Such expressions of gloom are great precisely because they make one feel superior to the unwashed, 'non-intellectual' masses.

Do you have more downbeat platitudes like that in your stash of fortune cookies ? Keep it coming. We all can use a little gloom.

Yes, I would think this is non controversial. I was just trying to write it down somewhere, not restart the debate.

Why aren't politicians telling people to stop eating junk food, since obese people are 3X more likely to develop severe symptoms? — MondoR

Oh I know the answer for that one: Because politicians are ghouls sucking up people precious bodily fluids. All of them without exception. They have a secret room in the senate for it. The fatter the better for them canibals...

Points well taken. I agree it's pretty lame.

Alrighty then, goodbye.

Excellent formulation, dear departed member. I shall use it as a starting point to expose my refutation of the Fitch's paradox, for what it's worth.

( @Banno tells me in another thread that it's material for a doctoral thesis; those interested, I just ask that you quote TPF as your source of inspiration :smile: )

The seeming paradox is due to adopting a point of view that lays outside of the world of human experience, outside of time and space, the POV of God. If you take time and the human condition into consideration, the Fitch's paradox simply disappears.

Within the boundaries of human experience, a proposition is some statement that someone proposes, at some point in time. A proposition is a proposal made by a proposer (?). Before it was proposed, the proposition simply did not exist.

Or if you prefer, it could only exist in the mind of God. Or maybe some superpowerful alien... Not in a human mind.

Likewise, a statement does not exist before it is stated by some author or another. A phrase does not exist before being phrased.

So, within human experience, it makes no sense to say that a proposition no one knows about is true. The proposition needs to exist first. Once it is proposed, then and only then can the question of its truth be asked, and thus be put into existence, and only then, can the question be answered (or not).

Now, in some sense "truth is out there", the world is what it is and not otherwise. But this "truth out there" is not yet phrased in the form of propositions. Maybe that's what Fitch tried to prove?

“I tend to distrust collective wisdom too — [except when I immerse myself in it so completely that I can no longer see beyond it].” — AJJ

Try me.

martial law. — baker

This is not the big one. This is the rehearsal for the big one. Given the lessons drawn from the rehearsal, martial law may become necessary once a really nasty bug reaches pandemic proportions. For now, I think voluntary vaccinations should suffice, together with mandatory masks and other measures in some contexts.

It's not like people are agreeing that these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives but then saying "fuck it, I don't care". They don't believe these measures are necessary to avoid the net cost of millions of lives. — Isaac

And you know that how, pray tell?

They don't believe it because their governments have told them it and their governments routinely lie.

What does their doctor say?

I suspect that this statement is just the superficial rationalization of something deeper and darker: a fundamentally individualistic view point, in which the individual and his choices are mythologized and glorified, while anything collective (e.g. a nation, a policy or a private firm) is vilified or mistrusted, as standing in the way of personal realization... Atlas Shrugged and all that neoliberal BS. — Olivier5

However interesting your psycho-analysis may be, have you ever considered that there are people who genuinely believe that goverments (and now large industries too) are increasingly invading the private lives of people, and that this is a problem? ... Maybe you'll start to realize that we are taking a step back in time, forgetting the lessons of the Enlightenment where humanity (almost) collectively realized that individuals are not owned, and should never be owned by states. — Tzeentch

It was more meant as a logical deconstruction than a psychoanalysis. I am trying to eek out the unsaid assumptions. Yes of course there are such people, and I happen to be one of them.

Individual are not owned by states. Rather, states are owned by individuals. We collectively form the state - the Leviathan. So to say that you mistrust the state is to say that you mistrust others with whom you happen to live. And I am fine with that -- I tend to distrust collective wisdom too -- up to a point. What I am not fine with is antisocial behavior, i.e. behavior that will risk the lives of many for no good reason. If you don't care that your neighbors might die because of you, if you are going to systematically ignore the needs of others with whom you share a society, then you are not fit to live in that society.

but to make blatantly bad choices for yourself, your family, the community, the environment, etc., simply because you’ve been made to feel stupid, or condescended to, or feel dismissed, or perceived to be looked down upon— that’s as irrational as the person is who’s doing the condescension. — Xtrix

Yes, not to mention how easily such people can be manipulated, and how condescendingly they also behave themselves.

If that's "I don't trust the government and big pharma" you'll have to figure out why. — Benkei

I suspect that this statement is just the superficial rationalization of something deeper and darker: a fundamentally individualistic view point, in which the individual and his choices are mythologized and glorified, while anything collective (e.g. a nation, a policy or a private firm) is vilified or mistrusted, as standing in the way of personal realization... Atlas Shrugged and all that neoliberal BS.

When you mistreat people like that, don't be surprised if some actually do become anti-vaccers. — baker

People base their health care decision on how they get treated on an online forum? How stupid can some people get?

Well, write it up and get a doctorate. — Banno

:lol: Would feel like getting a doctorate for changing a light bulb...

we have to have a moral commitment to the truth,
— unenlightened

...just becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one's enemies with - "see, it's they who are not committed to the truth, not like us, who care for nothing more..." — Isaac

Like they did to cover up 9/11 and to make us believe in their holocaust, right?

I'm looking into antirealism, to see if it is a viable alternative to realism. — Banno

You may wish to define these terms the way you understand them. Perhaps a new thread: What is realism?

So you use verisimilitude as your measure of truth.

If not, then it's not apparent how you might reconcile realism with Fitch's paradox. — Banno

I use observation as a measure of truth, as I thought I made clear, and as every body else does really. Or do you know anyone who drives his car with his eyes closed?

I don't believe there is such a thing as Fitch's paradox: it's a mere illusion of a paradox due to poor conceptual clarity. It's fake.

I disagree that the video's being genuine qualifies as undeniable.

...and yet, you also sound like you're paying heed to this... in line (B), you call the video's footage "most probably" genuine. The whole question here is where you draw the line. — InPitzotl

That is indeed important in that a document, understood broadly as a video, a photo, a text or a voice recording, or any cultural artifact can be accepted as genuine or rejected as fake. There is no power in this world that can force anyone to accept a source as valid. For someone who thinks the Holocaust never happened, all testimonies of the survivors, all the pictures, all the records of the Holocaust are fake. But here comes the rub: to reject a massive amount of evidence is unhealthy. It is indicative of a very strong bias bordering on insanity.

Facts are what a sane person in good faith cannot deny. Not what a fool can't deny.

So, coming back to the UFO vids, it is technically possible but it would surprise me very very much if the US Armed Forces had forged three or more fake videos of UFOs to then 'declassify' them... Like why would they do that? And how come the testimonies of service members fit?

We might could have a "pragmatic fudge"; certain and undeniability really mean "for all practical purposes". — InPitzotl

Yes, and for all sane, bona fide folks.

But suppose we put a number to it; let's say using some Bayesian analysis, anything more likely than p is certain; less likely than p is uncertain. Then I'm not sure there is such a number beyond which are only facts, and before which are only theories.

In theory you are right but even imprecision can be measured or estimated. If you disclose openly the limitations of your data and its margin of error, it's part of what make facts good facts.

In practice, a 5% alpha risk is recommended.

Yes, boundaries can be blurry, and moral ambiguity is a fact of life. If that disqualifies my ethics from being systematic, then so be it — SophistiCat

Excellent post.

Always for a good debate.

I agree with that. I won't force anyone to take even an aspirin. But the idea that we should argue these issues with the same detachment than when talking about qualia or the meaning of the word 'fact' seems unrealistic to me. Qualia are not a matter of life and death. COVID is.

Thanks. It's pretty obvious to me that "verificationism" is simply a logical error. Just because you observe white swans doesn't verify that all swans are white...

Del

To be fair to Baker, she has been vaccinated. — Janus

So what's her beef then?

A fact is an accurate observation.
— Olivier5

Taking this as a naive attempt at verificationism — Banno

That's your mistake right there. I'm a Popperian. Falsification is the thing, not verification. And of course I am a realist like Popper.

The criticisms I levelled at Olivier target observation, not verification per se. — Banno

You have not levelled any criticism at me. You gesticulated in my general direction, declared victory and then ran away from the battle, as you always do...

It sounds like you're saying that, for example, GOFAST is very likely some form of fowl. — InPitzotl

Not really. I am using the example to illustrate what is a fact.

Is it a fact that the US air forces have released these vids? Yes.

Is the footage genuine? Most probably yes.

So the vids are facts.

Is there any else that can be regarded as certain or almost certain, i.e. as factually established? No. Even Mick West does not conclude it is certainly a fowl. He just demonstrates that 'gofast' does not actually go that fast.

There was an interesting case recently of the complexities involved in interpreting certain facts or documents. The US army released a few videos of phenomena they said they could not interpret or explain. You must have seen them. Here there are if you haven't:



The interesting bit is what followed: many pro-alien so to speak, others more sobber and rationalist interpretations were made of the same grainy footage. Among the skeptics is Mick West who analyses here the 'go fast' video. His explanation is technical, and in my view credible. And no it's not an alien spacecraft:



My point here is that the only undeniable facts are the grainy footages and their metadata (how and when they were collected). The rest is interpretation and therefore, highly technical.

facts come at a cost, so we are likely to obtain only those facts that have a cost that we (or others) are willing to bear in order to obtain them. Unsurprisingly, then, many facts support power and undermine the powerless. — Ennui Elucidator

Yes, that's a key point. Knowledge is money or power, and all that jazz. So certain facts become more easily available than others. Like there tends to be more sociological data on poor people than on rich people. And I suspect not because rich people are not important but because they are too important for understanding society. They are not convinced that to be studied and understood is in their own interest.

so far it seems like we have precisely the facts we have, no more, no less, and that logic serves as an interpretive tool rather than an imposition on what they can be — Ennui Elucidator

Exactly, except we can of course aquire more facts as we go along, and we do.

A notable feature of facts as I defined them -- as empirical evidence, basically -- is that they often cost real money. The cost of the Juno spacecraft which took the 'Van Gogh marble' picture(s) above was projected to be US$1.46 billion for operations and data analysis through 2022.

Facts have also financial value: they can be sold. Eg you can sell commercial satellite imagery, or survey data.

Truth, however, is not so easy to commodify.

LOL. Even Trump did not trust his own government... The deep state, ya kna?

It comes down to this: if society does not value the truth it disintegrates. A century of moral nihilism has brought us here, to where the truth is simply unavailable, and talk has almost no value. Thus the thread does little but allow some emotional venting. If trust is irrational, then no one should rationally believe anything another says or posts, and we cannot talk at all. — unenlightened

:100:

For folks who distrust their government very very much, I know of a few places without any serious government. Somalia is one, Afghanistan another. I've traveled there extensively so I know people and the way in and out. For 10,000 bucks -- a bargain -- I can accompany any and all of the distrusters to a remote Afghan valley and introduce them to the locals. For that money, I can also sign a certificate that the pharmaceutical industry yields very little influence over there, deep in the Hindukush. Alternatively, the Juba valley in Southern Somalia offers well protected shores from the reach of any bad bad western government and pharma, thanks to them Al Shabad boys.

I can offer a discount for Somalia, because Al Shabad pays well for western hostages.

Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges (December 25, 1745 – June 10, 1799), was a French classical composer, virtuoso violinist, a conductor of the leading symphony orchestra in Paris, and a renowned champion fencer. Born in the then French colony of Guadeloupe, he was the son of Georges de Bologne Saint-Georges, a wealthy married planter, and Anne Nanon, his wife's African slave.

During the French Revolution, Saint-Georges served as colonel of the first all-black regiment in Europe, the Légion de Saint Georges.

Today the Chevalier de Saint-Georges is best remembered as the first known classical composer of African ancestry. He composed numerous string quartets and other instrumental pieces, as well as operas. Here is a suite of violin concertos which I found quite enjoyable.

And things like this are the reason why mankind doesn't deserve to be saved. — baker

Cowards with a big mouth and a tiny brain don't deserve to be saved alright. They are a waste of perfectly fine vaccine.

You're so far off the mark that I'm at a loss what else to say. — baker

Rather, I nailed you, reason for which you are now speechless...

On the contrary, you're not taking it seriously enough. — baker

You take yourself very seriously, that's for sure, and you're a hero in your own mind, but to me you're just another coward running away from a needle, and rationalizing his fears.

It's always a matter of life and death anyway. Where some people go wrong is in assuming that this covid crisis is something special, rare, extraordinary. — baker

Thanks for the laugh. So questions about qualia are a matter of life and death for you? You're taking philosophy too seriously...

After all, distancing, masking and vax is a big ask for a culture of pussies. — James Riley

You are right: the whiners are basically afraid of the needle. When they were kids, i bet you they were too ashamed to say it, but now as grown-ups they can rationalize their cowardice.

The prohibition against eating human flesh only applies to humans. Other species often kill and eat human beings, or eat them after their death, and this is not seen as prohibited or scandalous. Predation is a universal trait in nature.

Which reminds me of an old joke by Pierre Desproges: "Animals are more tolerant than we are. For instance, a pig would have no problem eating a Muslim."