While I favor a thorough investigation, I question how likely it is this would produce sufficient evidence to tip the balance one way or another. On the anti-Kavanaugh side, it would only matter if multiple people could corroborate a specific incident, and I think it's unlikely since this hasn't come out so far with the press digging in.

"His guilt or innocence is completely secondary to both parties concerns"

Sad, but true - at least in the aggregate.

The only reasoning is that once nominated his seat is secured and no future investigations could remove him. Which seems silly,

It's not silly. Confirmation only requires 51 votes in the Senate. Removal from office requires 67 votes.

I think what deserves our attention and analyses is the situation when both Kavanaugh and Ford acted, played and performed as actors; yet, in comparison with theatre, they played and represented their own lives and biographies. (By the way, while playing a role, is an actor honest?) The real facts of their lives were entirely overshadowed by the quality and persuasiveness of their performances, and most commentators were talking just about who made a better impression. What is important here is not truth itself, but the condition of the whole game, which make some enunciations looking more or less truthful.

I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with your assertion, "What is important here is not truth itself". Truth is the most important thing here, even if it is not treated that way by politicians. Truth is non-partisan, and we should encourage our elected representatives to keep that in mind.

Excellent points.

If philosophers are not able or willing to transcend these predictable patterns in some manner or another, there's really little to justify their existence.

A great topic for a new thread.

If a person points out something to another person and that other person does the correct thing in the situation to interact with whatever then it would seem that we all perceive alike. — MountainDwarf

Agreed - and this means it is reasonable that we all perceive alike (or within a tolerance).

But, on the mental or psychological level how do we know that their perception of the world isn't more like a person with a sensory disorder?

We don't "know" but we have no good reason to believe that is the case - because, as you said, we have evidence he perceives what we perceive.

This is philosophy, and there is no proof for God, so we can't be sure.

We can be pretty damn sure, but we have to accept the fact that knowledge (in the strict sense) is impossible or at least rare, so we have to settle for justified beliefs.

Regarding solipsism: do you know anyone who is? I doubt it. IMO our basic view of the world is innate: we recognize a distinction between ourselves and everything else - and recognize that there are others like us. This is not taught. It makes sense that we'd have some such innate, relatively accurate, view of the world - because how else could our species (and our ancestor species) have survived? The only thing solipsism has going for it is that it is possible. But we innately believe it is false, and such a belief is worthy of being maintained unless rationally defeated - and mere possibility is not a defeater.

I thought that your argument is that we need to count an infinite number of things in order for there to be an infinite number of things, or at the very least, in order for us to prove or justify that an infinite number of things exists. I don't think any of these two beliefs is true.

We don't need to observe every human being dying in order to prove or justify our belief that all human beings are mortal. — Magnus Anderson

I agree about humans, but this has nothing to do with my position. My issue is that we can't assume some set of properties is instantiated in a real world object solely because we can coherently define the properties.

The abstraction "human being" is derived from things we know exist: we abstract out the properties that we observe in human beings, so there's no question about these abstractions being instantiated in the real world.

The concept of infinity is not formed by abstracting out properties of known existents. The concept is formed by extrapolation of other abstractions. One such extrapolation is the infinity of natural numbers. 4 doesn't exist in the real world; 4-ness is a property of certain states of affairs - those consisting of 4 objects. So we know 4-ness is instantiated. Is infinity-ness instantiated? We can't point to anything that has this property.

The infinity of natural numbers can be conceptualized by contemplating an unending count, but that isn't a process that can be instantiated - that was my point with counting. No, this isn't a proof, because there may be other ways an infinity might be instantiated. But without one to point to, we have no basis to assume it CAN be instantiated.

Again, this reasoning isn't a proof. Rather, it's a justification for me to believe it more likely there are no instantiated infinities in the real world, than that there are.

Relativist: 'A "sphere" (or "ideal sphere") is an abstraction, not an actually existing thing.'

We use abstractions, i.e. symbols, in order to represent reality. For example, the term "human being" is a symbol -- a written or a spoken word -- that can be used to represent certain portions of reality. We don't say human beings don't exist merely because the term "human being" is an abstraction. We only say that human beings don't exist if there is no portion of reality that can be represented by the term "human being". — Magnus Anderson

Agree, but note that what exists is an instantiation of the abstraction: a real world object that has the properties described by the abstraction. I'm just rejecting the argument that an abstracted X implies there are necessarily real-world X. We are more justified in beliefing X if there are clearly instantiations of X.

Relativist: 'You bring up another abstraction: the number of possible paths being infinite. This is hypothetical; in the real world, you cannot actually trace an infinite number of paths. So in the real world you cannot actually COLLECT an infinity. All you can do is to conceptualize.'

You don't need to be able to count an infinite number of things in order for that infinite quantity of things to exist. — Magnus Anderson

Sure, but you need some reason to think the abstracted infinity is instantiated in the real world, otherwise your justification is the mere fact that we can abstractly conceptualize infinity.

I don't see how anyone could doubt that Ford actually was assaulted as she described. It's less certain that Kavanaugh did it because there's some possibility she was mistaken about who did it.

Kavanaugh sounded generally credible, but on the other hand he would clearly have a motivation to lie. His best points centered around his 1982 schedule.

His worst points were his attacks on Democrats. Nothing the Democrats did has bearing on the facts, so bringing this up seemed a deflection that hurts hus credibility. Beyond the question of his guilt/innocence, a SCOTUS candidate should refrain from partisanship, and he should show respect for due process and fact gathering.

Bottom line, based on the limited evidence available, I have a reasonable doubt about Kavanaugh's guilt. However I could not affirm his appointment because there's a sufficiently good chance he did it (>50%), and I think that is far above the threshhold that ought to be applied.

I am wondering if sensus divinitatis should be used in the argument for the existence of God.

It seems to me to be a reasonable epistemic justification for believing in some sort of god(s). In theory, it is a sensing of the existence of god(s), and if true - it can be deemed as trustworthy as any of our other senses. But it's not a basis for an argument for God's existence - your alleged sense of God carries no weight with me, who does not have it. I think you're mistaken in attributing the sensation to God, while you think I'm mistaken for failing to accept what my senses are telling me, or defective for failing to have these senses.

The hypothesis that there is such a thing as sensus divinitatis is based on the idea that all peoples in all cultures throughout history have believed in god(s). Appealing to this basis has the problemaic implication that the sense is very non-specfic - all this sense can be telling anyone is that some sort of god or gods exist, not that some particular conception (or religion) is true.

I have seen a rise in Trump support after he was elected, sort of similar to Germany having an increase in anti-Semitism after Hitler took over. — LD Saunders

I don't think leaders change the points of view of the public, they just make it seem more reasonable to express their views.

"Everybody (bar none) misbehaves at times. Everybody (bar none) behaves unwisely at times. Everybody (bar none) has their own memory of what did or did not happen in the past. "His lies" depends on "her truth". No. I don't automatically believe what women say."

I'm not demanding you believe Ford at this point. I'm asking you to acknowledge that IF she is telling the truth then clearly Kavanaugh is lying, and IF Kavanaugh is lying, then he ought not to be confirmed.

This is not judging who is telling the truth. This is asking about principles, because principles keep getting blurred by people expressing their opinion about who is lying and who should be believed.

It doesn't matter how many people heard her discuss Kavanaugh's behavior. It wasn't criminal when it happened and being brought up 35 years later doesn't make it criminal now, either. — Bitter Crank

That's beside the point. If Ford is telling the truth, then Kavanaugh is lying to Congress and that's sufficient reason to deny his promotion.

I don't know if he's guilty or not. I was just saying that reports of his being a virgin during that period don't carry much relevance to me with regard to his innocence.

IMO, he should not be approved if there's a good chance he indeed did any of the alleged acts. I wish there were more discussion on the standards we'd like to see applied, and less on our personal judgments.

So, how is it that Trump, a person who seems only interested in promoting himself, is supported by about a third of the American population? Is it that they don't comprehend good and evil? Or, is it that they are mistaken, believing that Trump is an individual who is engaged in self-sacrifice and is subservient to others? Trump cares so little about the suffering of others, after the 9/11 attacks, he bragged that he now had the tallest building in New York. It just seems odd to me that a person could even have the level of support Trump does have, given the fact he would be considered a villain by the standards of classic western literature. — LD Saunders

I see at least three camps of Trump supporters:

1) pragmatists, who don't like his personal behaviour but very much like most of the policies he is implementing. A demon who implements the right policy is better than a saint who implements the wrong one.

2) The polemicists- who demonize those who disagree with them politically. They are the first to believe idle rumors and conspiracy theories about people on the opposite side, and last to believe anything bad about the people they support. Lot's of people are delighted that "Trump is just like us".

3) The rationalizers - they supported Trump over "Crooked Hillary", and once a decision is made - they are psychologically disposed to continually rationalize their prior choice. Like the alleged frustrated democrats who haven't accepted the results of the 2016 election; they behave as if the election is still in progress and they must continually to rationalize their choice. You continually hear, "but Hillary...." as part of their rationalization.

But when it comes to before the beginning nobody knows anything. — SteveKlinko

That's self-contradictory. A beginning has no predecessor, or it's not the beginning.

His alleged behaviour is consistent with a virgin who has repressed his sexuality.

I went to an elite, boys-only Catholic High School in Houston, and I wouldn't be the least surprised to learn of one my rich, entitled classmates doing what he is alleged to have done. Plus, the cliques stuck together, so it would be easy to get a friend to corroborate an alibi.

Atheist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there definitely is no God"

Agnostic thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY the arguments are stacked perefectly equal either way, hence l stand mute on the matter"

Theist thus means: "I acknowledge the arguments either way, & am willing to indulge more, but for NOW, l SAY there is a God." Note that, at least in Islam, the religious adherents are called "Believers" ("Moomins" like in the children's TV show). Thus even though Atheism / Theism are unfalsifiable, the Theist is actually defined as a Believer not a Knower and is thus right with science. — SnoringKitten

Few people wold fit your definition of atheist, because it conveys a certainty that most would consider unwarrantable. In addition, it diverges from common usage. A "theist" believes there is a god (or gods). A-theist (or atheist) is taken as the converse, so there's a clear dichotomy: everyone fits into one or the other buckets.

The agnostic label was coined by Huxley, and adopted by Russell and others. The etymology is "not knowing", so it is taken to refer to anyone who doesn't know if there is a god (or gods). One could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. It is problematic to use "agnostic" to label those who believe there is exactly a 50% epistemic probability of god(s) - who can really calculate such a thing? The principle of indifference is problematic because it depends on how you break down the unknowns. It is problematic to propose a trichotomy (atheist-agnostic-theist) because the boundaries would be vague. Agnostic is best thought of as a different dimension.

Your definition of "theist" is fine because it's consistent with typical self-identification: everyone who considers himself a Christian, Muslim, religious Jew, Hindu, or any other mono- or poly- theistic religion fits. But again, it is equally reasonable to identify the set of people who do not fit into the "theist" category.

Does anyone think the following are both true:

1) Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached and should have been removed from office because he committed perjury - lying about getting blow jobs
2) Trump does not deserve to be impeached if he broke laws during the campaign (such as might be uncovered by Mueller's investigation).

My impression is that Lindsay Graham believes this, so I'm curious if anyone else does.

— tim wood

There cannot have not been infinitely many paths TAKEN, there are only infinitely many possible paths that could potentially be taken, but it is impossible to actually follow them - no matter how long we have to try. So these paths exist in the abstract, but not in the real world. — Relativist

Why do they have to be taken to be real? If they're not taken are they not real? .... Each is a possible path. It's the "taken" you object to? But whenever was a clock attached to a number?

Arguably: no, they aren't real.

For starters, look at this physically: it is impossible to determine a position with any precision smaller than a Plank length (1.6 x 10^-35 meters.) Therefore there is a minimum width for possible paths, and thus the number of paths that could possibly be taken is finite. (source).

But what I'm actually objecting to the treatment of abstractions as existents. Triangles do not exist; rather: objects with triangular shapes exist. We form abstractions by contemplating objects with similar features and mentally omitting the non-common features. Philosophers call this the "way of abstraction"). This is not actual existence. For this reason, it is inadequate to point to abstractions (or mental objects) as examples of actual infinities. If someone can come up with an example of an infinity in the real world, that is not just a mental object, then I'd jump on the pro-infinity bandwagon.

I've found incredible rhetorical and persuasive success by appealing to NUMVs (nearly universal moral values). To continue living, to be free from oppression, to be free to pursue happiness, etc... Moral agreements between agents with shared moral values are objectively true in the same sense that a good strategy is objectively likely to lead to victory. — VagabondSpectre

I agree, but I also believe we have an innate capacity for morality - one that seems rooted in empathy - and such a capacity is consistent with natural selection.

Jesus could only have knowledge by acquaintance of that limited set of experiences that he had while he lived, so God cannot be omniscient in that respect. Some (most?) philosophers of religion define omniscience more narrowly as knowledge of all and only true propositions.

"All religion(s) are united by a belief in immortal deities. Immortal deities are by definition capable of magic."
I agree, but philosophy of religion is not a religion. One can learn some things by considering the various arguments for "God's" existence. Do brute facts exist? Is there a first cause? Is there such thing as "knowldege"? Is there something special (teleologically) about sentient life, or is it just an unintended consequence of nature? Do objective moral values exist? I come down on the atheist, or agnostic, side of these - but consideration of these questions does get you thinking.

Presidents rarely have any real impact on the economy, but that's beside the point if people (irrationally) attribute the state of the economy to the president.

That said, I think the enormous corporate tax cuts indeed is contributing to GDP growth a bit. The problem is that the deficits are out of control - and this will have a longer term negative effect that some future president will be inappropriately blamed for.

Thumbs up. I agree wholeheartedly.

There are two levels to this. It may not be unreasonable to suggest the Democrats have made some choices driven by politics (such as failing to notify the entire committee of Ford's original letter). I'm reserving judgment on that, but let's assume they were. Optimizing political gain from facts doesn't imply the facts aren't FACTS. Since there's going to be politics being played, I'd rather it be played this way than by making stuff up (as Trump does..almost every day).

Poltics is....political. Why lament this fact? It SHOULD nevertheless be relevant what the facts are, despite the political theater. It's still good to discuss what we think is the right thing to do, despite the fog of politics.

I also suspect that the political theater isn't really going to change any votes. If a couple Republicans fail to vote to approve Kavanaugh, it may very well be for reasons of good conscience.

So I guess my question to discuss is this: Is there some crucial, essential meaning to words or concepts (whatever) which, if you ever define differently than, you've inherently changed the subject or something?

Effective discourse depends on intersubjectivity: both subjects need to associate the same concept to each word. In practice, we often don't - but we can arrive at a common definitions through discussion. Of course, there are some commonly accepted definitions for many things - even then, there can be different senses of a word.

Okay, so sets are by definition, conceptually finite collections so any attempt to define or talk about infinite collections is incoherent on pain of contradiction. But let's create a new concept and a word to refer to it: "Schmets". Schmets are just like sets, except some schmets can have infinite members provided they are defined appropriately. So now the question is, are there sets or are there schmets? Well, since sets are, by hypothesis, necessarily finite, they aren't very useful in mathematics since nearly every standard and non-standard maths uses infinity in some form or fashion (ultrafinitism doesn't look very promising). So it seems mathematicians are using Schmets and so we can just dispense with using sets in maths.

Case in point. When you say "schmets can have infinite members" do you mean "schmets can have infinitely many members" or do you mean "schmets can have infinity as a member"?

Here's a list of mathematical objects that are potential topics of discussion, each corresponding to a more general Cantorian definition of set but which have important distinctions:

Finite collections of finite objects (e.g. {1,3,5}
Infinite collections of finite objects (e.g. the set of real numbers)
fine collections of infinite objects (e.g.: {aleph-0, aleph-1})
infinite collections of infinite objects (e.g. the set of cardinal numbers)

" I'm hoping Blasey Ford remembers a salient detail about Kavanaugh's anatomy and he's forced to drop his pants. "
ROFL. Are you thinking what I'm thinking about Stormy's description of der Fuhrer's mushroom? (I actually think she was trying to get Melania's attention).

I don't know if he'll be reelected, but if he's not reelected, it will be because of his crazy behaviour. Look how poorly he's doing in the polls despite the economy doing well - it's because of this behaviour. Such behaviour matters to some people; it remains to be seen how big a factor this will be. I anticipate Democrats will run against Trump's behaviour.

The economy could be a 2-edged sword: higher GDP growth doesn't result in every individual making more money. People who feel left behind could easily react.

Philosophy of religion is philosophy. It touches on metaphysics an epistemology, so certainly it's worth discussing.

Relativist: Consider the future: it doesn't exist.
Sophisticat: Neither does the past, whether finite or infinite, according to the A theory of time, which you brought up for no apparent reason. The A theory of time is a red herring; this metaphysical position is irrelevant to the argument that you are trying to make.

You are free to disagree with my conclusion, since it's not a deductive proof. It's just an explanation as to why I personally consider it more likely the past is finite. A-theory is a critical assumption because under B-theory, all points in time have identical ontological properties. In A-theory, past, present, and future are ontologically distinct. Tomorrow and yesterday have in common the fact that neither exists, but yesterday has the distinction that it actually DID exist. In general, causation is not a transitive relation: A causes B does not entail B causes A. Yesterday caused today, not vice versa - so the relation to the past is different from the relation to the future.

The reason a temporal process will never reach infinitely far into the future is that there is nothing for it to reach: a process can start at point A and reach point B, but if there is no point B, then talk about reaching something doesn't make sense. Turn this around, and you get the same thing: you can talk about reaching the present from some point in the past, but if there is no starting point (ex hypothesi), the talk about reaching from somewhere doesn't make sense, unless you implicitly assume your conclusion (that time has a starting point in the past).

I agree with what you said, but it's beside the point. We agree that infinity is not reached to or from, but that just implies we need look elsewhere for our conception of an infinite future. The future is NOT the destination, it is the unending causal process following the arrow of time. The concept of "completeness" is key: the process for the future is never complete. On the other hand, the past is certainly complete - there is no continuing process - the process has completed (except for the finite process of appending an additional day every 24 hours). That is another way that the past has ontologically distinct properties from the future.

You can decide these distinctions are irrelevant, but you cannot claim the distinction isn't there if A-therory is true.

This just in.

A former Yale classmate of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Deborah Ramirez told Ronan Farrow of The New Yorker that he allegedly shoved his penis in her face while she was intoxicated. 

"We don't know what actually happened. "
I agree. I'm just asking if you agree IN PRINCIPLE that 1) if he did lie, he ought not to be approved; 2) that the judgment of whether or not he lied should be based on a preponderance of the evidence (i..e. it's more likely than not).

"Does "lying" carry the same weight as "misrepresenting the facts?"
Not necessarily in general, and I don't see how that's a factor in this case - but I'm fine with taking that into account if that is indeed a factor.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved. That's a lower bar than in a criminal case, but it seems absurd to put someone on the court if we feel they PROBABLY lied, despite there being a reasonable doubt that he lied.

You didn't address the issue of Kavanaugh possibly having lied. I suggest that IF he lied, it would be inappropriate to approve his appointment. Even if these hearings are 90% political theater, I would hope we can all agree that they ought to mean SOMETHING, and accepting lies implies the hearings are completely worthless.

We don't know that he lied, and I certainly don't think a mere accusation is sufficient reason to assume he did. But the possibilty that he lied should be taken seriously, and this is ample reason to take both her and Kavanaugh's testimony seriously, and to obtain as much additional evidence as they can by pushing for a more thorough investigation. I think each Senator should make a judgment based on his/her view of the preponderance of the evidence: i.e. if they think it's more likely than not that he lied, then he should not be approved.

First of all, please refrain from calling me stupid. I could very well be mistaken, and you are welcome to identify flaws in my reasoning or to just disagree since I'm not claiming my position is mathematically provable. But if you'd like to critique me in a reasonable way, please try to understand what I'm saying.

I am trying to show that there is a distinction between abstractions and the ontic objects of the real world. There cannot have not been infinitely many paths TAKEN, there are only infinitely many possible paths that could potentially be taken, but it is impossible to actually follow them - no matter how long we have to try. So these paths exist in the abstract, but not in the real world.

Those large numbers and quantities of things that manifest in the universe are countable: if we can conceive of one number (i) we can conceive of each number that follows (i+1). Infinity is not a number, in that sense. Each natural number can be reached by successive addition; infinity cannot be reached. Transfinites have mathematical properties just as do groups, rings and fields in abstract algebra, so having mathematical relations does not imply they have a referrent in the real world.

Lying under oath crosses the line. If there is a preponderance of evidence he lied, that seems a reasonable standard.

'Your "conceptual mapping" of a finite past was a semi-infinite number line. You say you cannot think of a corresponding "conceptual mapping" for an infinite past? Really?'

No, it's not just a semi-infinite number line, because that omits the temporal context. Time does not exist all at once, as does an abstract number line.

Consider the future: it doesn't exist. Rather, each future day just has the potential for eventually existing. The mapping of days to a number line is a real time process: the present moves to a new day every 24 hours. Each future day is a future present. At no point will we reach a point in time that is infinitely far into the future from today: each individual future day is a finite distance from the present. What is infinite is that this temporal process is unending. The future procession of time is a journey without end.

Contrast this with the past. The present is the END of a journey of all prior days. That would be the mirror image of reaching a day infinitely far into the future, which cannot happen. A temporal process cannot reach TO infinity, and neither can a temporal process reach FROM an infinity.

Re: statue of limitations, there has been a trend to remove these in instances of sexual abuse of children, so Maryland is not exceptional in this regard. Nevertheless, it is still unclear in this particular case- they have no statute of limitations for FELONY assault, and it's ambiguous as to whether or not this would qualify. That wouldn't stop her from reporting the crime, and possibly getting a police investigation. My guess is that it's unlikely they could get enough evidence for a conviction, since the hurdle is "beyond a reasonable doubt." And of course, that needn't be the standard in the case of a judicial appointment. "Beyond reproach" would be a better standard.