Your thinking, I believe has serious flaws. If your cognitive faculties are a result of evolution by natural selection and random genetic mutation you don´t have any reason to trust your cognitive faculties. For evolution "aims" to survival and not to produce true beliefs.

Evolution is completely pragmatic process and its end is to produce behavior not beliefs. — nixu

In general, in our long prehistory, false beliefs regarding important practical matters meant premature death by starvation or predation. So, in general, evolution aimed at true beliefs, for survival.

But yes, sometimes delusion was adaptive, and was selected-for, and that's eminently demonstrated by the social-behavior of the species of apes that humans are.

Additionally, our ancestors on the Savanna often didn't have time for thorough analysis, and so "quick-and-dirty" estimates of what was true were often needed. Those quick-and-dirty decisions are part of our instinct, and tend to produce bad societal results.

You seem to be saying that all of us, as apes evolved for survival instead of truth, have very poor credentials for making true statements.

Well yes, you can observe that from the presumably instinct-driven behavior of the various trolls that i've been replying to in various topics at these forums.

No argument there!

Societally, the great social scientists P.T. Barnum and W.C. Fields explained everything:

P.T. Barnum explained that there's a sucker born every minute.

W.C. Fields said, "Never give a sucker an even break."

You needn't look any farther for an explanation for humanity's societal situation, and evidence regarding its "hope" for improvement.

You can also observe instinct-over-truth in the behavior of Western academic philosophers, who seem to be responding to a relentless instinctive drive to creatively, delusionally, make things complicated, so that they'll continue having philosophical "issues" to publish about.

You know, "Publish-Or-Perish".

This does not commit you ontologically to non-existance of truth but it puts you in position in which you have defeator for all of your reasoning.

And yours too, of course.

Are we all mere fallible humans? Sure.

That's why we should expect people to give some verification, justification, for their claims.

I've tried to give justifications and verifications for my metaphysical suggestions.

No metaphysics can be proved. That statement goes back at least to Nagarjuna, who wrote in India during late Roman times.

But the metaphysics that i propose, which i call "Skepticism" makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.

By the Principle of Parsimony, it beats Physicalism, for example, and at least nearly every other metaphysical proposal.

As for my statements about humans being nothing other than animals, and my statement that each of is is nothing other than the animal, the body, that's parsimonious too, because it's the simplest explanation that's consistent with our own experience, and makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.

So yes, we're all fallible humans. So hold us all to a high standard of justification for our philosophical claims.

Michael Ossipoff
1

I hasten to emphasize that I'm not calling everyone I've communicated with here "trolls".

Far from it!

Most people where are serious and sincere about what they're discussing.

When I say "trolls", I'm specifically only referring to the few people whom I've explicitly referred to as such in my postings.

Michael Ossipoff

But the metaphysics that i propose, which i call "Skepticism" makes no assumptions, and posits no brute-facts.

I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." Not only is one taking sovereignty over a word that has established meaning for many, but they are greatly confusing the discourse as there will be no shared meaning for the used word.

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so.

I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." — Thanatos Sand

No, it isn't.

The word "skepticism" is defined in every dictionary.

My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions and brute-facts.

Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition.

No, the ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a monopoly on that word. It's in every dictionary, and my metaphysics is skepticism, as that word is defined in dictionaries.

This is a brief answer, just for now.

Maybe, when I re-read your post tomorrow, I'll find more to reply to, and will have time to do so.

(Right now, I don't have time to write more)

Michael Ossipoff

But i'll say one more thing now:

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so. — Thanatos Sand

I fully defined and described Skepticism.

...in the my initial post about it, and in subsequent posts.

But i welcome questions and objections. Specific ones only, please.

Michael Ossipoff

No, it isn't.

The word "skepticism" is defined in every dictionary.

Yes, but it's not defined by the very different, arbitrary definition you give the term.

My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions and brute-facts.

That's fine, but that's not what skepticism means.

Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition.

No, it's not; It's your arbitrary made-up definition of it. Here are the standard definitions of skepticism and they are not the same as yours.

"1
:  an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2
a :  the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain
b :  the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3
:  doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)"

No, the ancient Greek philosophers didn't have a monopoly on that word. It's in every dictionary, and my metaphysics is skepticism, as that word is defined in dictionaries.

Nobody said anything about Greek philosophers, so that's irrelevant. And, as I showed, there already are standard definitions of skepticism. Neither you, nor anybody else, gets to make up new ones for the word.

I fully defined and described Skepticism.

No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it.

But i welcome questions and objections. Specific ones only, please.

I've made specific and correct objections in this post and my two posts before it.

"Rejection and avoidance of assumptions and brute-factsis skepticism, by the usual dictionary definition."--Michael Ossipoff

No, it's not; It's your arbitrary made-up definition of it. Here are the standard definitions of skepticism and they are not the same as yours.

"1
: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object — Thanatos Sand

First, let me explain to you that, to fit a word's definition, a meaning doesn't have to fit all of a dictionary's definitions of that word. It only needs to fit one of them.

My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

And what does "incredulity" mean?

"The quality of being incredulous".

What does "incredulous" mean?

"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true. Not credulous."

What does "credulous" mean?

"Ready to believe, especially on slight or uncertain evidence"

Now, when I mention "brute-facts", you can pounce on that, as not mentioned in the definition of skepticism.

But a brute-fact is obviously someting offered to be true, something that people are asked to believe with no evidence whatsoever (look at the definition of "credulous").

What does "assumption" mean?

"In Merriam Webster, the dictionary you quoted, an assumption is a taking for granted that something is true.

Houghton-Mifflin defines "assumption" as:

"Something taken to be true without proof or demonstration."

Obviously a "brute-fact" is well within the meaning of "assumption".

My metaphysics rejects and avoids assumptions.

In other words, my metaphysics is unwilling to accept what other metaphysicses offer as true without demonstration of proof. ...It is characterized by an unwillingness to believe without evidence.

In other words, the metaphysics that i call "Skepticism" is skepticism, by that word's dictionary definition. ...as I said.

Michael Ossipoff

"I fully defined and described Skepticism."--Michael Ossipoff

No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it. — Thanatos Sand

No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so. — Thanatos Sand

In that paragraph, you aren't arguing about the propriety of my use of a word. You're saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that i call Skepticism.

I defined it thoroughly.

The correctness of my name "Skepticism" is a separate issue, and one that i addressed in my post immediately before this one.

Michael Ossipoff

My argument rises from Alvin Plantingas view of epistemology. I believe that we have properly basic beliefs and that we are doing our epistemic duty in believing those as long as we lack a defeator for those beliefs. Of course my own view of epistemology is founded upon theism and this is why I said that if evolution is blind and random force without any end in sight we have no rational justification to trust our cognitive faculties. I don´t believe that evolution is blind and unguided process but that our cognitive faculties are designed to aim at true beliefs. And I also hold to the principle of credulity.
But I also must add that if one is naturalist (I am not sure of you) must face arguments like Boltzmann brain, and A. Plantingas Evolutionary argument against naturalism.

I am really clad to finally find a place where to cordially dialog with reasonable and thinking people:

Speaking for myself, I'm not a Naturalist (...which is basically a euphemism for "Physicalist" or "Materialist"), or an Atheist.

Metaphysically, I'm an Idealist.

Michael Ossipoff

First, let me explain to you that, to fit a word's definition, a meaning doesn't have to fit all of a dictionary's definitions of that word. It only needs to fit one of them.

I know, and your definition doesn't fit any of them.

My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.

And what does "incredulity" mean?

"The quality of being incredulous".

What does "incredulous" mean?

"Unwilling to accept what is offered as true. Not credulous."

What does "credulous" mean?

Oh, boy...there are dictionaries on-line.

Now, when I mention "brute-facts", you can pounce on that, as not mentioned in the definition of skepticism.

But a brute-fact is obviously someting offered to be true, something that people are asked to believe with no evidence whatsoever (look at the definition of "credulous").

That's irrelevant since brute-facts arent' the only things mentioned in that definition. So, you are wrong to limit it to them. So, I was right to pounce on it and show you were/are wrong.

"In Merriam Webster, the dictionary you quoted, an assumption is a taking for granted that something is true.

Houghton-Mifflin defines "assumption" as:

"Something taken to be true without proof or demonstration."

Obviously a "brute-fact" is well within the meaning of "assumption".

See my last paragraph to see why you are wrong here, as well.

In other words, my metaphysics is unwilling to accept what other metaphysicses offer as true without demonstration of proof. ...It is characterized by an unwillingness to believe without evidence.

And, as I have repeatedly shown, that is not enough to stand as one of the definitions for skepticism.

In other words, the metaphysics that i call "Skepticism" is skepticism, by that word's dictionary definition. ...as I said.

In other words, you have made up your own definition for "skepticism" as a way to free yourself from the demands of the definition, but usurp the benefits of the word's common meaning. That's cheating. I suggest you change your metaphysics name to Ossipoffism.

"I fully defined and described Skepticism."--Michael Ossipoff

No, you took the word "skepticism," which already has established definitions, and you arbitrarily attached your made-up definition to it.
— Thanatos Sand

No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:

No, I was saying exactly what I was saying right above, Don't take my words and say I was saying something else. When you do that you are acting crazy.

No. You were saying that I didn't define the metaphysics that I call Skepticism. Here's what you said:

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so.
— Thanatos Sand

Now, you're dishonestly and deceptively leaving key parts out of my argument. That shows even you know you're wrong. Here's my full statement:

"I still don't get this. One can't just call their metaphysical concept the word that already has a specific meaning. It's like proposing a metaphysics asserting the existence of a mind outside the brain and calling it "Existentialism." Not only is one taking sovereignty over a word that has established meaning for many, but they are greatly confusing the discourse as there will be no shared meaning for the used word.

However, if one is to do this, it is best to give a complete definition of your use of the word. Things will still be confusing, but decidedly less so."

So, you lied when you said you didn't just define it. I said you were giving a false definition of the word "skepticism" while keeping the original word and its value. So, you're not only making false definitions of words now; you're lying in your erroneous arguments. Not impressive.

I'd said:

"My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

--Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.

Incorrect. I don't limit "it" to brute-facts. I said, "assumptions and brute-facts".

Because it was obvious that you'd pounce on "brute-facts", because that term isn't found in the dictionary definition of skepticism, I clarified that brute-facts are assumptions, whose avoidance suits the dictionary definition of skepticism.

That's irrelevant since brute-facts arent' the only things mentioned in that definition. So, you are wrong to limit it to them. So, I was right to pounce on it and show you were/are wrong. — Thanatos Sand

See above.

Your only argument that my metaphysics isn't skeptical, depends on your seizing-upon "brute-facts".

With that argument answered, you have no argument against my statement that the metaphysics that I call Skepticism, is skeptical, and is skepticism itslef...as that word is defined in the dictionary.

Michael Ossipoff

"My metaphysics is a perfect fit for your definition #1.

"A disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object"

--Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

No, it is not, because--as everyone can see--your definition is much narrower than number 1, since you limit it to "brute-facts." Definition #1 does not.

Incorrect. I don't limit "it" to brute-facts. I said, "assumptions and brute-facts".

Because it was obvious that you'd pounce on "brute-facts", because that term isn't found in the dictionary definition of skepticism, I clarified that brute-facts are assumptions, whose avoidance suits the dictionary definition of skepticism.

Then your metaphysics is no longer a perfect fit for definition #1, since reincarnation would rest upon assumptions.

With that argument answered, you have no argument against my statement that the metaphysics that I call Skepticism, is skeptical, and is skepticism itslef...as that word is defined in the dictionary.

See my last answer. It corrects you here, too.

Then your metaphysics is no longer a perfect fit for definition #1, since reincarnation would rest upon assumptions. — Thanatos Sand

Sorry, but reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.

All I said was that reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism.

But, as I said, reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.

You're grasping at straws.

Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, but reincarnation isn't part of, or assumed by, Skepticism.

All I said was that reincarnation is consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism.

I never said reincarnation was part of or assumed by Skepticism. You really are reading poorly. I said reincarnation would rest upon assumptions, so your own definition of Skepticism wou'dnt allow it. And reincarnation isn't consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism

So, the only one grasping at straws is you.

You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time.

Considering it's not, this should be a hoot.

And reincarnation isn't consistent with, or even implied by, Skepticism — Thanatos Sand

Suit yourself. I've had my say on that matter, and you're of course free to reach your own conclusions.

But that question doesn't bear on the fact that Skepticism is skeptical, and is skepticism itself, by that word's dictionary definition.

Michael Ossipoff

You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time. — Thanatos Sand

As I said, I've had my say about that, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

Michael Ossipoff

Suit yourself. I've had my say on that matter, and you're of course free to reach your own conclusions.

You've had a lot of erroneous say and failed to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. That's hardly surprising.

But that question doesn't bear on the fact that Skepticism is skeptical, and is skepticism itself, by that word's dictionary definition.

OK...but that sure doesn't show that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, skepticism,..which makes sense, since it's not.

You're free, however to show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism any time.
— Thanatos Sand

As I said, I've had my say about that, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

No, you haven't just had your say, you've completely failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. And you fail to do so again.

No, you haven't just had your say, you've completely failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. And you fail to do so again. — Thanatos Sand

No, let's not imply that I refuse to answer you. If you want to quote a particular statement or conclusion of mine, quoted from a post of mine on reincarnation, and if you tell us exactly what you think is wrong with that statement or conclusion, then I'll be glad to answer you.

But, if not, that's fine too, because, as I said, I've had my say about reincarnation, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

Someone started a topic in which people were talking about how there could be reincarnation. I decided to add my comments to that discussion.

Michael Ossipoff

No, let's not imply that I refuse to answer you. If you want to quote a particular statement or conclusion of mine, quoted from a post of mine on reincarnation, and if you tell us exactly what you think is wrong with that statement or conclusion, then I'll be glad to answer you.

I didn't imply anything. You have absolutely refused to answer me and back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. So, since you have failed to do so, I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. Try and back up that false claim and I will.

But, if not, that's fine too, because, as I said, I've had my say about reincarnation, and you're free to draw your own conclusions.

And as I have said, you may have "had your say," but you have still--like four times now--failed to back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. Since it's a false claim, I'm not surprised.

Someone started a topic in which people were talking about how there could be reincarnation. I decided to add my comments to that discussion.

And you have also made a false claim that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, which you have failed to support numerous times.

I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. — Thanatos Sand

Thank you for your honesty.

Michael Ossipoff

You are really sad. This is what I honestly said:

"I didn't imply anything. You have absolutely refused to answer me and back up your claim that reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism. So, since you have failed to do so, I cannot tell you what is exactly wrong with it. Try and back up that false claim and I will."

I can't tell what is exactly wrong with a statement of defense until you make that statement since there are many ways to make a statement. I'm sorry you never learned that fact. So, since you clearly cannot
show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, I cannot show what is exactly wrong with it. I can only show what is wrong with it..

Thank you for your dishonesty or your insufficient education....:)

reincarnation is consistent with skepticism, — Thanatos Sand

Well, what i said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.

But since Skepticism is skepticism, then it could be said that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism too.

Look, I'm not interested in trying to convince you about that. I've already said what i meant to say, and I'm willing to answer you if you have a specific disagreement with a specific quote.

If not, I assure you that that's fine too.

I'd say that we're done here, and that this conversation has reached its end.

Michael Ossipoff

I can only show what is wrong with it.. — Thanatos Sand

Feel free to, but only if you want to.

Michael Ossipoff

Well, what i said was that reincarnation is consistent with Skepticism.

No, it's not and you have laughably failed many times to show how it is.

But since Skepticism is skepticism, then it could be said that reincarnation is consistent with skepticism too.

That makes absolutely no sense since no definition of skepticism is consistent with reincarnation. You are truly grasping at straws.

Look, I'm not interested in trying to convince you about that. I've already said what i meant to say, and I'm willing to answer you if you have a specific disagreement with a specific quote.

If not, I assure you that that's fine too.

LOL. Almost all of my threads have been specific disagreement with specific quotes of yours. Again, you fail to show how reincarnation is consistent with skepticism. Since it's not, that's hardly surprising.

I'd say that we're done here, and that this conversation has reached its end.

Maybe the one true thing you've said this thread.

I can only show what is wrong with it..
— Thanatos Sand

Feel free to, but only if you want to.

I will once you actually show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, first. You clearly don't want, or can't, do so..:)

By the way, here's my actual quote:

So, since you clearly cannot
show how reincarnation is consistent with, or implied by, Skepticism, I cannot show what is exactly wrong with it. I can only show what is wrong with it.. — Thanatos Sand