That makes this whole exercise beside the point except as a hell-in-a-handbasket kvetch. — T Clark

The fact that I don't think "the whole critical thinking, rational thing" is something that can be "accomplished"? Well, OK, but I certainly think much could be done to encourage people to think for themselves, and even more can be done to make factual, useful information generally available.
The handbasket comes in the form of powerful factions that oppose any effort in that direction.

Thanks for buying me and giving me a sweet name, though I am arguing the exact opposite of this. It's because the rules and conventions for naming exist that we can't just make up whatever rules we want. — Judaka

Exactly:

It [that the dog's name is Mark] is true within provision constraints, by reason of cause (you named him) and effect (he answers to it). The provisional constraints are:if the ownership of dogs and the convention of naming are accepted by claimant and questioner, and no other claimant has previously given the same dog a different name, and the dog complies by answering to the name.
It is not true in any universal or eternal sense. — Vera Mont

If any of the provisions are missing, then the facts are more correctly stated as: "I call my dog Mark." If he doesn't answer to Mark, then it is not his name.

Under one rule, we will not be into living but be into mere existence. — Beena

Do you mean to say that every immigrant in the Canada is cooking boiled beef and cabbage, because they're under British-style governance?

I agree, and I think this situation has emerged due to the continuous disappointments on politics and all what is related to governance, political theory, etc... I mean: it is not a generational issue but a dysfunctional praxis. — javi2541997

It's a spiral, isn't it? Government disappoints people, people disengage from government; a now less responsible government lets people down, people abandon government; government therefore is opened to corruption, people reject it; government becomes so rotten that it actively promotes fraudulent electoral process.
Some of this is due to poor design - lots of tinkering, but no structural upgrade since the 18th century - some due to the size and diversity of populations, and a very large part to financial interests.

No, it's true by convention. Your opinion and your argument about the dog needing to comply to the owner calling its name is just something you made up. — Judaka

Really? In that case, I name you Ruby Tuesday, and from this day forward, that is your name, by the conventions of naming and ownership -- oh, by the way, I just bought you for 300 shekels. You'd better be worth it!

It's not just the definition of words that is defined by convention, but but a lot of things. — Judaka

A lot of things may be. But the Earth was never flat, and late-comer apes, however many conventions they invent, or wilful ignorance, or self-delusion can't turn an uniformed guess into a fact.

And we also have a culture war around race and politics (a low calorie version compared to yours). Ours hasn't been fueled by a Trump equivalent. — Tom Storm

Yet.

The irony for Australia in the post–Cold War era is that our dependence on the United States has grown as the strategic options in our region have narrowed.

Right-wing or ‘far right’ extremism is not a new phenomenon, in Australia or internationally, but in recent years has re-emerged to become more visible and a growing threat to national security.

But there is hope https://theconversation.com/did-australia-just-make-a-move-to-the-left-183611
More, anyway than for the UK... and Canada's got some serious issues with assholity.

You haven't told us how to go about accomplishing the whole critical thinking, rationality thing. — T Clark

I never said it can be done at all.

The advantage my solution has over yours is that it's something you, I, and all people of good will can do right now. — T Clark

I wish you all the success in the world!

So, you equate people who support Donald Trump with people who drive their SUVs into a crowd. — T Clark

He supports them. Anyone who supports him indirectly supports them. They don't seem to understand this. Cognitive dissonance.
Voltaire nailed it:

Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can persuade you to commit atrocities.

How do we get important projects initiated and completed without broad cooperation? — Tom Storm

You don't. You can't. You won't.
Dogma, propaganda and uncritical following of megalomaniacs will never allow it.

No, I don't, but I think changing our attitudes toward each other would be easier — T Clark

Okay. You tell us how to go about that, and I'm on board.

As I noted, many of the posts in this thread show a clear lack of respect for them - the irrational, non-critical thinking hoi polloi. — T Clark

I just don't know how to respect people who drive an SUV into a crowd, post death- and rape-threats to elected officials, value their guns above their children and want their republic-not-democracy presided over by Trump or De Santis?

Why should anyone make common cause for someone who feels contempt for them? — T Clark

They shouldn't. I know I couldn't make common cause with someone who would prefer to see me hanging from a lamppost.

They won't ask, they will tell. Administrative centers will be reduced to ashes before they land, and the first words out of their sound producing orifices will be, "We bought this ball now we are boss. Get lost, feeble earthlings, and don't let the door hit your asses on your way out!" — BC

That could happen. If so, I can't see any way to prevent it. OTOH, why assume all technologically advanced life-forms are like us?

In what way do you agree? It seems that you are unwilling to label things as true when they're true by convention or manmade rules. — Judaka

I agree that the definition of words is established by convention.
I don't agree that facts are controlled by public opinion.

If I name my dog Mark, is it true that his name is Mark? — Judaka

It is true within provision constraints, by reason of cause (you named him) and effect (he answers to it). The provisional constraints are: if the ownership of dogs and the convention of naming are accepted by claimant and questioner, and no other claimant has previously given the same dog a different name, and the dog complies by answering to the name.
It is not true in any universal or eternal sense.

we may disagree on why it is that laws of mathematics are different from the rules of chess — Judaka

You mean in that one is a global constant, rigorously testable and verifiable, while the other is ephemeral fancy, subject to change from place to place and time to time? Yes, we might.

I think our conclusions are the same. — Judaka

There is another statement I find disputable, but won't dispute further.

As I see it, the main requirement for democracy is a sense of common purpose, not "critical thinking." — T Clark

The biggest problem with that solution is that the entrenched positions shored up by dogma and propaganda prevent any possibility of finding any such common purpose. The factions can't - or refuse to - agree even on a common enemy to unite them.
If you know a way to nullify the effects of dogma and propaganda without critical thought, please share it.

So arrogance, pride and brainwashing are the sources of social conflict? — Joshs

They're not the sources of conflict; those go back deep into history. They do perpetuate entrenched political positions; hamper if not outright prevent communication, revision and compromise; they escalate confrontation into conflict.

True it takes time for Education to resolve our problems, but it is the only way to save our liberty and personal power. — Athena

Both are already lost in many nations, along with the US.

Along those lines people are then easily divided, because criticism of the narrative becomes a criticism of the person themselves. Communication becomes impossible, because every debate is a battle between personas. — Tzeentch

Exactly so!!

Critical thought is what is needed, but can critical thought even be learned? — Tzeentch

It could be cultivated, in school and in the media. Unfortunately, critical thought has become the prime target for right-wing governments -- governments in charge of public education and broadcasting.

The authors offer a few theoretical explanations, including the fact that critical thinking may be viewed negatively by right-wing individuals (due to group loyalty and respect for authority), or the theory that blunting one’s cognition presents a strategic advantage if one’s goal is to avoid information and thinking that threatens one’s worldview.

or preparing them to govern themselves and to eventually participate in governing a nation ruled by reason, not authority over the people. A nation that argues reasoning with logic and not guns. — Athena

For "king", I read "$$", but for the rest, I agree. Except that I don't believe there is time for an eventuality that relies on future education - which, in any case, is not currently achievable.

I think this is because of the relationship between the rules and conventions with the claim, as well as the cultural attitude towards these rules and conventions. Do you agree? I'm not saying the laws of mathematics and the rules of chess are on the same level, but as far as truth is concerned, it's not about that. — Judaka

I partially agree. I don't consider the definition of a word "a claim" that is verifiably true or false: it is, indeed, established by conventional usage. Nor do I consider the laws of mathematics to be "claims"; I assume, without expert knowledge, that they have been adequately tested for a high enough degree of probability that if a bridge falls down, I'm more likely to doubt the authenticity of the steel than the equations.
As to the cultural aspect, no. I don't agree that the truth of a claim regarding reality is in any way dependent on the attitude of any group of people.
The rules of games come into neither category: they're unreal; anything can be true.

Another example would be that the creation of the rules of chess had no truth value, — Judaka

Correct

but that, for example, you can't move your pawns backwards is a rule in chess, there is a truth value

Of course. As a claim, it can be disputed, tested, verified and proven....
.... within the confines of its context.
Obviously, you can move a pawn backwards; it's just that the rules of chess forbid you do it during a game. If anyone doubts that - and they can - you show them the rule book.

the idea is that the claim is "indisputable" — Judaka

It's indisputable, because there is nothing in it to dispute: it's not a claim; it's a definition.
A triangle is a triangle. No truth value attached; it's the arbitrary designation of thing with three sides, signified by an arrangement of letters in the Roman alphabet, derived from two Latin words.

these statements are true by convention — Judaka

The names of things are the names of things. True by the nature and function or language.
If you want to call that convention, OK.

What is consciousness? What is the right thing to do? Is society fair? Is life meaningful or meaningless? Who is telling the truth and what beliefs are we taking for granted. — Andrew4Handel

Some of those topics will be harder to investigate than others. Not least of your problem will stem from the assumption that language is intelligible, which is by no means always the case. I wish you luck and success, and offer my willingness to supply any small slivers of enlightenment I may have inadvertently collected over the years.

You seem to think you made a point. You didn't. — Banno

Ouch! :cry:

So even ↪Vera Mont
, venturing tentatively onto a previously unexplored floor for fear of falling through, holds gravity indubitable. — Banno

It wasn't my first encounter with gravity. Having extensive experience of gravity, I formed a high degree of confidence on the probability of its continued operation; thus it has become one of those things takes for granted and doesn't pay attention to unless there is some particular reason - e.g, being invited to the space station.

You've refuted a lot of claims that I didn't make and I can't see how anything you said is related to my argument. — Judaka

Only one asaik : that a statement regarding the name of a dog is equivalent to restating the definition of a geometric shape.
If my response was unrelated to your argument, that might have been because you moved your argument.
From the original context:
"Things like "triangles have three sides, for instance. The simple example seems powerful because it's impossible to reasonably refute, — Judaka"
"There is nothing there to refute: three sides are what defines "triangle. ""

to:

"A shape that has three sides is a triangle", and "any shape with three sides is a triangle", aren't much different from giving your dog the name "Mark" and insisting that it is true that your dog's name is Mark. — Judaka

But that's all right; it was yours to move.

I don't seem to have a particular overriding goal in my life but if I had to choose it would be the desire to know the truth and understand the reality I have been thrown in. — Andrew4Handel

All of the truth about everything, or just some particular truths about some particular things? The latter is doable: just pick a subject, make yourself a project plan, then question every aspect of the subject and test every answer. Whatever you try to discover the truth about, you'll need a method of approach.

"A shape that has three sides is a triangle", and "any shape with three sides is a triangle" — Judaka

Are almost the same statement. The first iteration may be taken to refer to "a" shape; a single instance. The second is generalized to all examples of the shape. Neither proves nor supports the other. The thing is named and defined by "triangle" and "three sides"; there is no veracity or context to dispute.

The name given to a dog does not define even one dog, let alone an entire species. It can be disputed, if, for example I had adopted Mark from a pound, and then the previous owner showed up, claiming his dog named Rex. Neither claim disputes the animal's dogness.

I'm "questioning" the floor of this room.. — Banno

And so you should! Experience of - i.e. having previously tested - something may well have convinced you that it is what it seems to be; that a statement is true (or has a high level of probability in the current situation, context and moment in time) or a floor is solid.
The first time you encounter a particular floor, your previous experience of floors in general may have given you a high level of confidence in them, but there is also a chance that you will fall through it. The degree of probability of one condition (safe) vs another (unreliable) depends on a number of factors, at least some of which are available for observation and testing before you put your full weight on that unknown floor. Your odds against plunging to your death are directly proportional to your ability to doubt even the self-evident.

On the contrary, it would appear that some things must be held indubitable in order for others to be doubted. — Banno

Looks suspiciously like dogma, that does.


There are different ways of testing truth.

Because you seem'd so certain in your doubt... — Banno

What doubt? Where?

So we agree that there are certainties, that some things are indubitable — Banno

No, we don't. I agreed with Andrew that many people feel that some things are certain, but not necessarily the same ones. I also agree that many people agree about which things are certain, but I have no way of know knowing whether you and I share any specific certainties. I may have stopped doubting some things; you may have stopped doubting some things (though not necessarily the same ones), but that doesn't protect those categories of things from doubt by other people; it doesn't render the things in themselves indubitable.
Every idea, statement, assertion and belief is subject to doubt, regardless of your or my personal convictions.

Just pointing out that there are things that you do not doubt. — Banno

Why?

Sure, ask folk to show why they take something to be true. — Banno

I didn't ask anyonewhy. I asked the persons who made the original assertion

I feel that somethings are undeniably true — Andrew4Handel

how they arrived at that conclusion.

It goes both ways. — Banno

Why should it? He made an assertion. I queried his methods of verification.
But no answer will ever be forthcoming, so it's a futile inquiry.

Are you happy to doubt that you are reading this? — Banno

Neither happy nor sad, just failing to see how it applies to the methods of verification that computer scientists, rocket engineers or surgeons would use on any new datum offered to them.

At the least, while you might be able to doubt anything, it makes no sense to doubt everything. — Banno

Okay. Relevance to topic?

I was not asking whether hearts and cardiologists exist; I was asking for methods of testing the truth of a statement; for the criteria whereby to decide whether it is one that should be enshrined as indisputable or classified as ambiguous enugh to debate.

Would you ask this to computer scientists, a rocket engineer or surgeon? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, if they asserted that some truths are indisputable. And each one would have a plausible answer as to how he would go about testing the veracity of a statement about any aspect of his speciality - and probably all of their areas of expertise.
Would they give intelligible answers regarding moral questions? Very possibly, but I wouldn't count on it.

You pose the question it seems any a way that seems to imply that it is too hard — Andrew4Handel

Nothing to do with relative difficulty. I've simply been asking you to outline your method of approach.

we already have a huge body of accurate and useful knowledge — Andrew4Handel

About what? Surgery? That was acquired by cutting open dead humans and live dogs for about 100 years; followed by two more centuries of trial and error.

Regarding morality, we have disputes on which occasional regional consensus is reached - then are challenged again, either from inside or outside, but OTH money culture so dominates the entire globe that it's difficult to discern any sense in the controversies, and of course nobody has ever been able to make sense of nationalism and religion.

I would just continue the current process but apply it more rigour in non science and technology areas. — Andrew4Handel

The current and traditional processes of settling moral disagreements are repression and armed conflict. Can't see doing that with any more rigour.

When something is shown not to be factual then we institute an arbitration process such as how to run a society based on various people's desires and preferences and belief systems without the option of truth claims. — Andrew4Handel

To which imaginary "we" are you referring here? Name the country where that has been done... unless, by "arbitration process" you mean a few centuries of off-and-on democracy interspersed with periods of despotism.

So yes it can be important to clarify to yourself and others what is and is not true. — Andrew4Handel

For yourself, it is essential to healthy survival. And it must be done through a process of your own invention, as seems appropriate to your questions and your needs. Whether the same process can be applied to others.... maybe. But only they know whether, how, when and by whom.
If you want to help them, write down your method step by step, as clearly and comprehensively as possible, and write a book. If you publish it, they will come. ... some of them...

Reason hasn't failed, either.
People, however, choose to employ reason for some decisions and not for others.

The problem that I see we have is that we cannot say "genocide is wrong" and that be a factual statement. This could lead to moral nihilism.
The truth may be that nothing is right or wrong and there is no justice. — Andrew4Handel

Yep, that problem's been around for a while now.

Until we get to this point of acknowledging it our moral/justice systems will be a fiction. Acknowledging will mean we can decide that to do next and what the consequence is. — Andrew4Handel

That will be fine. When/if it happens.

Some philosophers do acknowledge the problem of moral truths like Hume's no is from an ought and
that they cannot be comparable to scientific facts. — Andrew4Handel

OK

At a basic level it would be interesting to see what remains when we have clarified fact from fiction, faith, desires/wishes and supposition. I am skeptical that we are anywhere near building societies on facts. — Andrew4Handel

It would, yes.
So I ask you yet again once more and for the final time:

How does one go about deciding which "things" are undeniably true, which are conditionally, provisionally, situationally, temporarily or partially true, and which things are false to what degree? How does one determine what truths are worth preserving, by what means and how long? Hoe does one "prove" the grounds for sufficient ambiguity to dispute? — Vera Mont

By acknowledging that it is a set of preferences not facts divine or otherwise and not taking any claims for granted. — Andrew4Handel

What's that in plain English? And how does it reconcile morality (which brand??) with fact (which ones??)

I gave an example in a previous thread — Andrew4Handel

That's not helpful to people who haven't read, or can't remember all your previous threads.

I said that we know language works — Andrew4Handel

It works equally well to convey falsehoods, misconceptions, ambiguity and jocularity.

"I live in the house with a red door and blue car outside" and people can successfully locate our house. — Andrew4Handel

You could just as easily say "I live in a big white house with four columns supporting a portico on Pennsylvania Avenue," and people could find the house all right, yet the statement might still be untrue. You could say: "I live in a reinforced plasteel bunker on the dark side of Vega Prime." and that could be true, but much harder to verify.

I didn't ask: "About what subjects are there many documented facts?"
I asked: How do you go about finding out or testing for a truth that someone "feels" is undeniable? And by what process do you decide which are worth preserving?

Let's take ethnic or racial or sex differences. — Andrew4Handel

Well,that didn't take long!

It would be a charade to act like people are all the same

It would, indeed! As would pretending that "equal" (in a specified context) = "identical".

Things like "triangles have three sides, for instance. The simple example seems powerful because it's impossible to reasonably refute, — Judaka

There is nothing there to refute: three sides are what defines "triangle. " One might generalize from that a bigger truth: "the definition of any thing is true of all examples of that thing."

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism" outside of genuinely ambiguous things that have proven good grounds to dispute. — Andrew4Handel

So do many people feel that - only not about the same truths you consider undeniable.
And how does one test for "undeniability"? How does one go about deciding which "things" are undeniably true, which are conditionally, provisionally, situationally, temporarily or partially true, and which things are false to what degree? How does one determine what truths are worth preserving, by what means and how long? Hoe does one "prove" the grounds for sufficient ambiguity to dispute?

But humans, unique among animals, can conceive of something better. — hypericin

Conceive, yes. At least, according their own code of morality and standards. Achieve, no.
Quite the reverse: having the unique ability to conceive of what they themselves consider better than animals, and the ability to recognize their own potential for less good than other animals - what they call evil - they proceed to do an astounding amount of the latter.

and is what is truly superlative about humanity, above every other animal. — hypericin

How is that "above", except in terms of power to destroy?

To the best of my knowledge, current AI technology is really not a threat since they are really just pretty clever software agents (ie. an old computer science term for specialized software that can mimic some of the work that use to be done only by human beings) — dclements

That is an immense existential threat, right there. How many of these clever machines, and how much of their capability is dedicated to weapons of mass destruction? Controlled by which humans?
Robots can do a good deal of work that has previously been humans - but whether that's overall good or bad for humans is a matter that requires some very close examination. Machines that do our arduous, tedious and dangerous work are not a threat. Machines that do our killing and destroying are.

“I want to sort of blow the whistle and say we should worry seriously about how we stop these things getting control over us.”

Same old problem, isn't it?
And I have the usual questions about his frame of reference:
What "us"? Since when are humans in any sense a united collective, in any sense other the name of a species?
Who/what is in control of "us" now?
How many of "us" are in control of the technology as it exists today? Which ones? What, exactly, do they control, and to what end?

It seems to me, the danger is not in the intelligence of the machines, but in the mind of the people who program the machines. This is the same mistake the storybook Creator made: he gave his creatures rules to restrain their behaviour (that didn't turn out so well), when he should have given them a positive purpose (that the poor things are still groping for.)

“It knows how to program so it’ll figure out ways of getting around restrictions we put on it. It’ll figure out ways of manipulating people to do what it wants.”

What would it want?
Isn't that the logical thing for a vegetative life-form to do: broadcast its seed as widely as possible? Given its scale, it would send its progeny out to the stars.
But it doesn't need humans for that - or any other reason, actually. Worst case: it gobbles up all the energy and leaves us to make our own subsistence - just like God did.

I don't see how humans by the nature of being humans can be superior to other animals as animals themselves. — Cobra

That was my whole argument regarding all those "crowning achievement" superlatives early in the thread. I wasn't putting humans down; merely pointing out that better or worse depend entirely on the criteria of comparison.

But if a fish could speak and be intelligent enough to have enough self-awareness, introspection, and skilled enough understanding and use of language to deem humans "superior" in the first place, then OMG, they would not be fish. — Cobra

Who says they can't speak? We don't speak their language; that doesn't make them inferior.
Look, instead, at their system of values, which is formed by their environment and evolution - just as our system of values is formed by our environment and evolution. From a fishy POV, we're lousy swimmers, slow and poorly co-ordinated; can't even stay underwater without those big clumsy fish-imitation devices we wear in the water; can't change colour; can't attract minnows with our tongues; can't puff up and harpoon something with a poison dart; can't groom a shark; can't burrow into the silt and disappear; can't chase down a meal... bloody useless! We're not superior, or even barely adequate in any way that would make sense to a fish.

Have you ever seen an evildoer who seemed genuinely happy? — Tzeentch

Where does one normally see confirmed evildoers? I suspect the situation itself creates a bias.
I have seen people happy because they were doing something blessed or patriotic in their own estimation, which to me seemed quite wrong.