I don't believe you.
I suspect you have visited a hospital and that you did so because you understand the scientific method is the most reliable way to uncover the facts.

Not necessarily.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#StaDetPhyThe

If you, or a loved one, became seriously ill or injured you would not rely upon the scientific method?

OK.

I don't believe you.
Nobody is that irrational.

I suspect you only say this is your belief.
But when you become seriously ill or injured you go to a hospital because you understand that the method of science is more reliable than alternative methods.

I disagree.
Facts are discovered by employing a particular method, the scientific method.
If you do not employ that method you are not accessing any facts.

I have to say I don't think a lot of those apply in western cultures.

— Michael

The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation — Michael

It may be true that there are more men in positions of political power than women, but I think this is more often because men are more dedicated in pursuit of this goal than are women.
This disparity can be accounted for because of differences in men and women and I don't agree that it is the result of an oppressive patriarchy.

Violence: women are more prone to being abused — Michael

This actually is not true.
In domestic disputes women are more likely to initiate violence, men are simply better at inflicting it than are women so that the threat to women is higher.
Over all men are more likely to be the victims of violence in general than are women.
The disparity here is because men in general are more capable of causing injury when a domestic conflict is elevated to violence.

Paid work: women are likely to be paid less — Michael

Again this is on average and it is because men are more likely to pursue wage increases and promotions compared to women.
When competing with men women are less likely to view themselves as a valued asset compared to men.
This disparity is the result of difference between men and women not systematic oppression.
For the most part when a woman is doing the same exact job as a man, with the same amount of experience and qualifications, the pay is equal.

Sexuality: women's sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively — Michael

Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture — Michael

Both masculinity and femininity has idealized representations in culture, the expectation to represent those idealizations are just as irrational for men as they are for women.
I simply don't agree there is any disparity here.

These are not the only two possibilities.

A third option could be your purpose is to generate a new meme.

I don't know if that would mean your purpose is for others still or not.

If I was a student that wanted to cheat in your measurement class I would still have to have some idea of what a device produced as a measurement.
If I did not over hear or see any device I would not very likely cheat successfully simply from guessing.

Your view is that facts are simply "shared beliefs" however without shared observations why should there be any shared beliefs?

You are speaking to accuracy of facts then.
The degree which the results vary between students in your example would be within a particular tolerance.
It would still be a fact that the weight of the stone would be what is measured by a device not decided upon by the students whims.

So you are in a science class and you are supposed to weigh a stone.
The scales says one thing.
But that does not matter, the weight of the stone is what ever you want it to be despite what the scale says?

Well feminism certainly had an impact in western cultures there is no disputing that.

I wonder if feminists should be considered original and significant female philosophers.
That certainly would increase the number among the ranks of philosophers if we take feminism into account would it not?

That is what is going on here.
You are claiming something you can't substantiate and then suggesting that it is funny when I point that out.

I think I see your point.
I did not mean to imply that there are not or never have been social constructs that result in gender disparity.

I just don't agree with the view that social constructs account for all gender disparity.

Maybe you are not a martyr to your values.

I don't understand this.
Sorry.
Can you rephrase or go into more depth?

That was sort of my point.
It is not social constructs that accounts for some gender disparities.
For example most men are not willing or interested in being stay at home parents compared to women.
That simply is not as validating to most men compared to women.

I argue both. Going by the evidence I cited, women are less willing to make the necessary sacrifices and are naturally less capable. — Emptyheady

Having a difference in priorities does not make women less capable in my opinion.

I agree that men and women make different decisions based on different set of priorities that are driven by biological imperatives but I do not agree that being a woman automatically makes you incapable of doing something as good as a man, well except for purely physical things of course.

The point I was making was that I do not believe there is grounds to argue that women are less capable than men are, say for example at confrontation, but that women not as willing as are men.

I do not believe it is sexist to point out that, compared to men, women are less willing to do what is necessary to be a top competitor in certain arena's of competition and that this, more than anything else, accounts for male dominance in areas like science and philosophy.

By and large women simply don't have the will or interest to make the necessary commitments and sacrifices. even women that would be capable are more likely to make other things a priority.

(6) I have omitted perhaps the most obvious reason why men and women differ at the highest levels of accomplishment: men take more risks, are more competitive, and are more aggressive than women. — Emptyheady

I pretty much agree here.
I think that women are not as competitive as men are.
Women in general seem to be unwilling to put in the same level of effort, commitment and sacrifice as men when it comes to excelling.

I don't think you can argue that women are fundamentally incapable compared to men, except for perhaps in pure physical prowess, and even then on a pound for pound basis women are just as capable as men physically.

Welcome back.

You are claiming it is a standard view, but you can't substantiate that, and you believe that is amusing?
Ok.

If you want to claim that your view is the standard view, there should be some evidence that substantiates that claim.
Simply insisting that you were taught as much does not substantiate your claim.

It is amusing to me that you have gone to school and regard the matter as settled.
Rarely is that the case in philosophy.

Simply insisting that you were taught that it was the standard view is not very convincing either.
Something like a poll among professionals should be cited to substantiate your claim.

His bibliography makes him more credible than you.

So if a stone weighs x amount.
A person can dispute this as a fact and claim that it actually weighs y amount?

Because facts are just what you have been taught or happen to believe?

I guess another way to interpret my question would be

Why can't it be true that
facts are what is the case regardless of your beliefs
and a fact that
facts are what is the case regardless of your beliefs

A fact is what is the case regardless of your belief... — Banno

Is it a fact that
facts are what is the case regardless of your belief
or
is it true that
facts are what is the case regardless of your belief?

That is my point.
P-zombies lack consciousness from definition only, there is no analytical reason that they are not conscious.
We cannot, from our encounters, be sure that we are not ourselves p-zombies or that others may be p-zombies.
It is just as conceivable that we are p-zombies as it is that consciousness is not physical.

But very obviously we are not p-zombies, so a p-zombie, as described by the argument, is incoherent in that it does not actually distinguish humans with consciousness from p-zombies.

Many people criticize the argument because it is an equal logical possibility that we are p-zombies.

The problem is it is just as conceivable that we are p-zombies as it is that consciousness is not physical.
It is easy to reject this argument as incoherent for this reason, because very obviously we are not p-zombies.
Very obviously humans are physical and very obviously we are conscious, what is not made obvious by the argument is why it would be necessary to define consciousness in such a way that consciousness must be excluded from the physical,

We could conceivably define humans in the same way and offer that because humans are physical that this is mutually exclusive of consciousness.

But of course it is not true of humans so in what way is the lack of consciousness of a p-zombie something which is coherent?

This is strictly semantic though...
If we can conceive of p-zombies then consciousness isn't physical
We can conceive of p-zombies
Therefore, consciousness isn't physical

The problem with accepting this argument is that it could mean that we are all p-zombies because we are all physical.

if we are strictly physical then we are not conscious (by definition)
we appear to be strictly physical
therefor we may be p-zombies (by definition)

The p-zombie argument is conceivable in a semantic way only.
We can conceivably define consciousness such that strictly physical humans do not possess it.
The p-zombie argument does not explain anything though, it is not conceivable in the sense that it is an alternative explanation for conscious phenomena.

Facts, philosophers like to say, are opposed to theories and to values, they are the objects of certain mental states and acts, they make truth-bearers true and correspond to truths, they are part of the furniture of the world.

-Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy

That is pretty much how the zombie argument works.
P-zombies have no consciousness by definition only.
It is certainly conceivable that we could define consciousness is such a way that strictly physical humans do not possess it.
But what that accomplishes remains to be seen.

The difference is semantic not analytic.
P-zombies are not conscious by definition.

I guess you win then.

This is cool thanks for the share!

I am not sure I follow here...

I get from this that you are saying that having a model does not entail there will be an empirical verification of that model.

So I suppose that you are suggesting that because I am deducing that if there is certainty beyond logical doubt and that this will entail an effective procedure that this will not necessarily become empirically verified or may even become falsified?

Is that right?


.