That might be, but we don't go by subjective reports for this. We make objective measurements. — Terrapin Station

We can't make objective measurements. Every measurement is of the form "I looked at the measuring instrument and it seemed to me to say X". It is a subjective account. We believe it on the basis of commonality and utility. It's not a different kind of account. Absolutely everything we know is a subjective account of the way things seem to us to be.

Also, you're missing the whole point, which is that when you have recalcitrant data, you don't just insist that the data has to be wrong. You have to consider the possibility that other things have gone wrong, including the theory.

This is the whole point to Duhem-Quine--that falsificationism often doesn't work well in practice, because people have a tendency to excuse away recalcitrant data, because they want to hold on to their theories.

So you have to figure out what's going on when you come across recalcitrant data. The issue when you're studying something subjective is that you have to rely on reports from the subject in question. It's not as if we can just observationally check it directly.

We can't make objective measurements. — Isaac

The measurement isn't in your mind.

You have to consider the possibility that other things have gone wrong, including the theory. — Terrapin Station

Yes, hence my reluctance to go back over the several thousand experimental results firming the history of psychological research in order to demonstrate that this has already been considered. Psychologists are not idiots (despite the protestations of phil science grads). They have already looked at aberrant results, already considered how they could devise further experiments to confirm/deny theories about those aberrations, already carried out and drawn reasonable conclusions from these further tests. This is just normal science, partly because of interventions like Duhem-Quine. What you're presenting here as a devastating "ah-ha" moment is something we learned in A-level psychology. It's something very much in the mind of most serious researchers.

The measurement isn't in your mind. — Terrapin Station

Where is it then?

Yes, hence my reluctance to go back over the several thousand experimental results firming the history of psychological research in order to demonstrate that this has already been considered. — Isaac

First off, there's been absolutely nothing to even suggest that anyone is forwarding a categorization of complex/compound versus simple/atomic moral stances. Has any of the research you're appealing to forwarded that?

Where is it then? — Isaac

The world outside of minds, obviously.

@S @Terrapin Station

Take your pointless dispute elsewhere, preferably not on this forum.

First off, there's been absolutely nothing to even suggest that anyone is forwarding a categorization of complex/compound versus simple/atomic moral stances. Has any of the research you're appealing to forwarded that? — Terrapin Station

socialization influences moral development and explains why moral rules change with space and historical time, human infants enter the world equipped with cognitions and motivations that incline them to be moral and prosocial (Hamlin, 2015)

Such early emerging predispositions toward prosocial behavior, and sociomoral evaluation reflect prewired capacities that were adaptive to our forebears.

However, this does not imply that morality is itself an adaptation favored by natural selection. Instead, the moral sense observed in humans may be a consequence of several cognitive, executive, and motivational capacities which are the attributes that natural selection directly promoted (Ayala, 2010)

The world outside of minds, obviously. — Terrapin Station

What, the measurement? I've never seen one. All that's in the world outside of mind is (if anything at all) a sea of heterogeneous stuff. All objects, measurements, laws, and concepts are constructions of the human mind.

What, the measurement? I've never seen one. All that's in the world outside of mind is (if anything at all) a sea of heterogeneous stuff. All objects, measurements, laws, and concepts are constructions of the human mind. — Isaac

So when you use a device like this:


(And here's some info about it, including links to how it works)
http://www.johnsonlevel.com/News/LaserDistanceMeasure55

You think that device is just in your mind? Or the readings on the display are just in your mind?

Or are you now devolving to conflating concepts, terms, etc. with what they're about?

Re the quotations, by the way, so then the answer is no, no one has suggested the complex/compound versus simple/atomic categorization you're suggesting? (Because the quotes you pasted sure don't suggest anything like that)

Your speech doesn't force my psychological states.

Regarding “psychological abuse”, It’s the same kind of question: do words cause stress or is stress caused by the body because of perceived threats and fears?

How annoying. They deleted my explanation for why exchanges like the following end in failure:

You don't see an ethical issue with removing any protection children would have against psychological abuse from their parents?
— Benkei

Correct. — Terrapin Station

They end in failure because they start with the charitable assumption that the other person can be reasoned with, but fail because the other person can't be.

So we're not allowed to give our analysis on things like that? Or only when it's someone like me? Or what?

Anyway, are you going to ban me or not? It's been good, but I think I spend too much time here anyway, and I don't really like how people like @jamalrob judge me with regard to his intervention just now.

Well, it's always going to be at least partially a matter of how people semantically interpret what's said, and people have some degree of control over that. The control of it isn't necessarily easy, but it's possible. For example, if you don't want to be offended, or if you don't want to see other people with different personalities, different behavior than your ideal to be a problem that torments you, there are ways to parse things so that you don't have to be offended, you don't have to see difference as a problem.

They end in failure because they start with the charitable assumption that the other person can be reasoned with, but fail because the other person can't be. — S

When that's one's assessment, why wouldn't one simply move on and not bother with the person in question? Wouldn't that be a simple solution that wouldn't cause one so much apparent strife?

When that's one's assessment, why wouldn't one simply move on and not bother with the person in question? Wouldn't that be a simple solution that wouldn't cause one so much apparent strife? — Terrapin Station

Well, for me, I almost can't help but want to reason with people in situations like that. I find it hard to move on. That's partly why banning me from the forum would be a good thing, for my own sake.

Well, for me, I almost can't help but want to reason with people in situations like that. I find it hard to move on. That's partly why banning me from the forum would be a good thing. — S

i suppose it's some sort of psychological thing where you figure you can always get folks to come around to your thinking if you just try hard enough?

I suppose it's some sort of psychological thing where you figure you can always get folks to come around to your thinking if you just try hard enough? — Terrapin Station

Yes, exactly.

I can't be the first person you've run into where that doesn't work. It would probably be a good idea to learn how to let that go if it's causing you frustration.

I think it's good to learn how to accept difference.

I can't be the first person you've run into where that doesn't work. It would probably be a good idea to learn how to let that go if it's causing you frustration. — Terrapin Station

Yeah well, I'm human, aren't I? All too human.

You think that device is just in your mind? Or the readings on the display are just in your mind? — Terrapin Station

Yes. As I said all there can really be (if there's anything at all) is a sea of heterogeneous stuff. The device (as opposed to its immediate surroundings) is an artificial division of that stuff I've made up, the readings are more artificial divisions of that stuff I made up.

Making this stuff up the way we do, and broadly agreeing with each other about what divisions we're going to put where really works well as a way to get on with life. Making up theories with laws about how things work really helps too.

But just as the observation and the readings from your laser measure are my subjective interpretation of the heterogeneous sea of stuff, so is my feeling about my brain activity. If we happily rely on one, call it 'truth', on the basis of consistency, repeatability etc. then we can do so with the other. They're not different categories of thing. In both cases, something is happening to the heterogeneous sea of stuff (the laser measure in one case, my brain in another) and my mind is interpreting it. I check those interpretations with others, test them, keep the ones which work for me, discard the ones which don't. Part of what science does (psychology included) is checking with others, checking repeatability, and yes sometimes we discard anomalies because it works better that way, so what?

Re the quotations, by the way, so then the answer is no, no one has suggested the complex/compound versus simple/atomic categorization you're suggesting? (Because the quotes you pasted sure don't suggest anything like that) — Terrapin Station

I'm not getting into this again where I've got to find some quote with the exact wording your looking for. As far as I'm concerned they're as close as need be. If you don't think so, there's not much I can do about that.

there are ways to parse things so that you don't have to be offended, you don't have to see difference as a problem. — Terrapin Station

So, given what you said above about anomalies, how can you know this? Have you asked everyone in the world whether they're capable of doing what you're claiming can be done? Why is it when I claim humans can/can't do X, you say "show me evidence that they can/can't" and require an astonishingly high level of evidence to support it, but when you're supporting your outlandish ideas any old guess as to what human minds are capable of seems to be satisfactory?

Yes. As I said all there can really be (if there's anything at all) is a sea of heterogeneous stuff. The device (as opposed to its immediate surroundings) is an artificial division of that stuff I've made up, the readings are more artificial divisions of that stuff I made up. — Isaac

Huh? So you think the device is just something you're imagining, and it's an artificial division of something you're imagining?

No, I think the device is an artificial division of the stuff reality is made of. I'm pretty agnostic about whether the reality it's made of is actually there.

No, I think the device is an artificial division of the stuff reality is made of. — Isaac

I wasn't asking you anything like that. I'm asking you if you think it's literally mental content and not a piece of plastic etc. that's independent of your brain

I wasn't asking you anything like that. I'm asking you if you think it's literally mental content and not a piece of plastic etc. that's independent of your brain — Terrapin Station

No. I think it's independent of my brain, I'm not totally sold on the idea, but it works best for me.

No. I think it's independent of my brain — Isaac

So then you don't think that it's subjective.

So then you don't think that it's subjective. — Terrapin Station

No. I think the measuring device as a distinct object is subjective, the stuff it's made from probably isn't. Where does the stuff stop being 'air' and start being 'plastic'? That's subjective. That there is some stuff to be called 'air' and 'plastic' in the first place, that's not. We decide how we're going to divide reality, but I prefer to think reality itself is outside of our minds.

Where does the stuff stop being 'air' and start being 'plastic'? That's subjective — Isaac

That's talking about the concepts. That's not what I'm asking about.

That's talking about the concepts. That's not what I'm asking about. — Terrapin Station

I've given my answer to both. The stuff the measure is made of is objectively there, the division by which we name it and think of it as one thing (as opposed to another) is not.

Now, before we get too far into a classic Terrapin diversion I'd like you to answer my question (although I'm going bed now so you have until morning). I asked (in case you missed it with your notification issues)...

... Given what you said above about anomalies, how can you know this [that people can learn to not be offended etc]? Have you asked everyone in the world whether they're capable of doing what you're claiming can be done? Why is it when I claim humans can/can't do X, you say "show me evidence that they can/can't" and require an astonishingly high level of evidence to support it, but when you're supporting your outlandish ideas any old guess as to what human minds are capable of seems to be satisfactory?

the division by which we name it and think of it as one thing (as opposed to another) is not. — Isaac

I'm not asking about naming and thinking about.