My bad. Clicked the wrong reply button. My apologies. — Banno

No problem Banno, it's easy to do.

It's not that it's wrong so much as that it is so very hard to be clear as to what correspondence consists in. — Banno

I think we all know what it consists in, and it is not so much a theory as it is an account or description of an understanding which is basic and ineliminable. As Aristotle put it: "To say of what is that it is not, and of what is not that it is, is falsehood, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not is truth".

The logic of this is also captured by the T-sentence: ''Snow is white' is true iff snow is white'. The logic in both of these formulations is the correspondence of statement with actuality.

I mean that facts are accurate observations. This definition purposefully excludes theories, which aren't facts because they are always somewhat hypothetical. — Olivier5

I'm not sure what you mean, Olivier. If I accurately observed that it was raining where I happened to be at some specific time, the fact that it was raining at that time and place does not depend on my having observed it. Of course it is also a fact that I observed it, but that is another matter it seems to me.

We can say some things about what a good life is (that it is worth living). — darthbarracuda

From the fact (if it is a fact) that a good life (however we might conceive of that) is necessarily worth living, it does not follow that a bad life is not worth living. Even if a bad life is defined as being completely devoid of any pleasure whatsoever for the one living it, and even if we accepted the stipulation that a life completely devoid of the slightest pleasure for the one living it is not, on that account alone, worth living, such a life may bring pleasure to others, making it worthwhile for other reasons.

I voted 'other', meaning indifferent. I haven't found the movement to be significant enough to warrant an attitude towards it. If it gains more traction I will be against it, as I think it represents the pinnacle of human arrogance.

What's your point? — Laguercina

The point of no further interest.

Get to your point. — Banno

?

I'm trying to prompt Laguercina to get to his or her point or argument. But anyway in view of the seeming unlikelihood of satisfaction, I'm losing interest.

Goddamn!

The universe can't be there (even if eternal and infinite) if not created by gods. — Laguercina

Why not?

The very fact that it's there. — Laguercina

What is it about its being there that makes it obvious it was created by gods?

That's not obvious to me. What makes it obvious to you I wonder?

Or an actual state of affairs — Janus


Like the creation of the world by the gods. — SoftEdgedWonder

The creation of the world by the gods would be a fact if the gods actually created the world.

A fact is a true statement.
— Banno

Or an actual state of affairs. — Janus


Or an accurate observation. — Olivier5

You mean as in it is a fact that you made an accurate observation (or not)?

A fact is a true statement. — Banno

Or an actual state of affairs.

I don't know what that means. In any case if they were claiming to know what you or others feel then I would ask the same question of them that I did of you.

Having said that anti-vaccination sentiment does seem to come down to distrust and fear of authority. And I can understand that; I also entertain a certain distrust of government and corporations; it's just that it doesn't extend to the kind of wild speculations to be found in conspiracy theories.

Well, look at so many people in these discussions: they brim with righteous indignation, they seek it. — baker

You can read what people are saying; I don't know what gives you so much confidence that you know what they're feeling.

It's ashame that you think non-medical criteria should bear on the question. I think we've covered this ground sufficiently. — frank

So in a triage situation you would let a charity worker die if she was in worse condition than a rapist and you were only able to give medical aid to one of them?

No, you didn't. You only would like me to believe you answered my questions but you truly did not.

Have you done any "real scientific research"? Yes or no? — protonoia

I didn't consider that question to be a serious one. If I were a virologist, epidemiologist or immunologist don't you think I would have said so? And any other kind of scientific research would be irrelevant in this context. Have you done any real scientific research?

Why are scientists and medical professionals who don't agree with the "official" narrative blocked out of the equation? — protonoia

What makes you think they are "blocked out of the equation". I have no doubt that within the scientific community there is a dominant consensus which they don't happen to agree with, but that doesn't stop them from arguing for their position within their community.

Being a non-expert, I follow the dominant consensus because I think we have good reason to think it is likely to be the most accurate, and hence the best guide. This is epistemic modesty; I don't pretend to be able to form my own independent opinion beyond what is the most plausible guide as to what to believe.

Why do you think I'm like your friend? Did I say you are...

"just jealous of his superior scientific knowledge and ability to analyze scientific studies and he said I was a Nazi pure and simple" — protonoia

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if you read closely. I didn't say you were like my friend, I said that he said exactly all the things you said. I didn't say or even suggest that you said, or even suggested, that I am "just jealous of (your) superior scientific knowledge and ability to analyze scientific studies" or that "I was a Nazi pure and simple". In fact I didn't say that you said all the things he said at all, I said that he said exactly all the things you said. He could have, and in fact has, said other things that you have not said.

Are we clear now?

Yes I did, so I can only conclude that you just don't want to hear the answers I gave.

Have you done any "real scientific research"? Why do you believe questionable personalities without considering opposing arguments? Isn't that what real science is supposed to be? Why do you think I'm like your friend? Do you conflate everything with everything else? I think you do. — protonoia

There you go forming opinions without evidence; the mark of a true scientist!

Only those trained in the appropriate disciplines, with years of experience, have a hope of criticallly assessing whatever controversies there might be. Are you a virologist, immunologist or epidemiologist? If not, then you're not qualified to "consider opposing arguments". If you think you are you are deluding yourself.

Unless you are a researcher in one of those disciplines you are not doing real science. And jumping to conclusions is not real science either: I didn't say you were like my friend, I don't know you; I said you said all the same things, verbatim, that he said, If that makes you like him then I have good evidence that you are like him, but I didn't draw that conclusion.

On the other hand you drew several conclusions about me without any evidence to support them whatsoever, and that does seem to indicate the degree of evidence you require in order to form strong opinions.

It's amazing: I had a good friend who said exactly all the same things you said. He thought, and probably still thinks, he was doing real scientific research by searching for and reading all the articles (most from right wing sites or at least the ones he linked mostly were) that agreed with what he wanted to believe.

I bit my tongue for ages, knowing that if I told him what I really thought he would be deeply offended. Eventually it was too much and I had to speak my mind, When I told him he wasn't an expert, that he wasn't doing research but was indulging his fears and confirmation bias, that I was in agreement with mandatory vaccination if necessary on account of to many recalcitrants to allow us to reach the required vaccination targets and for certain professions, such as medical staff, teachers and so on, he told me I was just jealous of his superior scientific knowledge and ability to analyze scientific studies and he said I was a Nazi pure and simple. Now I am persona non grata, the friendship in ruins it seems..

I think that the use of intuition alongside rationality is complex in the mapping of the widest perspective of our knowledge. In building of our models, I am inclined to believe that what is most important is incorporating the widest possible perspective rather focusing on specific facts, in order to build up a picture which is intricate and not based on the specific focus in a way which involves a narrowing of vision, or tunnel perspective. It may involve zooming in and out of specific ways of thinking and being able to juxtapose various ways of framing questions and answers. — Jack Cummins

You seem to be referring to the role of intuition or imagination on the genesis of theories. I have no argument with that, Science is also a creative activity that involves what Peirce referred to as abductive reasoning. I think intuition is closely allied with imagination; we imagine possibilities and we have an intuitive feel for the plausibility of those imagined possibilities. In science we then try to figure out what we would observe if what we feel are the more plausible possibilities we have imagined were in accordance with how things are. When it comes to metaphysical imaginings such prediction and observation is not possible.

:up:

What on earth makes you think that? — baker

Nah. Righteous indignation rocks! People are addicted to it, it's orgasmic, and then some. — baker

I can only speak for myself. Feeling indignant is far more annoying than it is orgasmic; in fact it is not orgasmic at all. If I ever get to the point where I think righteous indignation is better than sex then I'll know I'm no longer enjoying life very much.

There's an ambiguity to the word 'is' that makes questions such as "what is a fact?" ambiguous. — Bartricks

Not only that, but there is an ambiguity to the word 'fact'. There is a common usage shown in the sentence 'The encyclopaedia is a compendium of facts' that does not accord with the other common usage which equates facts with states of affairs or actualities.

You're either deluded or a troll, and I don't think anything I can say will change that so...it's been fun...but I'm done.

I find it baseless to say that almost everyone who is interested in thinking about things critically are (because they are the people under consideration)

... does this:

1. They say things
2. They become upset when asked to defend what they say
3. They beg the question
4. And ultimately pretend that no argument against their position has been made — AJJ

It is a gross generalization without any cogent basis, since neither you nor the combination of you and those you have spoken to about this could have any hope of having encountered more than a tiny percentage of those people who are interested in thinking about things critically.

It is a gross generalization and a facile attempt to bolster your own baseless position regarding those subjects you have no expertise in. Even if it were true that most people do the things you say and you are simply just doing what most others do, that in no way excuses it.

The point though is, that you, like anyone else, have only encountered the tiniest portion of humanity, so such generalizations are without empirical or rational basis.

Why should the standard be any different? To state that most people are X or Y is simply a facile claim that carries no rational force.

Expressions like “virtually everyone” and “almost everyone” are rhetorical, not technical. — AJJ

So, you are presenting rhetoric not reasoned argument?

But as I’ve recently posted elsewhere, in my experience almost everyone does this: — AJJ

So, you have experienced "almost everyone"?

Virtually everyone is immune to facts/reason on many or most topics. — Yohan

So you have encountered "virtually everyone" have you?

Always consider the possibility that if one is unable to convince others with rational arguments, one's arguments might not be as rational and objective as one thinks. — Tzeentch

Always consider the possibility that if you are unable to be convinced by rational arguments that you might not be as rational and objective as you think you are.

I was just reading your comments and, yes, my question does involve the semantics of what we mean by the idea of 'knowing'. I believe that Kant thought that there were limitations of how much we can really know about metaphysics, apart from by means of intuition and a priori logic. Jung made his famous television broadcast, saying that he did not believe in God, but rather , 'I know', based on the direct experience of God in dreams and other personal experiences. However, I am sure that many people would challenge his use of the idea of such knowledge as reliable.

One aspect which I think about is how science gives us findings which are used to build theories, but the theories are interpretations, which may be modified at some point. But, most of all theories are only models, and, thereby, only partial pictures of reality or 'truth'. — Jack Cummins

I think for Kant, contra Spinoza, intuition is not a source of knowledge, and a priori logic tells us only about what must be the case regarding human experience.

So, he would also reject any claim to know there is a God on the basis of "direct experience of God in dreams and other personal experiences". Remember that Kant's central project was to establish the limits of (pure) reason to make way for faith.

I agree with you that scientific theories are models. As they say 'the map is not the territory'.

Err, that's simply not true. Whether the future is fully predetermined has siltch to see with whether there exist "non-physical events" or not. — Olivier5

You need to familiarize yourself with the concepts. So-called "hard detreminism" is a physicalist view. Of course not all physicalists are hard determinists. For a hard determinist free will is an illusion, since all "mental" events including decisions, thoughts, beliefs and so on are really physical events, and if all events are wholly determined by antecendent events, then there is no room for any kind of causa sui actuality such as we intuitively understand reason and free will to be. By the way, I'm not saying I hold that view.

Reminds me of Wittgenstein's claim, meaning (information) is use. @Banno. — TheMadFool

Meaning is association. Use is established by habitual association. It's "chicken and egg" though, since habitual association is also established by use.

Even despite that, however, posters admonishing you to 'live fully in the present moment' can be safely assigned to the domain of 'fake Buddha quotes'. — Wayfarer

Maybe that's why Lin Chi reportedly said " If you meet the Buddha, kill him" or why it was Huineng (if memory serves) who referred to zen as a "special transmission outside the scriptures". According to my own extensive reading of zen texts the essence of zen teaching is precisely to live fully in the present moment. Which is not to deny that certain practices and observances are advocated to that end.

So, I take it you don't enjoy your life at all, or at least not very much?

Do you disagree that righteous indignation is a great feeling? — baker

Well, sounds like you enjoy righteous indignation at least. It's an acquired taste; you have to bracket off the great annoyance caused by what you are indignant about or else it's more aggravating than enjoyable I'd say..

Do read my post above yours. — baker

Does that mean that we can attribute to him whatever we want to? — baker

I don't say people can attribute whether they want; well actually they can, but we don't have to take them seriously. Obviously all we know of what he might have said is set out in the early Buddhist texts. Even if some or much of those consist in misattribution,they are the earliest sources and thus more likely to be accurate than later texts such as the Mahayana and Vajrayana texts which may very well contain many more extrapolations, which amount to misattributions.

Modern misattributions are obviously even further removed both temporally and culturally, but nonetheless a misattribution is a misattribution, and unfortunately since he wrote nothing we have no way of determining just what is and what is not misattributing what was said by Gautama. That said, if we take the earliest texts as authoritative then we should be able to clearly identify anything which does not tally with those.

Since Gautama wrote nothing, how many of his earliest attributed "sayings" are already misattributions?

My initial thinking was about epistemology and how much we really know, but with the implications in people's lives and a veneer of knowledge based on science. — Jack Cummins

I'm curious as to what you think it would be to "really know" something; how would it differ from what is generally considered to be knowing something?

How do you know the evidence is overwhelming if you are not a structural engineer? If the evidence is so overwhelming then why is the truth not acknowledged? The cat is not out of the bag; if it were then we would all know the truth.