I agree with this, but it's a really good story. — T Clark
I gave you the answer and if you do not pay attention to it, I am not replying again. — Athena
The best one is theoretical high energy physics. That story is heavy and very enjoyable science fiction/fantasy. The really strange thing is that it's rooted in reality. — Inplainsight
"And they lived in reality ever after." — T Clark
Not to look askance at a compliment, but are you implying my previous posts were not sane? — T Clark
Again, I don't get your point. I don't and never did support Donald Trump. I think he was a bad president. What does that have to do with this discussion? — T Clark
Don't worry dear, you do not need to know the difference between fiction and non-fiction because all you have to do is obey the authorities who handle everything for us. — Athena
That's all I don't have to do. I still have no answer why it's not good to base politics on emotion. — Inplainsight
There is a saying "do not argue with ignorance". I think that is good advice when someone asks for information and then ignores it. — Athena
I don't get your point. I value democracy. I value reason. I just don't see that they are necessarily strongly related. — T Clark
Do you think knowledge of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe, — Athena
Do you mean I ignore you information and that I'm ignorant? — Inplainsight
Is reason the controlling force of the universe? There are lots of reasons. Not only the scientific one. — Inplainsight
There is a serious difference between basing our thinking on our feelings, or basing what we think on facts and reasoning. To base what we think on facts and reasoning, we need to learn the facts and the reasoning. To react emotionally requires nothing of us and it does not equal good judgment nor good arguments. — Athena
Yes, there are reasons for things being the way they are and science helps us learn the reasons. — Athena
If we do not realize the difference between emotional thinking verse logic and reasoning nor the difference between non-fiction and fiction, — Athena
I don't think reason is the controlling force of the universe, if that's what you're asking. I don't really think there is a controlling force. — T Clark
You do not think gravity is what holds things to the earth? You don't think we have day and night because the earth turns? You don't think plants and animals die when they do not get water? You think all the forces of nature could suddenly be completely different for no reason at all? — Athena
Yes, but voting with our feelings instead of a deliberate attempt to understand the choices, does not lead to a healthy Republic and it puts our liberty in jeopardy. — Athena
If you want to argue the man in the video is wrong, first you have to pay careful attention to what he said. — Athena
What matters is up to us, no? Your critique smacks of aesthetics.
It would be nice if facts mattered, but they don’t. The wall pushes back until it doesn’t. Your assertion we can never walk through it is true until it isn’t. What was true is no longer true and what will be true has yet to be. Facts are not substance, but wispy things that evaporate the harder we look or the harder we try to hold them. (Go ahead, start with the block universe.)
Being wrong is like the happiness machine - a cry into the wind about how what is real should somehow carry some weight beyond what we believe or feel - that we have to get back to something that has inherent something regardless of us. A futile hand waving in the face of insurmountable intellectual absence.
Your insistence that being wrong matters does not elevate facts to things which people can be wrong about outside of belief/language, and isn’t just about idealism. We change the world (the facts) all of the time and as our knowledge expands the world stops reacting in the way that it did before. What was a “fact” before is merely the limitation of the utterer to achieve their purpose, not some feature of metaphysics. And even your use of ideas like “climate change is man-mad” are so theory laden that if you turn out to be “wrong” about the causal mechanism but right about the solution, so what? What was important was to save the world as you defined it, not that your theory is not subject to revision as different evidence becomes available.
The cat is on the mat. It has been for years just as you’ve typed about the cat being on the mat with your keyboard and I’ve read it with my eyes and we’ve performatively contradicted any assertion of skeptical doubt. None of that fixes a fact.
A fact is the sort of thing that true statements are about - what makes a truth bearer true. Why put more weight on the word than what it supports? And why insist that there is a territory for our map when all we can deal in is maps? — Ennui Elucidator
that wrongness is assessable by something outside of language. — Ennui Elucidator
It is far preferable to be beaten up by you. :razz: — Ennui Elucidator
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.