My question is how does one know when that is the case - ie they're chatting sh*t. And to the contrary, when they really do know what they're talking about. — Benj96

The answer to this question is not easy. The answer will cover the psychological, one's intelligence, and the epistemological, and that's just the beginning. People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs. What I mean is, for example, one's ego plays a role in what you believe is true, and it plays a role in what you're willing to reject in terms of your beliefs. When the ego gets involved, in many cases truth doesn't matter, what matters is protecting one's ego. Also, you have peer pressure which extends all the way up the ladder of life.

Second, one's ability to think through some of these difficult subjects is often beyond the ability of some. You have to know your limitations and be willing to learn. Even here the ego raises its ugly head. Some people think they have all the answers or at least more answers than they have a right to bloviate about. Also, I mentioned intelligence, and it's important, but more important is being knowledgeable. Sometimes people with less overall intelligence can be more knowledgeable about a certain subject. This is where hard work pays off.

A third problem is not having a good epistemological background. I can't overemphasize the importance of this subject. And since the subject is quite vast one has to seek out the best philosophers to study. I chose a Wittgensteinian approach because I don't think many philosophers can match his intellect.

One of the problems with epistemology is that some people have to narrow a view of epistemology, and others have to broad a view. In other words, some limit their epistemology to science, and others allow too much subjective nonsense into their thinking.

So where do you start? You have to examine your head. What are you trying to accomplish? How big is your ego? Are you afraid of being wrong? Do you love philosophy? And you have to seek out the best of the best and learn from them because 90% of what you'll read in philosophy is just bullshit. Moreover, in a philosophy forum, many people haven't even studied the subjects they're arguing for or against. So 98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit.

As I mentioned, much can be said on this topic, and I haven't scratched the surface.

that process [being a human] has reached such complexity and sophistication that it seems to involve what we call intent, will, deliberation — ENOAH

And I agree with you here. Austin has a way of putting it that we project a self that has “intention” back into a situation, but only when it doesn’t meet our ordinary expectations (Why did you do that (in that situation)?) But it is not a question that always has an answer because I don’t have a “will” that causes my acts nor do I “mean” every word (I don’t “intend” my raised arm to be the act of signaling a taxi.)

Of course it is trustworthy; but it's not your mind. There's no your, no you. — ENOAH

And I take this to suggest we have no recourse other than to rely on (trust) the human (brain/body/responses, etc). However, with the acknowledgment of the human propensity to undermine ourselves, hide from ourselves, delude ourselves, etc., or, in other words: our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our place—something certain we can count on (trust).

The question (which I won't take the time here) is more like, how can I ensure I am input with the coding which will yield the most functional results for that very system (which I share with all minds) and for my body and my species? — ENOAH

And this is a worthwhile question (and closer to part of @Benj96’s OP). If we realize that: to be human we must turn—as Socrates suggests in a cave, and Wittgenstein (PI #108) says around our “real need”—towards our humanity, per Nietszche (embracing what we actually can not nor should not escape) and attempt to perfect it, as rallied to by Emerson, what does that path look like? As humans? individually? (Which I believe we can take up with @Sam26 above)

our inevitable limitation and failings, we are driven to want to escape the human; to have knowledge take our place—something certain we can count on (trust). — Antony Nickles

Well said from where I'm standing. Especially the bit about knowledge displacing being.

what does that path look like? — Antony Nickles

Not to be "cute": that path doesn't "look" like anything. The "looking" is already an act within the cave. We happen to always be, and always already are on the path by being. Any turning or looking is looking away.

People sometimes forget just how important the psychological is in the formation of our beliefs — Sam26

I'd dare say the metaphysical (for humans) is the psychological.

Some people think they have all the answers — Sam26

Note: any claim or assertion I make has the implied preface "In my opinion, but then, at tge end of the day, what do I know," notwithstanding any appearance to the contrary.

98% percent of what you read in here is bullshit. — Sam26

And this is not facetious, isn't that residual 2% just our ego's demand for the comfort of certainty in knowledge, a thing we are constructing as we go? Isn't the 2% just well crafted bullshit?

@Banno

The answer to this question is not easy. — Sam26

Always a pleasure Sam. Maybe we sometimes project our doubts to create a framework that only accepts an “answer” (and one of a particular kind).

The practice of philosophy is to improve our thinking, ourselves, like: look at the existing practices and don’t generalize; use an example and examine the affects of changing context; “know your limitations” as @Sam26 says; describe the workings of how decisions are weighed; make explicit the criteria and distinctions imbedded implicitly in our practices.

So “trusting our mind” (@Benj96) is not a blind acceptance of ourselves—judging without examining the terms and requirements we bring or impose, or without considering the hidden implications of what we do in what we say (before it pours out of ours mouth immediately to everyone).

To “trust our mind” is to rely on our potential to think better, which is an active striving, not abandoning thinking because it doesn’t give us an "answer" of a certain form, like science; but doing the best investigation we can (not knowing in advance what that will mean in each case); to learn more about the world that does not respond to scientific “objectivity”, which is up to us, personally (not, “subjectively”) in being “willing to reject our beliefs” (@“Sam26") in order to allow the world to come to us, not just be a reflection of ourselves (even our desire that everything be “objective”). As it were:

…to live [analogously to “think”] deliberately,… learn what it [the object or practice of thought (in context)] had to teach…not to practice resignation …but to live deep and suck out all the marrow of [the issue]… rout all that was not [the issue; specifically: us, getting in the way) …to know it by experience …to give a true account of it [as in, true to it]. — Thoreau, Waldron, 1854, 7p. 62

We should be unwilling to accept ourselves and our culture as we stand. But not jump to a “strange uncertainty” id. (general skeptical distrust of us entirely), and judge before examining, to “hastily conclude”, before knowing the individual terms and criteria on which we measure each thing.

So we should look at ourselves to make sure we attend to the matter at hand in the way it demands, which is a way of conducting ourselves. As with science, which ensures it’s facts through its method (repeatability), philosophy has methods of acting/“thinking” in order to be more cognizant of the part we play in looking at our world, thus learning how to get (our "ego" as @Sam26 says) out of our way so we can learn what actually matters about a thing, what the "essence" of it is, as in what is essential to our culture about it (what are the criteria and mechanics of this practice, situation).

So then virtues, or our better conduct, are a part of our learning about something, our epistemology, like having courage, not being “afraid of being wrong” as @Sam26 says, and empathy, a view cognizant to what matters in each instance (perhaps “knowledge”, perhaps different criteria—and not just “lesser knowledge”, say, “belief”).

:up:

...earnestness is not imbued into what we say, it is demonstrated; as you say, it is “shown”, by not “abandoning”. — Antony Nickles

Yes.

I would say that these “movements” and “feelings” and “actions” do not follow from the word (as if “I am earnest” were a report of something in me, and not just in the sense of a promise, though only believed as much as “I’m not lying”). Everything follows from my being convinced, my judging that you are earnest, which conclusion is “triggered” by the standards, or criteria, that we associate with earnestness—the actions and words that demonstrate you are in earnest. — Antony Nickles

This is an excellent analysis.

Thanks. Austin to the rescue.

Comfort.

If the statement is comfortable, leading to progressive thinking on the matter(in that it makes sense and has a whole thought-wave associated with it), and is super-sound that it's logic appeals to reason (the fact it entertains/enlightens us to a certain perspective), it can be regarded as good conversation. Though this prospect would be based on probabilities, it's still possibly beneficent for multiple reasons(such as if it's false, it still may be possible, and that's negated if it's true). If we have conducted science, we can then determine if it's true, and it ought be a trustworthy source based on comfort - if it fits or seems possible.