality with the use of human language. Dummet's concepts do not reflect the actual, social meaning of the words he is using. All this talk of anti-realism appears to me as artificial and needlessly confusing. Your gradient or scale idea is far clearer and more convincing. We don't need to chose a side for or against realism as if this was some sort of fight with only one possible winner. We can combine realism with the understanding that we can't have a direct access to reality, that truth is often hidden, including by our very ideas and concepts. So I agree by and large on the 'scale' idea.

On the other hand, to me the relation between our sense of realities and our ideas is perhaps more like a dance performed by two dancers (where each of them stays separate from the other but tightly collaborates with the other) than like a mixture between two ingredients. In the latter metaphor, it's as you said a question of dose. "The only question of import is, given any particular belief, to what extent it is caused by an external reality and to what extent by internal assumptions." (how much realism do you take with your idealism, or vice versa?). With the metaphor of the dancers, it's a question of how well these two collaborated to produce or affirm a belief. A question of precision of fit between our sense of reality and our ideas.

A vague proposition that is so vague that it doesn't have a truth value isn't a proposition. A propositional statement is defined as a statement with a truth value that is either true or false.

If no statements, as you've argued, have single truth values, then no statements are propositional. — Hanover

Well then, you must conclude that no statements are propositional.... (says he, propositionally), because all statements in human language are ambiguous, to a small or large degree.

What's you story Baker? You got yourself vaccinated, then you regretted it?

It's not been debunked yet. We live in a Popperian era. Or we should. Anyone discussing verificationism should check the news: the movement is dead, for the reason Frank highlighted: their criteria only worked for empirical facts themselves, not for theories or law.

From wiki's entry on verificationism:

Popper, who had long claimed to have killed verificationism but recognized that some would confuse his falsificationism for more of it,[11] was knighted in 1965. In 1967, John Passmore, a leading historian of 20th-century philosophy, wrote, "Logical positivism is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".[18] Logical positivism's fall heralded postpositivism, where Popper's view of human knowledge as hypothetical, continually growing, and open to change ascended,[11] and verificationism became mostly maligned.[2]

The consensus seemed to be that, with all due respect to Popper, they do what they want. — frank

Of course they do, and with all due respect to ALL philosophers. Nevertheless Popper did nail the issue neatly, and understood the process of research better than any other philosopher or even scientist, to my knowledge.

Popper had to conceded that falsificationsim requires verisimilitude. Much of a muchness, both debunked. — Banno

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say.. You should study these matters before making a fool of yourself.

:100:

Like any general law, it is unverifiable, which is why logical positivism failed and gave way to Popper's formulation of the falsifiability principle, not as a demarcation between propositions with meaning and those without, but between scientific and non-scientific theories. For Popper, non-falsifiable propositions are not necessarily without meaning, just without possibility of empirical testing and thus not part of 'science' proper (specifically when this proposition is also not part of a broader theory which makes some testable predictions).

If so, it's undercutting itself because that isn't verifiable. — frank

Everytime I read "verification" on this thread I replace it mentally by "falsification". Works better I think.

I'm the son of rage and love
The Jesus of suburbia
The bible of none of the above
On a steady diet of soda pop and ritalin...
No one ever died for my sins in hell
As far as I can tell
At least the ones I got away with

And there's nothing wrong with me
This is how I'm supposed to be
In a land of make believe
That don't believe in me
Get my television fix
Sitting on my crucifix
The living room or my private womb
While the Mom's and Brad's are away

To fall in love and fall in debt
To alcohol and cigarettes
And Mary Jane to keep me insane
Doing someone else's cocaine
And there's nothing wrong with me
This is how I'm supposed to be
In a land of make believe
That don't believe in me

At the center of the Earth, in the parking lot
Of the 7-11 where I was taught
The motto was just a lie
It says home is where your heart is, but what a shame
'Cause everyone's heart doesn't beat the same
It's beating out of time

City of the dead
At the end of another lost highway
Signs misleading to nowhere
City of the damned
Lost children with dirty faces today
No one really seems to care

I read the graffiti in the bathroom stall
Like the holy scriptures of a shopping mall
And so it seemed to confess
It didn't say much but it only confirmed that
The center of the earth is the end of the world
And I could really care less

City of the dead
At the end of another lost highway
Signs misleading to nowhere
City of the damned
Lost children with dirty faces today
No one really seems to care

I don't care if you don't
I don't care if you don't care (etc.)

Everyone is so full of shit
Born and raised by hypocrites
Hearts recycled but never saved
From the cradle to the grave

We are the kids of war and peace
From Anaheim to the middle east
We are the stories and disciples of
The Jesus of suburbia
Land of make-believe
And it don't believe in me
Land of make-believe
And it don't believe
And I don't care!

Dearly beloved, are you listening?
I can't remember a word that you were saying...
Are we demented or am I disturbed?
The space that's in between insane and insecure
Oh therapy, can you please fill the void?
Am I retarded or am I just overjoyed?
Nobody's perfect and I stand accused
For lack of a better word, and that's my best excuse

To live and not to breathe
Is to die in tragedy
To run, to run away
To find what you believe
And I leave behind
This hurricane of fucking lies
I lost my faith to this
This town that don't exist

So I run, I run away
To the lights of masochists
And I leave behind
This hurricane of fucking lies
And I walked this line
A million and one fucking times
But not this time!

I don't feel any shame, I won't apologize
When there ain't nowhere you can go
Running away from pain when you've been victimized
Tales from another broken home
You're leaving...
You're leaving...
You're leaving...
Ah, you're leaving home..

Sorry, didn't see that in time. I wish Brexit could be solved with music. You Brits have given the world tons of great musicians and songs. The Beatles were only the beginning... So here's just a few random British songs that have brighten my live over the years.







and a word of wisdom from Mick:

My token identity is maintained, despite the flux of my physical body, by the way I think and talk about myself (and the way others think and talk about me). I'm the same person that was alive 20 years ago because that's how I think and talk about myself. That's anti-realism. — Michael

For one thing, you are a very complex and unique structure. I don't see you as a token at all, and I doubt that "token identity" is a useful concept to apply to yourself.

For another -- since one of my (self-allocated) roles here is to popularize biology as the most important science of all -- let me add that your identity is also maintained biologically by your immune system. That provides an objective, structural underpinning and a sine qua non condition for your continued existence as a mental construct, able to maintain some sense of mental identity and stability. Without this biological ID maintenance system (i.e. your immune system), you would die very soon.

Interestingly, this system is strongly connected to your mental life: it is depressed when you are psychologically depressed for instance. So if you really believe that your life is not worth living, your immune system may stop (or reduce) defending and maintaining your biological integrity.

I guess what I am saying here is: reality is multilayered; there are many many levels and interconnections, which tend to be bulldozed by simplistic metaphysics, in particular the kind of naïvely materialist, reductionist metaphysics often inspired from classic physics. Biologists and biology-inspired philosophers know better than that. And one of the concepts that biology brings forth (as opposed to physics) is that notion of structure and the related notion of function.

These notions of structure and function are fundamental to the questions of identity that you are trying to explore. There's more to our sense of reality and identity than just the material composition of stuff: there is structure, shape, utility, behavior...

A recently dead corpse and a living man are identical when you just look at their material composition... Yet there are important differences between being dead and being alive.

We're interested because we're interested in the metaphysics of identity — Michael

Identity is a rather complex question and approaching it through reductionism is not useful, i believe. We living organisms are ships of Theseus, as already explained, and I don't think that we are our atoms because those keep changing all the time. Tokens are by definition replaceable.

Indeed I am not interested in moot discussions, but out of curiosity, who is is interested in token sameness, and why?

Of course they do. If you and I are at the pub each drinking a pint of beer it matters if I'm drinking from your glass or mine. — Michael

Are you trying to be thick? If yes, you're doing well.

Before they get assigned this glass and not another and started using it, they couldn't care less which (clean) glass they were given.

Whether or not he returns on the same token ship as opposed to the same type of ship is the very issue under discussion. — Michael

The answer is fairly obviously and objectively yes for type sameness, and I believe it is moot for token sameness. If Poseidon decided to substitute the ship of Theseus by another of the exact same type in one instant, who would have noticed?

They are of course two different glasses in terms of their material constituents and space occupied but people don't actually care for such considerations when they define and recognize things.

For instance, if you propose to me two identical glasses, asking me to chose one, I would say: give me whichever, it makes not difference, it's the same glass anyway (and by that I would mean: the same model of glass).

So, if you apply the word "same" at token level, Theseus left with a ship and came back with another, but if you apply the word at type level, he came back with the exact same ship that he left with. Since types are recognizable but tokens are not, people would generally not waste much breath on discussing token distinctions or token sameness... Distinctions at this level do not amount to any real difference (see the example above with the two identical glasses). So when people speak of sameness, they generally mean type sameness.

There is more than one hydrogen atom in the universe. — Michael

Indeed, but they are all identical (isotopes aside) in terms of structure.

There are many Olivers and Michaels in the world. — Michael

My name is actually Olivier, not Oliver.

The Titanic that was built in Liverpool yesterday isn't the Titanic that sank in 1912, even though they share a name and have the same structure and function. — Michael

If they haven't improved on the design, I'm not setting foot on this boat, "different" as it may be. :-)

Two ships can have the same structure and function, yet they're two ships, not one ship. Again, you're conflating the type-token distinction. — Michael

Only types are definable though, tokens are not. You cannot define THAT particular atom of hydrogen. For any practical intent and purpose, it is the exact same atom of hydrogen than any other atom of hydrogen.

Therefore things are not defined by the specific atoms they are made of. It's not the way we human beings define and recognize things, probably because we can't see atoms and if we could, there would be no way to differentiate one atom of carbon from another. So trying to define or recognize a thing or its 'sameness' by looking at which atoms compose it would be highly impractical.

You can identify ships of a same kind though, by their name. The ship that left last week bears a different name than the one built today. Ergo they are recognizably and functionally different.

We can say it's the same ship if we like. If I smash a mirror then the broken pieces are the mirror that I used to use to look at myself. If I smash a lamp then the broken pieces are the lamp I used to use to light up my room. — Michael

But it is not called a mirror or a lamp anymore, strangely enough... Things are not defined by their constituents, therefore, but by their structure and function.

If your ship is at the bottom of the ocean due to a hole in the hull, it's not a ship anymore, it's a wreck, and you are probably dead. Structures matter more than constituents.

Why don't you answer some of my questions first. What is the difference between a wreck and a functional ship, if not structure?

Saying that both ships have a mind-independent structure (of the same type) doesn't help you get at whether one of the two ships is the same (token) ship that left. — Michael

I guess it all depends on what you would call the "same" ship. What does it take in your definition, for a ship to be "the same"? In my definition, structure has to remain similar if not absolutely identical. In your definition, the wood pieces the ship is made of define the ship "sameness".

As per your definition, note that you are not able to distinguish between a pile of wood pieces and a functional ship. You say: as long as the material stuff is the same, it's the same thing, but what if the structure has changed and the material hasn't? Is it still the same ship then? Is it the case that a pile of wood pieces taken of a ship are equal to a ship? No it ain't.

Philosophers discussing the metaphysics of identity, and whether or not "it's the same ship" is true and if so whether its truth should be understood according to realism or anti-realism, care. — Michael

You only care about these sorts of questions because you define reality and realism as premised on the 'stuff' objects are made of. But your definitions of realism or reality are arbitrary. They may well come from a certain philosophical tradition or another, but they are arbitrary nevertheless. I personally find your focus on the 'stuff' a bit bizarre and unpractical. In the end, nobody knows what this 'stuff' is... So I define reality and realism differently, it's not about stuffiness for me. I think of it as about mind-independent structure and behavior. That's more practical in my experience.

Which of the two boats is the original? — Michael

It doesn't really matter, other than in your mind experiment. They are the same model, bhave the same way; not distinguishable. Who cares which is which?

two different boats can have the same structure. Why is the ship that returns the same ship and not a copy with the same structure? — Michael

It doesn't actually matter, as long as it floats the same way it's functionally the same boat. You can call it a copy of the same structure if you want to, but I don't see what advantage that would bring as compared to calling it the same boat with quite a few pieces changed. And the "copy" wording doesn't really work for living creatures: a tree is not a copy of what it was last year, even though much of its constituents have changed over the year; a person is not a copy of her previous self even though much of her constituents are constantly changing.

The important point is that there are in fact objective features that remains constant in that ship: e.g. structure and functionality. And therefore you cannot say that "There is no mind-independent fact that determines it to be the same ship." It's not true.

There is no mind-independent fact that determines it to be the same ship. A realist is committed to say that it's a different ship, as the material that leaves isn't the material that returns. — Michael

This is in fact demonstrably not true.

There is a mind-independent feature of the boat that remains the same throughout the story: its structure. The boat is a boat of a certain type with certain characteristics and behaviors, and that is all what Theseus needs: a functional, predictable, recognizable boat. Presumably, nobody on that boat cared about the precise atoms or pieces of wood that happened to compose the boat at any given time; these components are expandable and replaceable and do NOT define the boat; not anymore than the water you drink in the morning and pee in the evening does defines who you are.

In other words, a thing is not defined by its components. That would be a reductionist view. A thing is generally best defined by its overall structure and function. So it seems to me that you limit realism to reductionism.

Giant Molecules Exist in Two Places at Once — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, the double slit experiment works with macromolecules. Maybe it would work with human beings thrown to crash into a screen too, for all we know.

As long as it's in front of her and she can keep it there, yes, it becomes functionally different by way of being meant for her use and not yours, although tomorrow she may drink from another glass with no way to know which is which.

Realism argues that truth is recognition-transcendent and bivalent. — Michael

Poor me! I think it is recognition-transcendent but not bivalent. Am I a semi-realist?

In what sense are structures, as distinct from matter, mind-independent? — Michael

Matter always takes a form, so structures are important characteristics of any material object. It's not independent of matter, it IS matter. The shapes that matter takes. In this sense, structures are objective realities, they exist whether you recognise them or not. A tiger does stop to be a tiger and morph into something else, like a pig or a tree, when you don't recognize it.

Are you a Platonist?

No.

And in what sense do two different sets of matter have the same structure? And not just the same type of structure, as in the case of the twin ships built to the same specification, but the same token structure, such that the ship that leaves is the same ship that returns (i.e. not just a copy of the original)?

Two atoms of hydrogen or two molecules of water have the same structure, isotopes aside. They are impossible to distinguish from one another and therefore they are functionally the same thing.

The fact that the mind-independent matter isn't the same and yet the person is the same shows that the person isn't reducible to the mind-independent matter, and so can't be understood according to realism. — Michael

I disagree. People are real. If one is realist about structures, then people can realistically be understood as semi-permanent mind-independent structures... In short, it is not necessary to reduce realism to some odd concept of amorphous matter. Matter itself is always structured and cannot be understood otherwise. Matter is never amorphous. Even atoms have shapes and structures.

Well, two different ships made from the same schematics would have the same shape and placement of their respective material, and yet they are different ships. — Michael

Yes, but they are the same model of ship and one could be hard pressed to distinguish one from the other.

My point is that structures are something we recognize as real. Reality is not just matter, it is also in how this matter is bound together in a whole and how they function when thus binded, how the whole behaves as a whole.

Consider Theseus himself. During the trip, an estimated 90% of his own material constituants have changed. Water drunk and sweat, proteins eaten and used then decayed and excreted... Our body is always in flux. The boat of Theseus is us. And what Aegeus would have recognized as his son was not this or that set of molecules, but a structure binding them in a whole: his son's features, voice, manner of moving and speaking. Not his precise chemical composition.

If we don't see it as the same ship because its parts have been replaced (even with similar parts) then it's not the same ship because we don't view it that way. If we see it as the same ship because its parts have been replaced (with similar parts) then it's the same ship because we view it that way. — Michael

Interesting discussion. You may wish to consider the notion of system or structure as well. Structures have objective reality. It is the same ship because it is structurally the same ship, or close enough to the original structure. If Theseus had added hydrofoils and an engine, it would not be the same ship anymore.

If memory serve he was supposed to change the sail for a white one if he was alive, as a signal for his father Aegeus, King of Athens, but forgot and kept the black one up. As a result, the father threw himself in the sea now bearing his name, thinking his son dead. And so in the myth, the son coming back with recognizably the exact same boat (structurally) was fatal to the father. Structures matter.

Thank you for writing this. It seems as though people just want to argue for argument's sake. That's fine -- but not when we have literally millions of people refusing vaccinations during a pandemic because of anti-vaxxer claims and massive amounts of misinformation/manufactured doubt.

Irresponsible indeed — Xtrix

Yes. In fact spreading manufactured doubt in such a time is criminal. It kills people, and I dare say our good friend @Isaac here is close to murder.

Of course it makes for more interesting conversations. I guess Russian roulette is more interesting than casino roulette too. Spices up the game...

So you're focusing on points of disagreement, leaving aside the points where there is broad agreement because there's nothing to discuss in them?

Still it is important in any philosophical discussion to clarify points of agreement, if only to stay away from them afterward.

In this case, thank you for stating that:

-Are a lot of people dying from COVID? Yes. Tragic global event. — Isaac

-Is vaccination good public policy? Yes. Very important message to get across. — Isaac

If it is important to get that message across, it is also important not to counter that message with fabricated or artificial doubt. Which implies a responsibility to not spread fabricated or artificial doubt.

So when you focus on points of disagreement, be careful not to muddle the discourse and make it look like full of doubts and disagreements when there aren't.

Risk analysis is not perfect, but it's a damn sight more complex than the naïve presentation of national prevalence statistics we see posted here masquerading as serious analysis. — Isaac

You play hard to please. The data is never good enough for you.