There are revolutions in science though, such as the Copernican revolution. — Olivier5

And the history of science has gone from religious hogwash to modern science that focuses primarily on detaching itself from our cognitive biases. And my argument regarding human perception in relation to our scientific findings and how reality is not derived from our consciousness is not dependent on the history of science. Also, back in those days, there wasn't anything called science, it was metaphysics, philosophy, and it didn't have any of the scrutinies applied even close to how things are conducted today. Only the old theories that didn't apply biases are the ones that have survived into better forms today, like in the case of Newton. Most of the modern ways of conducting science have been developed from the 19th century up until today. This is what I meant with:

Understanding science requires understanding the process, the practice, the history, and the terminology long before even touching upon the actual theories and hypotheses presented. — Christoffer

They said the same thing about the universal gravitation theory of Isaac Newton. Until it was superseded by a better theory: Einstein's. What makes you certain that GR won't be discarded as incomplete or imperfect in the future? — Olivier5

That's not how science works. Theories don't get thrown out of the window because something else explains things better, they get added, and mixed together, one theory helps explain something else further or helps explain problems with the first theory.

This is the problem with people today using science in their arguments, against or for something. The deep misunderstanding of how the process actually works. Before understanding the basics of how science is conducted, people use scientific findings as major parts of their arguments. For example, the entire global debate around vaccines has been infected by the low-quality understanding of the science surrounding vaccines. For a layman to understand science and physics or at least the ramifications of those things, it requires daily studies on the subject. Far too many read some summary in "Science" and think they understand the world, they don't. Understanding science requires understanding the process, the practice, the history, and the terminology long before even touching upon the actual theories and hypotheses presented.

Newton's laws haven't been discarded, they have been explained better. Just like Higgs explained mass better than before.

Do you think GPS devices will stop working because a new theory explains the behavior of general relativity better? No, they work because the theory is valid and any new theory will only add to it and explain it better or more broadly. If a theory didn't work, we couldn't utilize it for inventions that function on top of these universal physics. All the inventions using Newton's laws of physics didn't magically stop working when Einstein presented his findings.

"the internal logic of our human perception" — Banno

For example, how we perceive time makes us bad at conceptualizing a hypothesis that handles time fundamentally different from our experience. If we do chemistry, as an easy comparison, we can both conceptualize and experience the science between two components mixing, like if something gets hot when mixed together, not only does the science end up logically, we can also experience it, i.e it has a human internal logic to it. From our perceptual perspective, it's extremely different to grasp time as something other than how we experience it, even if the quantum equations or measurable results point in directions that feel alien to our perception.

Where? What could an "internal, human perception of something" be? — Banno

Your perception of time is extremely subjective, even though, by basic calculations, you and I would actually exist through time with slight differences due to general relativity. So on one hand we experience and perceive time in a way that feels "normal", while at the same time it makes it hard for us to conceptualize the idea that we might be temporally out of sync when measured. We perceive something and then there's how reality actually is.

Seems to me that we can make up whatever pure maths we like, then choose some of that to make use of in describing how things are. So we do make maths up. — Banno

Just because complex physics equations seem more fluid compared to 2 + 2 = 4, doesn't mean it's less logical than it. We can make up whatever we like for the language of math, but when applied to predicting events in reality, in physics, then the logic of the calculation cannot be broken. Not sure what kind of "made-up" math you are talking about? There's a difference between the invented language and how that language functions. Mathematical language differs from normal communication language in that there's no interpretational relativity for something like, for instance, "2". It is what it is, regardless of what we believe or want to attribute to it. It will always be our language of saying "2" of something, but there's nothing changing the meaning of "2", it is what it is. If we say "cat" that has almost infinite interpretational values based on the situation, but "2 cats" simply means "there are 2 of that something we can infinitely interpret from the word "cat". Of course, we can continue into 20th-century philosophy with things like "there are 0 cats on the drawer", and find all kinds of absurdities through language interpretations, but none of that really applies to the scientific application of the mathematical language.

And the accurate predictability of the mathematical language pretty much confirms the underlying logic of it and how it transcends any other language in terms of how little it can be subjectively interpreted.

Phenomenology as the basis for quantum physics...? — Banno

No, just that the nature of measuring and also observing is a large part of that research. It's also fundamental to understanding quantum physics that our mathematical equations detach themselves from the internal logic of our human perception. You can logically understand most concepts in science through our human perception, but much of quantum physics breaks down time and space so fundamentally chaotic that anyone researching this field needs to heavily conceptualize past our own internal logic. Phenomenology puts a spotlight on the difference between our internal, human perception of something and the actual reality we measure and research. That is what I meant, not that phenomenology "founded" quantum physics.

Hmm. "derived" might not be the right word here. Russell's project failed. We know that for any mathematical axiomatisation there will be truths that cannot be derived. — Banno

My point was merely that the logic of math for measuring reality does not rely on our perception or the "aesthetics" of math as an invented language. While we are limited by the invention of the language of math, the equations used can often lead to discoveries through pure logic rather than us inventing something as an interpretation. This is why I think people get confused thinking we "invent theories". General relativity, for instance, wasn't invented, it was discovered, and upon that a theory was formed that we tested and verified predictably, and later harnessed the theory to make inventions like GPS. What I object against is people arguing that our consciousness forms reality, rather than reality existing and us just having a limited ability to experience it through our perception. Such arguments usually end up in us "inventing" our scientific discoveries and theories, which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

That there exist laws of nature is debated. — Olivier5

Do you mean to say that there are now laws of nature? Like, you don't fall to the ground if you jump out the window? There's no gravity, it's just in your head?

But we know for sure that certain human beings historically did put together the concepts, the math and the interpretation of General Relativity. They did not receive those things from the gods. — Olivier5

Who's saying anything about gods? We didn't invent general relativity, we discovered these fundamental functions of reality, and we invented concepts to be able to calculate, measure and harness those functions. I absolutely don't understand how you can attribute a scientific discovery with either it coming from gods or that it was invented by us, that's just a fundamentally wrong way of viewing all of this.

Except your experiment is set up, designed by a human being, the theoretical framework underpinning the experiment (eg here QM) is human too, and the AI was built by humans. — Olivier5

I don't think you understand what mathematical logic is or that math as a language wasn't invented by us, but instead, is a language derived from that logic. The world around us wouldn't react through the knowledge we have if there wasn't verifiable feedback from the universe based on our scientific theories.

Why does a GPS work in relation to general relativity? Did we invent general relativity or is our language around it merely a way for us to communicate with other humans about those facts of nature?

If you design an AI that has the function of recognizing the properties of a molecular structure, it doesn't matter one bit that it was designed by humans, because the only human factor is the language it uses to relay that information and data to us. The fact that it detects the properties of molecules is not an invention.

You seem to mix together something we designed with a function that acts upon universal laws. Just because we named things and have a language of communication around it, does not mean it gets invented by us. General relativity didn't get invented, it was discovered and communicated within science through the language of math. It's verified with technology that acts upon these laws of nature regardless of the form, shape, or function we attribute to those inventions.

I don't think philosophy has any practical ramifications at all. Whatever philosophical theory turns out to be correct, our lives will continue as they have always done. — Michael

Except Philosophy has essentially and foundationally informed and steered humanity to the point we're at today in science, politics, morality, religion, and people's sense of existence itself.

Phenomenology has especially had a tremendous impact on 20th-century philosophy and helped distinguish what is from what we think is. In science, that's practically the foundation for quantum physics and how we theorize it as a foundational part of nature. The practical consequence of that is essential for many recent technological achievements made as well as future development.

to emulate a human scientist — Olivier5

That's you applying a function to the AI that it does not have. Algorithmic AI does not have the function of emulating humans, it has a specific function and purpose based on statistical math and probability-based self-learning. What you are talking about is like saying we build a construction crane to emulate a human arm through human consciousness, it makes no sense.

If the AI is built to detect a very specific particle that is predicted by mathematical physics equations and detected by a non-bias detector, there's no human emulation whatsoever involved with that process. I really don't know what you are talking about, but you apply attributes to the process that does not exist in order to argue some vague idea that our tools are biased toward being part of our human consciousness because we constructed them. That is a false conclusion.

Right. But what evidence do you have for that assertion? Why would a machine, or an alien consider the change of atoms at the boundary of the apple any more significant than the change of atoms between the flesh and the pips. An alien might well look at the apple and declare it two objects (flesh and pips), or three objects (all that is solid, all that is liquid and all that is gaseous). An alien with enormously long life might consider the apple to be such a fleeting thing that is merely a temporary state of the ecosystem (the only true 'object' it sees). — Isaac

My point didn't exclude this (their) kind of interpretation of the atoms in space that we interpret as an apple. My point is that there are a measurable amount of atoms at a certain temporal moment in the universe, i.e "there is something there at a certain amount of time" that constitutes a part of reality that they interpret differently from us, but nonetheless exists outside of any idea that our human consciousness creates reality itself. It's this, within phenomenology, that I object against, not that phenomenology describes the process of different interpretations depending on if it's us, a machine or aliens that analyze the atoms in space, that is the part I value within phenomenology.

The AI would still be human-made to emulate a human scientist. It wouldn't be in effect very different from a human scientist. It would be able to fail, in particular. It would also rely on data fed to it, by a system which can fail. This system is also man-made and based on human theories and perceptions. — Olivier5

Why would it emulate a human scientist? AI algorithms do not emulate humans, this is a misconception of AI and algorithmic synthetic intelligence. And it doesn't matter if theories human-made if they're calculated with mathematical logic. 2 + 2 = 4 is not a human invention, 2 asteroids getting into orbit with 2 other asteroids means there are 4 asteroids and that can happen anywhere in the universe regardless of us humans creating a language system to calculate it. Therefore your idea of "human theories" in physics does not make sense because the only thing invented is the language system we use to calculate the math, the math itself is based on reality logic. Math can predict physics systems and the conclusions we humans arrive at when calculating are never invented, they are discovered.

The Higgs field and particle theories are based on complex math. They are predictions of particle behavior. The Atlas detector at CERN does not detect particles because we invented a theory and in turn that "invented" those particles. The theory predicts the existence of those particles and the experiments verify that prediction. Like Einstein predicted general relativity, it was verified by experiments and later we utilized the proof to make things like GPS. How in the world can you conclude that GPS works because we invent it without realizing that relativity needs to be true in order for clocks to sync correctly between the GPS on earth and the satellite? Regardless of any human concepts or inventions, the theory, the concept of general relativity has to be true in order for it to work.

I think you mix up what is a human concept/invention and what exists beyond us. Mathematical logic is not "invented by us", only the language to interpret it. Just like the camera isn't creating the reality in the picture, it's only an invention that detects light photons and captures them. The camera is an invention, but the chemistry and physics of reality that enables the camera to work are not invented by us.

It's crucial to understand the difference between the two, otherwise, phenomenology becomes a mess of religious proportions.

Right. So we tell the machine how to distinguish an apple, and it does so. How does that prove that aliens would also distinguish apples? The machine only did it because we told it to, and told it how. — Isaac

I never pinpointed the machine or aliens to detect the object as an apple as we humans perceive the object, but that they detect "an object", meaning, the object exists outside of human perception, i.e the human perception does not "create reality", but reality exists and we perceive it in a limited manner.

The point of my argument is that there's an idea within phenomenology that concludes that our consciousness "creates reality", much like the heavily criticized Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation. This kind of concept is a heavily human-narcissistic interpretation of reality, closer to the human arrogance of putting the earth in the center of the universe. It's religious hogwash for people who can't cope with the meaninglessness of existence, so they need to put themselves and their consciousness at the center of the universe and be responsible for reality itself.

Phenomenology is only worth using if it is used as a point of limitation for human perception. Like when trying to grasp concepts outside of our perception and being able to differentiate between our perceived reality and actual reality.

A good example is the James Webb telescope compared to Hubble. Disregarding the magnitude difference, the James Webb telescope has an emphasis on infrared instead of the visual spectrum. Because we know infrared has the ability to perceive more light through gas and other matter, it can "see more" than Hubble, which focuses on the visual spectrum. Hubble is in this case our phenomenological perception of the universe and James Webb sees beyond that. And since we understand this difference, we can harness that capability, tailor it to our perception and augment ourselves to see further. Without the concept and knowledge of human perception vs actual reality, we wouldn't be able to gain power over these ways of observing reality past ourselves.

Yes, there needs to be someone reading the data, and interpreting the data. Machines don't do science. — Olivier5

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of my argument. The machine works outside of anyone reading the data, it still detects the object, independently of anyone interpreting the data.

Let's say we establish an AI that has the purpose of interpreting the data. Its only job is to read and conclude the data to be correct. Now, it hasn't any kind of perception like humans do, and the output will be a binary "yes" or "no". "Is there a Higgs particle?", it answers "Yes". The interpretation of this data will be binary, its mathematical and bypasses human perception at every level. The output is either positive or negative, it has no human interpretational value.

They do not bypass human perception either, they just enhance it. — Olivier5

A logical machine working with mathematical equations bypass human perception. It's based on physical laws, not perception.

And the logic behind the apparatus itself and its design and correct operation is theory-based and theory-ladden. — Olivier5

A "scientific theory" is different from lay-man definitions of "theory". A scientific theory, especially within physics, are bound to logical and mathematical truths. Math is not a human perception. So if the machine is based on such mathematical theories, it does NOT become influence by human perception.

These theories are also testable. An atomic clock that shifts according to relativity is a result that has a binary interpretation, it's either relative or it is not. Then utilizing the same result as a foundation for functional GPS systems means we have a system that couldn't work without a scientific theory informing us how to build it. There's no perception at all to this other than perceiving the result of these machines and functions.

To apply perception as a causational factor to something that acts upon the functions of universal physics is a fundamental error in reasoning for phenomenology.

The questions that are being tested, the theories that are built to make sense to the data, are all human ideas. — Olivier5

Any interpretation of data is philosophy if it only acts upon a conjecture. But a binary output of a machine analyzing universal physics through mathematical logic is not conjecture. If you build a machine that on a macro scale shows either a Red light or a Green light, the spectrum can be read by a machine as either red or green per definition of wavelengths, regardless of the human eye and brain seeing those lights with interpretational values. The fact that there are waves and photons is detectable through detectors that works upon physical laws, not our perceptions. The CERN Atlas detector wasn't built through "human perception", it was built according to mathematical logic, and that bypass any kind of human interpretation.

That a nine looks like this: "9", doesn't mean the function of "nine" is a "human perception" within math. Nine is nine regardless of our perception and the aesthetics of how we talk about "nine" in text, speech, countable objects etc. "Nine" as a mathematical and logical concept is a rule of physical law in the universe, the results of predictability calculations using "nine" within mathematical equations can predict things we haven't even found out about the universe yet, since it doesn't rely on "human perception", it relies on physical laws and logic, i.e it is external to human perception.

This is not to say that there is no "outside reality" (outside of what, exactly?). Reality is whatever there is, and to my knowledge, that includes ideas, which are real, and stuff that are not ideas. — Olivier5

"Outside reality" in terms of phenomenology is "outside human perception". Some think that phenomenology is about our human perception being responsible for the external world, that our perception is, in lack of a better explanation, a religious cause for reality and that any external reality outside of human perception doesn't exist.

This is the fundamental issue I have with that sub-section of phenomenology and why I say that phenomenology should be considered to be about the duality of reality being both something interpreted and perceived by humans and external reality that exists in a far more complex manner than we can even conceptualize.

I.e the way people speak about human perception in phenomenology is more akin to the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation of quantum physics and that interpretation, that our consciousness collapse quantum states is almost a laughable conclusion that isn't really taken seriously by quantum physicists.

I think such conclusions are pure human narcissism on a religious scale. We attribute life with having control over external reality in a way that fits more in a X-Men comic than actual logical and rational deduction about our relation to physical reality.

...but we were talking about apples. I'm not seeing the logical link between the Higgs Boson being identified by purely mathematically programmed machines and apples. — Isaac

If you can prove the existence of an object like the Higgs particle then you can logically prove the existence of a larger object that we humans refer to as "an apple" through the same methods of testing and using instruments that bypass our perception. We can provide all the data about the apple that confirms it to be that kind of an object, based on how it correlates with what our perception tells us. We can also further test our perception with having a large sample size of people going into a room and then out and then describing the object in there and then use that data from a thousand different individuals to confirm that we have a collective perception of the object as an apple, then compare that to the scientific data from the instruments to conclude the existence of the object both outside our perception as well as through our perception.

It's basically "Mary in the black and white room". The black and white data is the external, the emotional experience of the outside is the perception of humans.

Logic is a very human concept. Maybe you mean to say that logic is not limited to humans, which I would agree with. — Olivier5

That we discovered, invented or stumbled upon a logical system that we merely give a name and wrap uses around does not mean the concept in itself is human. Mathematical logic is, for example, universal. It doesn't matter how our perception is, it never changes such logic, only the interpretation of that logic is based on perception.

I think you would agree that a group of blind and deaf people could not build and operate the CERN accelerator. Even if they could, how would they know what the results of their experiments are?

We can build tools to expand on our senses but someone still needs to look into the telescope. With one's eyes. — Olivier5

We are still blind and deaf to the existence of a Higgs particle, or the concept of its function is still so alien to us that we cannot perceive it as a function of reality. That doesn't mean the detector doesn't detect the particle.

The data is not dependent on our interpretation, it's dependent on logic. If the detector finds a particle characterized by the mathematical prediction of its function and the detector confirms this particle in existence, it doesn't matter what perception or level of perception we have as humans. A blind person will be able to understand the data just as well as a seeing person since there's nothing to see or perceive, it's the machine that sees the particle and tells us that it matches our prediction made through logic. In no part of this process is there any human perception that defines the detection of the particle. The perception you describe is reading the conclusion on a screen at CERN or conceptualizing the meaning of the particles existence outside of the scientific logic behind the detection of it.

But the bottom line is still that there is a reality that exists past our human perception and that the only clear use of phenomenology is to guide our philosophical thinking of how we perceive reality versus how reality actually is. Like how light consists of wavelengths that we use every day in the form of radio, radar and x-rays, but we can only see a fraction of these wavelengths with our eyes.

Can you give an example of an outside object (without just being programmed to detect what humans already think of as apples) detect apples. I can't think of a single example. — Isaac

Higgs particle is something we cannot perceive but is detectable in a repeatable fashion by equipment built through theories backed up by mathematical logic.

Human perception cannot explain how this chain of prediction and detection can logically sum up in a factual end point. We can only make the phenomenological point of ourselves not able to perceive the Higgs particle, or perceive the effects it has on mass and temporal movement, but never the object of the particle itself, and we cannot conclude that it doesn't exist because "it's just perception" when logic, predictability, analyzed data, repeatable tests all confirm the particle exists.

The perception of science data does not render the science data wrong just because we perceive the result of those tests. They have no correlation with each other.

science is based on human perception, logic and imagination. So if human perception, logic and imagination are deemed problematic, then so should science be. — Olivier5

Mathematical logic is not based on any human perception. You lump together imagination with logic, but logic is not a human concept. To be able to, through math, predict outcomes of external reality and then confirm that through analytical machines has nothing to do with our perception.

If we build a detector, like the one in CERN, to detect particles we cannot possibly perceive, our perception does not dictate its function, which is what you mean with what you say when you lump in human perception with science.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method, of how science and math works. You are not speaking about our ability to detect external reality past our perception, you are speaking of people making assumptions and assertions out of those results.

That's more close to philosophy than science. Philosophy's role is to speculate, through as much logic as possible, what the facts of the world (science) actually mean for us as human beings. But that is just what it is, philosophy, not science.

This is why the assumption that the phenomenological conclusion of our perception dictating reality is wrong. The correct phenomenological conclusion is that we can only perceive reality in a certain and very specific way and understanding how those limitations of actual reality influence our conclusions of that reality.

Rarely, if ever, have I talked to scientists who make any conclusions past what their data has actually showed them. That's closer to what TV documentaries about science does, they create pretty stupid interpretations of actual science for the effect of entertainment, they have no actual valid conclusions because that would require a dry read-through of the reports and papers published, after all the necessary scrutiny has been applied.

I think this is why people have such a skewed image of what science is and misinterpret it as having too much human input to be valid. That's really not a correct image of how science actually works and knowing the processes that scientists apply to their work just demonstrates the illogical idea of perception dictating reality, that's just a delusional fantasy for humans who want to attribute humans with more power over the universe than they actually have.

Most people cannot grasp the cosmic horror that is our existence in the universe, so we invent interpretations of religious proportions just to cope with the actual reality of our existence. But the truth is that our perception is an extremely limited way of "seeing" the world and the universe... so we build machines to extend our ability to perceive and those machines confirms a reality past ourselves, a reality indifferent to us in every way possible. To think otherwise is just as delusional as when people thought the sun and universe rotated around the earth and us as the center of everything. Everyone is small, insignificant and pointless and it's more or less proven today, regardless of any collective narcissism people delude themselves with otherwise.

Isn't the scientific data about things that are past your senses? — Tate

Such information isn't sensory information, but complex information that is backed up with mathematical logic. Our perception of an apple doesn't explain how outside objects can scan and analyze the apple arriving at repeatable conclusions. The end result is that the apple is still the apple, regardless of our perception of that apple. It might look vastly different from other perceptual perspectives, but if we and a bunch of aliens, with extremely different perceptions, were to analyze the apple, even with different types of tools, it would still confirm the existence of an object that we could apply definitions to that are descriptive of what we define as an apple. The aliens would also reach conclusions of the object, therefore the object exists outside of our perception, regardless of our experience of the object.

I'm making a more modest claim: that what we know of the physical world is based on sensory input and ideas our mind creates in response. I don't deny the existence of the exterior physical world, only that we don't have direct access to it.
— Art48

That's phenomenalism as I understand it. I guess my question would be: what supports this claim? — Tate

I agree with this. There's a difference between making the conclusion that reality does not exist outside our own perception and that we cannot truly observe reality except through our own perception.

The latter is true because of the logic of our human nature. We do, in fact, not experience reality past our senses. We can use fantasy or mushrooms or whatever to enhance sensory experience, but we cannot transcend the perception that we have. Adding to this we have an extreme amount of scientific data that is testable and provable that tell us about a world past our perception, like how light consists of more wavelengths than what we can perceive.

That reality exists because of our perception of it has no real foundation in science or logic whatsoever. Therefore we can use the theories as a guide for us to have a better perspective of how to define reality and our sense of existence. We perceive a fraction of reality as the foundation for what we experience as reality.

Take for example all the people who has a different "wiring" of their brain. Like how some has interconnections between the perception of sound and visuals, meaning that they experience sound as visual artifacts, lights and shapes etc. Their perception of reality is vastly different from other people due to this physical defect, but it is an important aspect of the nature of our existence.

Imagine all the animals with different perceptions than us, how other animals experience the perception of time differently, how some see more colors and some less, how some have a sense of smell so intense that they almost perceive the air or water around them as a cloud of experiences informing them about their reality.

We don't have to accept the illogical conclusion of reality only existing because of our perception of reality in order to accept the importance of differentiating perception versus actual reality. And most importantly, including our perception of reality when defining ourselves as objects within that reality.

The most interesting thing with that image is the gravitational lens shifting being so heavy. Things skews into surrealism the further away you look.

The turing test is outdated as a form of testing AI. There's no problem simulating human interaction, but that doesn't mean the AI is actually self-aware and conscious.

The biggest problem that no one seem to grasp is how human consciousness forms; genetics in combination with experience in combination with instincts and concepts around sex, death, food, sleep etc. To think that a true self-aware AI that is truly conscious would ever interact with us in the same way we interact with other human beings is foolish. A simulated interaction is not an actual intelligence we interact with, only an algorithm capable of simulating so well that we are fooled.

The most likely scenario is that the true AI would form its own "life form identity" around the parameter of its own existence. And communicating with such an AI would be like us trying to communicating with an alien life form; two self-aware and intelligent beings trying to figure out what this weird entity in front of them are.

The only way to create a true AI that interacts as a human is to simulate an entire life, with a base genetical makeup and instincts from that. Together with every other kind of simulation including how gut bacteria influences us. If we do that, then that AI will essentially have a perfect human level of interaction with us, but it will have a very individual identity, just like any other person you meet.

Sitting there in Germany amid the ruins listening to these horrors I became an enemy of believing, not only rational believing but any believing. — Ken Edwards

This is why I'm also opposed to the idea of "belief". The concept is thrown around too much, also in a way to discredit someone with a more rational and unbiased view of the world. It's easy for them to say "that's your belief" to anyone that doesn't agree with them, and while "truth" is a fluid concept, there are still a lot of methods of arriving closer to the truth than further away from it. That's why I subscribe to the idea of epistemic responsibility. That you have a moral responsibility to investigate your beliefs and turn them into rational conclusions or prove them wrong and accept the rational conclusion taking their place.

Blind belief in a claim is immoral and not investigating it before believing it is immoral. A convincing argument can be temporarily accepted, but never as truth before investigation.

Like we are the ones who entered this thread in a tribalistic mentality and you are the one calling in mods. :rofl: I've been trying to get mods into this thread to properly moderate it since the beginning of this tribalistic attitude started and they refused, and now you try to play the good guy? :rofl:
My interest in this thread has fallen, it's not a discussion anymore, it's just bully egos and bullshit arguments.

I don't agree at all that a political discussion where there's a lot of emotion involved means it's better not to moderate it, I think it needs moderation much more because of it. At the moment, there's really nothing of intellectual value going on in this thread so the value of participating is down the drain.

What is really easy, down right facile, is to be dismissive and contemptuous of people defending their country. — Olivier5

According to him, any defense against Russia and Putin is considered being a Nazi, so it's quite obvious where he stands.

why don't you lead by example like a good NATO Nazi — Apollodorus

Is this enough proof that Apollodorus is playing into the Putin narrative of everyone against him and Russia are Nazis? I guess moderators are fine with it

Nonsense! Western intellectuals praised Soviet Communism AFTER visiting Russia. Bernard Shaw, Lady Astor, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and many other leading intellectuals and socialites of the time visited Soviet Russia and praised its regime. — Apollodorus

And did they know all the details of the regime? Did people visiting Nazi Germany in the 30s know every detail? How many times have people been in the dark about regimes, leaders, and other people, and only after the truth is revealed have they backed away from their praise? People praised Weinstein as well, up until it was clear they shouldn't.

Do you actually think that a regime will show visitors their murders and horrors in between welcoming drinks? :rofl: I know you desperately try to win an argument in any way possible, but this is just ridiculous.

in which they praised the communist system. — Apollodorus

There's nothing wrong with Marxism as a system and Russian communism was the Lenin/Stalin corruption of it. Without the knowledge of millions of people murdered, if you visited a nation that's among the first in the world to try and adapt anything from Marx and you get the snake oil sale pitch, of course, intellectuals were going to praise it. People praised Hitler as well, remember that he fixed the German economy, do you think people didn't praise him for that?

Judging people's opinions today by the context of 100 years of history into the future is downright stupid. We don't know what is revealed in 10 years or 30 years. We might, today, live in a time where we praise stuff that in 30 years' time will be revealed to be monstrous. You don't seem to understand how psychology works or how little people actually know.

“Basic moral ideals”? Like calling people names for disagreeing with you??? :rofl: — Apollodorus

Can you do anything other than strawmanning? If you are unable to then why should anyone discuss with you?

From what I see here, in your opinion everyone who doesn’t think exactly like you is “a fucking asshole”, “a troll”, “off their pills”, etc., etc. Are you sure you aren’t related to neomac and @ssu? As I said, NATO bots seem to come in packs of three, because they’re cheaper. And so do NATO Nazis …. :rofl: — Apollodorus

So you are in bullshitting mode again. You're not really making yourself relevant to the discussion. If you want to be a joke in here, I'm not interested.

So, you DO get ostracized, after all.

And if someone doesn't think, speak, and act like you, he MUST be a "fucking asshole" because everything YOU say is always right. Isn't that how fascist ideology starts? :rofl: — Apollodorus

No, now you're doing that thing again, the thing people ask you not to do, are you off your pills? The thing where you don't actually read or understand what you read and instead make up your own version of what was being said.

I said

If you say something that deviates from the most basic moral ideals, then you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. — Christoffer

Now what can I possibly refer to here? Basic moral ideals? What would that mean? Maybe something like shouting racist slurs, misogyny, behaving aggressively, punching people or whatever. You know, things that balance on the edge of illegal but generally just make people exclude you from social connections and get you into trouble at work etc. We can go on and on about the philosophy surrounding this, but if you don't understand the basic concept of this then I'm afraid you either aren't capable of understanding it or you just decided not to in order to hold your line of argument or something. Most probable is that you just try to muddy the waters of the argument and I'm not interested in conducting that kind of discussion. Of course, you might mean "ostracized" in the old Greek version, that doesn't happen, maybe where you're from, but not here.

Wasn't communism a Western ideology? Didn't the Western world erupt into applause when czarist "dictatorship" was replaced by Stalinism? Didn't Western intellectuals call Lenin the best statesman in the world? — Apollodorus

It's easy for the masses to praise something when no historical context exists to discredit it yet. And no, "the west" is not all. Not all praised Hitler either. First many did, then no one did, except the idiots.

Plus, "fascism" isn't necessarily imposed by force of arms. It can be done through education, indoctrination, mass manipulation and control. Say something in your country that deviates from the politically correct "norm" and you'll get ostracized. — Apollodorus

Fascism as I described it was state-controlled actual violence and silencing of anyone criticizing the government. The most literal form of fascism, when the boot is literal.

The other forms you describe can manifest through governments, but most likely through different groups in society. Other than that, you don't get ostracized in Sweden unless you actually conduct hate speech. If you say something that deviates from the most basic moral ideals, then you don't get ostracized by society because of fascism, but because you're a fucking asshole. I never understand how people confuse fascism with that, most likely because they don't know what fascism is.

So the first thing to do, for those hoping of liberation, would be to free one's mind from their BS. And one of those BS idea about the West, is precisely that it's all the West's fault. — Olivier5

Exactly. The fault of the perpetrators is not the fault of an entire culture, especially not in a secular and multicultural culture like "the west". "The west" is such an extremely broad perspective and I think most people just think of "the west" as being "the US" and through guilt by association, every western nation is therefore supporting or equally being as bad as "the US". As I've also pointed out long ago, we've lived in an intellectual anti-western criticism for over 30 years now. We can just look at art, literature and other pop culture for that, there's such an introspective uppercut against western ideals of neoliberalism and capitalism from within our western society that people have forgotten that other cultures can also be "bad". But since so many spent over 30 years of criticizing the west they themselves live in, they cannot wrap their heads around someone else acting out as Russia has done now. So instead of accepting Russia's actions as being taken by them, they need to pin this on the west by any means necessary, since they emotionally feel like not doing so would undermine their critique of the west. Instead of just... criticize where it's valid to criticize.

Shouldn't Russia's "ideology" be a matter for Russians to decide?

And you do seem to regard Russian society as somehow defective and inferior, and therefore in need of being "corrected" by you. — Apollodorus

I'm speaking of an ideology or idealism that's very common in Russia. The society in Russia is split, with a lot of people not following this type of idealism. The ones who do, primarily under Putin's enforcement of this idealism, trickle down the military chain of command, down to soldiers on the ground shooting civilians in the back in order to loot and rape. It happens so systematically in so many places that this isn't just an isolated behavior, it's a result of putting an ideal before human well-being. If you go into war with well-being in mind, you don't do anything other than what you have to do on the battlefield. But raising these boys into this behavior comes from somewhere and looking at how Putin and his people talk, behave and the ideology they push, we can see an idealism of heroes leading a united people where the empire, the "thing" is more important than the individual human being.

This is the ideology and idealism I criticized. On one hand, you have Russians who don't agree with it, who speak up against the war because they see through this pipe dream that used to indoctrinate people but have a harder time today due to information flow being more free and uninfluenced by the people in power. And on the other, the conservatives who want to return to this ideal society, this empire where people in power were regarded as deities while the empire aimed for greatness and beyond.

And yes, their ideology is for them to decide unless the result of such ideology spills over into atrocities and horrors for other people in other nations who didn't ask for it. Just like the Nazis, which I made a point about. The behavior of people in power, throwing their own people into other nations as cannon fodder, in order to realize their fascist dreams.

Or we can point out that nothing fundamental about Russian culture has changed since they were the world's heroes for overthrowing communism. — Baden

This is basically my point, the Russian culture hasn't changed, while some Russians have and oppose it due to its destructive consequences. Some Russians want to have a change from that conservative pipe dreams, and they get beaten down by a fascist boot for wanting it. How this is different from Nazi Germany, I don't know.

The problem in your comments as I see it is the overgeneralization. Critiques of culture require nuance and objectivity, which you've lacked. You are not the only one who does that and I wouldn't call it racist, but it's clumsy and unhelpful, just like some of the criticisms of America, the West, and NATO have been. I've been guilty of that myself too at times, and the consistency and intensity of the prejudices on display here remind me why sometimes I just need to keep my hands off the keyboard. — Baden

Thank you for a normal answer. And yes, I wasn't racist in any kind of intention, I wasn't talking about a Russian people in that sense, but an ideology and ideal very common in Russia and extremely common in their politics and military. The clumsiness could be that I'm not native of the English word, so maybe something was lost in translation, I don't know, but if I would have gotten your answer instead of the bullying behavior of the others, then I could have elaborated more and explained better instead of having to defend against low-quality trash. But yeah, I feel less and less like going to this forum. It seems to be a place dedicated for the bullies to feel important rather than focused on good discussions.

Re-writing really needs at least a few pages to go by...

the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. — Christoffer
— Isaac — Isaac

Yes, as you can see, I start with "politics" and focus on the war behavior it spawns. What informs this political perspective? Maybe the hero culture, the masculinity norms and fascist power hierarchies where there has to be a hero leading the people and the people needs to follow this person as almost being godlike.

If anyone thinks this is racist, they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. It's about the structure and moral philosophy informing their political behaviors that get spearheaded on the battlefield.

Yes, maybe I am. Maybe I'm not. — Isaac

You are. They are there investigating, they are uncovering this, and you call these people liers because the war crimes and atrocities being systematic by the Russian military don't fit with your opinions.

I mean, you have already pointed out that you don't do any research and that you just find things that support your opinion and won't care for anything else.

Scarily similar to some of the early anti-Semitism in 30s Europe though, much of the writing at the time talked about the culture of Jewry rather than the actual genetic Jew. Didn't take long to mutate into pure racism. — Isaac

Oh, so you mean that the Jews culture leads them to war crimes on a battlefield? That's a new one for me, I thought that they criticized Jews like that to paint them as bad when they weren't. Or maybe you're just doing a guilt by association fallacy, trying to connect dots where there aren't any in order to just paint me as a fucking nazi racist? Are you fucking serious right now? Do you have a brain meltdown not understanding what I'm talking about?

Can you imagine? I feel sick typing that. — Streetlight

Except Jews didn't do anything wrong, they didn't push politics that then pushed some military leaders to execute civilians. Do you think I'm just writing this out of context against Russians? Why the fuck do you just intentionally misinterpret everything like this?

Well, no. Seeing as they're being uncovered by the very parties in whose interest it is to exaggerate to maximum effec — Isaac

Do you mean UN and ICJ investigators? Isn't it easy to just dismiss everyone involved as having some ulterior motive and interest? Or maybe you're just wrong and the findings in Ukraine by these independent investigators paint a far worse picture than you want to accept.

Between the racists, the people who cannot read, and the people who play Nazi-PR, the US-hegemony cheerleader squad had assembled quite the front. — Streetlight

You're still rambling and refuse to be specific with your remarks on what I wrote. Get off your high horse little bully.

exaggerated to maximum impact by a country desperate for weapons — Isaac

The number of mass graves and war crimes still being uncovered speaks against exaggeration and against it being a minority group as these sites are located spread out over Ukraine.

Nothing to do with Russians being Russians IMO. It has to do with materialism.

If you think that humans are just meat machines, that human rights are a fiction, that might makes right, then you will find that brutality is the best way to rule those meat machines. — Olivier5

Of course not because they are Russians, but the behavior is systemic in their politics, which leads to their war behavior accordingly. So it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, it's part of their type of hero culture, their type of masculinity norms, and fascist power hierarchies. This is the biggest problem with Russia, the foundational destructive form of their traditional identity. An immature philosophy that doesn't care for human lives. Can we conclude that the basic respect for human life and rights is part of a modern philosophy that's considered up to date? I have a hard time arguing for a moral philosophy that goes below that level and I can't help to position it as being an inferior moral philosophy that most of us moved away from long ago. You either put human lives and rights at the top or you put something else at the top under which human lives and rights are inferior, the latter won't judge murdering thousands to reach the peak of humanity and has been the root cause for many religions murdering thousands for a fabricated ideal held above human lives and rights. Can we then conclude this Russian perspective to be morally corrupt at its core? Just like we position capitalism as morally corrupt since it puts capitalist ideals before human well-being.

Why is this type of behavior by Russians so common? Why is the brutality systemic? We can criticize other nations for brutality and war crimes, but it generally happens as isolated cases, mostly under one asshole doing it. But in this, there are so many Russians showing total moral bankruptcy, a systematic level of the behavior. If it's ingrained in Russian traditional culture, conservative values of "masculine power", national heroes, to achieve greatness, then they truly are living in the past as I've been saying. No wonder they want to expand the empire, create a new world order and create a massive Russia with a proud people under a strong man. It almost reminds me of...

Russia's response to Finland and Sweden joining NATO clearly shows that actually NATO enlargement was more of an excuse than the real reason for invading Ukraine. — ssu

Precisely, as well as supporting what I've been saying all along, that the only "threat" that Nato pose to Russia is when it tries to grab nations within the geographical interest of Putin. If he and his minions want to rebuild some grand Russian empire, then they can invade and try... as long as that nation isn't a member of Nato. So the only connection there is that Nato threatens the expansion of Russia. Sweden and Finland have never really been part of this "dream". However, the strategic position of Gotland and Sweden being part of Nato is very important as it would close off how submarines can move through Öresund to get to the Atlantic ocean. So there's an interest there.

But I think the downplaying is part of some sort of internal collapse around Putin. It might be that their threats reached a point where they realized that they played the game a little too dangerously.

Sweden has already stated that it doesn't want foreign bases or nuclear weapons on it's soil, and neither Finland has any appetite for them also. And actually NATO has no desire to do this — ssu

Yes, the key interest for Nato is the Baltic sea, and Sweden and Finland defending these waters. If there were ever a situation of a third world war that didn't kick off with total nuclear annihilation, then the Baltic sea would be a place of massive sea and aerial battles.

All this just makes it more clear that Russia was more interested in subjugating and annexing more land from Ukraine than in "countering the NATO threat". This should be obvious to everyone at least now. — ssu

The setbacks of their attempts at Kyiv, as well as their attempts at the assassination of Zelenskyy, seem too much to be just a distraction. As well as replacing key military officials and other internal problems in Russia. I think Putin generally thought of taking control of the entire nation or at least splitting it in half, gaining Kyiv. With the losses they had in the first part of the war, this second one sees the Russian army fighting on their knees. If they had focused on a smaller distraction and put a larger focus on the eastern border from the beginning, then it would be totally different. The key right now seems to be creating a corridor down to Crimea, as well as blocking Ukraine's ability to export through the Black Sea.

Since Chomsky is a common source for everyone who likes to muddy the waters as to who's the aggressor and downplay Ukrainian's right to defend themselves, here's an open letter as a response.

https://blogs.berkeley.edu/2022/05/19/open-letter-to-noam-chomsky-and-other-like-minded-intellectuals-on-the-russia-ukraine-war/?fbclid=IwAR0jG9z-7zfHPsUmBZQr2w4vpljnHzwYQSBdwTJGyDAUBxu_gme1Ln2qs70

I've seen that video before, and yes, it is like this, but if you go to 11:20 in that video you get my answer and why I'm always pointing out why there's still no point in saying we shouldn't aim for it. The only way to get things as right as possible is to follow it. As I've argued in other threads, it is possible to train yourself to emulate the rigorous process used in science, in everyday thinking, it just requires training. It is not equal to always being right, but it is far better than relying on our biological biases when trying to make any kind of argument and it is a vital tool for being a more balanced person that can evaluate perspectives better than one who doesn't follow it.

As for what I wrote, what I mean is that if all experts follow their work and ethical praxis, the outcome is far better if the statistical number of experts is higher. Generally the higher number of people looking at an object, the more likely it exists as they describe it. Basically.

...as well as the video coming out in 2016, when at 10:12 he states that "the last 10 years things have started to change for the better", and now we're 6 years after this video was published, so it's important information, but also a thing the scientific world has been working to fix for 16 years now, 6 years after Derek said "it's changing for the better".

Yes, as a statement of fact, I do. — Isaac

It's not a fact just because you say so. :shade:

I have absolutely no reason to believe you. It just sounds like "Oh and my sources are the best, if you don't agree, you disprove it". I don't agree (by default) because it's a very convenient position for your argument. — Isaac

One way to get a hint of the situation: https://rsf.org/en/index?year=2022, but of course I'm mostly referring to the expert guests within these media channels who provide most of the information able to be used to assess any kind of probable overview of the current events.

Which is more than you can provide. And of course, you used your "professor" claim at every point it works best for you, and then not when it doesn't, as well as what I can remember biased bloggers or writers close to your own ideological heart but rarely valid for any kind of unbiased method.

I disagree with the claim that a consensus of experts i more likely to be right that an single, or small group of experts. Qualification and error checking are the factor which make an expert opinion more likely to be right. — Isaac

For a professor that's quite bad English there, had to fill in the gaps and English isn't even my first language. But then you don't make much sense either, like, you don't seem to understand the idea behind consensus, in scientific terms. If you have a set of experts, then the more experts that conclude the same, the better the consensus is because all that error checking and reviewing goes through a larger set of data. So, they all work through an analysis of the information they have access to in order to reach a conclusion with high probability, which can vary based on the information. So the more experts there are, the higher the probability of reaching a truthful conclusion.

The claim you make that a single expert can be more right than a group is only a way for you to justify that your experts are the right ones. That's as epistemically irresponsible as you can get really. A single expert can reach a new perspective and present it, but it's not a fact or close to the truth before that perspective has been tested and checked by others.

There's absolutely nothing about a consensus to say they have greater qualification (in fact they will on average have less), — Isaac

And there's absolutely nothing to say the opposite or that your expert source is better, just that a consensus of many experts has a higher probability to be better as a collective, than a single expert. This is why methods to reduce bias require more people than just one expert.

(again, I think marginally they will have done less than some) — Isaac

More conjecture in order to create the impression that your single sources are better than others.

The expert most likely to right is the one who has the greatest knowledge and has carried out the most thorough error checking. That, by definition, will not be the mass around the mean, but rather one of the extremes. — Isaac

And again, this does not invalidate my sources or make your sources more valid or truthful. The biggest problem was when I bias-checked your sources and found them far more politically biased than what would be considered valid for any good argument to be made from them.

My conclusions are not more factual than yours. I don't know how many times I can say this in different ways that you might understand. — Isaac

You cannot know that. Just because you have an opinion based on nothing more than your emotional reaction to what others write, does not equal me not using the information I have in front of me much more when making an argument. You seem to think that because you don't agree with someone else through pure opinion and emotion, then they are on the same playing field as you, which I know I'm not. The discussion about education was a clear example of our differences and should have made a point of that, but obviously, it didn't for you.

I choose evidence which supports my preferred narrative. The narrative comes first, the evidence second. — Isaac

Yeah, this is why you are generally full of shit. This is wrong and backwards on so many accounts that it proves just why you're pretty irrelevant as a voice in this discussion. Here's a little lesson in how to handle this with epistemic responsibility; you have a claim, hypothesis, or opinion, then you check all the facts to not only verify but also falsify in order to reach an answer as to if it's a probable conclusion or not. Since we're unable to do pure deduction with the available information, it's induction, probability. Only when different conclusions have been made can you create a possible narrative. If you think I'm not making efforts to do any of this, then you are wrong. But the way you tackle things is plain wrong and makes it impossible to have a proper discussion since you make most shit up and cherry-pick whatever fits your narrative, just as I suspected.

The difference between me and you here is that you're still labouring under the delusion that you don't. — Isaac

I'm not. But I guess it's impossible for you to grasp that when you've entangled yourself into such a backwards method of finding out what's probable.

That you somehow start every investigation with a blank slate, unbiasedly selecting your sources, interpreting their conclusions according to some disinterested algorithm, and then just happening, by chance to come up with answers which exactly support your pre-existing political ideals. — Isaac

What the fuck are you ranting on about here? And what political ideals are you referring to?

You, like every other human in the planet, interpret a complex soup of almost infinite data in ways which confirm your pre-existing biases until such time as those narrative become completely unsustainable in the face of evidence to the contrary. You're hard-wired to do this, it's literally how your brain works, from perception, through emotion, right up to grand world-philosophies. — Isaac

This is why there are methods to make sure biases and emotions get suppressed while formulating rational conclusions. Methods you clearly just shown to do backwards and wrong. Just because you don't understand this or think it's impossible or believe that because you can't do it then everyone else can't, doesn't mean that everyone works things out as you do.

Again, this is just your opinion. — Isaac

No, it's not opinion to point out how method trumps appeal to authority.

The people I've cited are all experts in their field. That you personally find them to be 'ideological' is your conclusion. — Isaac

Not when I bias checked the sites you referred to.

Again, whether the points I counter are 'cherry-picked' and 'out of context' are both subjective judgements, I would obviously disagree with that assessment. — Isaac

You already proved you do exactly what I said so case closed.

A recurring problem here is that you cannot seem to understand you things which seem 'logical' to you are not that way to others. It's not as if you're arguing that 2+2=4, these are complex issues. — Isaac

What's logical is that I look at information, facts, and many experts and form a basis of knowledge before formulating any kind of conclusion. While you decide on a truth you like and pick what fits it. This is what you've said yourself to do and if we compare who's following most logic here, I'd say you proved to be on the lower end. It doesn't have to be a math equation to be a logical method of finding out probable answers to complex issues. If you think complex philosophical topics cannot use logical methods to help bypass emotional opinions, then you're really not knowledgeable in this epistemical topic.

I'm simply not going to engage in a full blooded discussion about education in a thread about Ukraine. — Isaac

No, you stopped when the argument became too solid. That's what happened, you had no problem discussing it for many pages and long posts before you dropped it when I provided enough actual papers to support it. Cherry-picking to fit your narrative won't cut it by that time.

The point of it was to see how far you'd take an argument. — Isaac

Yeah, sure :lol:

I was intrigued as to why you didn't just assume I was lying about being a psychology professor (seemingly the easiest option for your argument) but instead assumed that you (presumably unqualified in the field) could 'outargue' someone holding a professorship by looking up a few things on Google. That position simply peaked my interest so I wanted to see how far it went. If you want to start a thread about education I'd be more than happy to contribute, though I'd expect a bit more than a hastily thrown together collection of papers. My views on the matter are not mainstream though. — Isaac

:lol:

The attempts you make to slither yourself out of failing to counter that and change things into some personal study you make in order to sound like you're above it all would be considered arrogant if it wasn't so fucking hilarious. But at least it proves just how you act and work, combined with what you've said now about how you actually just pick what fits your narrative best shows just how lost in the woods you are.

Yep. This is a public forum, not your private blog. — Isaac

It's a public forum focused on higher-level discussion. If you want something more casual, then go to any social media platform of your choosing. And wouldn't spamming answers to everyone, cherry-picking stuff and providing your wild emotional opinions be closer to the idea of a private blog than being on a public forum? No one is trying to censor you, I was just asking you to stop spamming answers to me, but I guess that your idea of a public forum doesn't require people to act civilly and respect such requests. For you, a public forum is more of the wild west, just like, you know... trolls think public forums are.

Yes, that's a fair summary (the vast majority of the time). If I want to learn, I'll read a book. If I want to discuss with experts, I'll track some down (though I grant my personal situation makes this much easier for me than others, I'm not criticising other people in this). — Isaac

And again you believe you are the only one who is able to track down experts :rofl:

I have a very specific interest in this place - seeing how people react to having their views challenged, particularly on view I have strong opinions about (it reveals interesting things about my own psyche too, not that I'm going to share any of them publicly). Unless such a form of interaction is against the rules, I'll carry on. — Isaac

I'd say it makes you a dishonest interlocutor with a motive that no one has any interest in being part of. You can do whatever you want, but you're just proving yourself to be dishonest in the discussion and you have now also proven to not care for reviewing your own opinions and just cherry-pick whatever works best for you when answering others. If this isn't proof enough that you are irrelevant in this discussion I don't know what. Dishonest, sloppy and lazy in creating arguments and basically just interested in anything else but the topic of this very thread. Based on this, your lack of respect towards others here is remarkable.

Why should I give you more of my time then? You're not writing here with honesty, you're just jerking off.

I'm just trying to get you to look at this from the other perspective. From the perspective of someone who disagrees with...

mainstream in Sweden focuses much harder on facts from people who worked with analyzing all of this for many many years.
— Christoffer

...or disagrees with...

made my argument based on somewhat of a consensus in the matter.
— Christoffer — Isaac

So you disagree with media in Sweden being much more factual and unbiased than in many other nations. Care to back up that disagreement with anything?

And you disagree with someone using the consensus of researchers in the matter as most of the sources to form their argument?

What exactly is it that you disagree with here? The process of argument or the arguments themselves? Because all I see is someone triggered by the fact that someone uses the consensus of researchers as a basis for an argument while claiming to have good knowledge of the level of bias for media you don't even have access to.

Am I interpreting this correctly? Because there are not many other ways to interpret what you said there.

These are, again, not just facts of the world, they are opinions of yours and other people disagree with them. — Isaac

If I use the consensus of researchers, both officially cited in Swedish media and my own personal sources from people I know who research these things, that makes my argument an uninformed opinion? What does that leave you? Who usually draws sources from heavily ideological bloggers and single individuals who share the same opinion as you? Why would your sources of information that form your conclusions be of any more factual value than mine? Because you said so? Please

If you think your arguments are soundly based on unbiased consensus, then of course you're going to find opposition to them incoherent (or at least not understand the vitriol), but for those who disagree with that assessment, we might be offended your lack of effort, your lazy preference for the easiest narrative. — Isaac

Yet, I only draw from the sources to form my arguments, I don't recite as you put it, even though I understand it's easier to counter me if you strawman it like that.

And disagreement without a foundation that can balance against such a consensus background is just disagreement noise. Your opinion is valued even lower if you only have a handful of ideological bloggers and individuals that you agree with in the first place.

The problem is that you just don't accept when I say I balance the information I have to find what seems most inductively probable. Because it doesn't fit your narrative and therefore you set out to discredit my arguments instead of actually arguing against them. Hence why you resort to sarcastic mocking rhetoric. You don't counter-argue, you resort to cherry-picking easily countered points pulled out of context, steering things towards a direction that's easier for you to control while dismissing context, the conclusions of points or the full narrative of the other speaker.

If your starting point is that you are being offended by something that's not even close to a hateful worldview and that it rather only doesn't fit with your personal and ideological worldview, you aren't an honest interlocutor if that offense turns into a sarcastic mockery. Then you're just an angry easily triggered person who just wants to shout at people who disagrees with you.

Your arguments have you and your country come out completely blameless and leave absolutely no obligation on you to do anything. They look just too convenient to someone unconvinced as to the unbiased authority of your sources. — Isaac

Yet you have nothing else but "it looks too convenient". All you have is your emotional response to everything here, you have no argumentative quality in your writing but blame others for having less. And you are the one talking about being hypocritical? You make no effort to evaluate the actual logic or rationale of the others' argument, you just compare it to your emotional opinion on the matter and if it doesn't fit, then the other person is a stupid, indoctrinated puppet. And when you get an argument with lots of actual sources you bail out, as you did with the "education" discussion.

You're not an honest interlocutor, you are an emotionally driven, easily triggered person who needs to mock others when you don't agree with them. I have no interest in discussing anything with you because of that, but you persist to spam your unfounded emotional responses to everything said by anyone that has another conclusion than you.

Hence why...

Not much in the habit of writing post that aren't responses to anything — Isaac

Because that's all that you do, react, mock and fight anything that isn't fitting within your narrative. While you blame others for not respecting your views :shade:

Just try, try really hard, to see that this is a subjective judgement of yours, not a fact about the world. If seeing that is too hard, then just imagine it is... — Isaac

You can look for yourself. My first arguments were in good faith of honest discussions, bringing up my perspective. And then look at your own first post. I'm not sure it's subjective to say that your post reeked of sarcastic mocking of others' arguments. So who started that behavior?

Now re-read your take on how things have panned out from the point of view of someone who disagrees with you about that subjective judgement. Someone who sees your arguments as carelessly lazy echoing of mainstream narrative — Isaac

Because mainstream is always bad? Mainstream can also be the voice of those actually working on researching the subject. It can also be different things in different nations. US "mainstream" is downright biased while mainstream in Sweden focuses much harder on facts from people who worked with analyzing all of this for many many years. The anti-mainstream argument is a blanket argument to use when the points to counter aren't easily countered. So the counterargument gets reduced to "mainstream bullshit". That's low quality.

I didn't echo anything like that, I looked at the information that exists and I have access to and made my argument based on somewhat of a consensus in the matter. You, however, especially with your radical nonsense conclusions about formal education and other stuff, just pull whatever cherry-picking necessary to fit your narrative. Then concludes other opinions to be "mainstream echo" and therefore meaningless.

Try to see your arguments from the perspective of someone seeing Ukraine slipping into an endless war, and becoming another horrific tally on America's million plus death toll for its foreign interventions. — Isaac

Yet, Ukraine seems to kind of win this war and they fought for themselves asking for material help. The problem with you people is that you totally ignore the Ukrainian's perspective, their wants, needs, ambitions, and will to exist. You criticize the US to play around with Ukrainian lives, while totally ignoring their opinions, independence, and needs. This is why your arguments come off as so blind and ignorant, because you blatantly ignore the Ukrainian perspective, just as you ignore the Swedish perspective of why we want to join Nato. You are so limited in your perspective that all you see is a chess game with US and Nato on one side and Russia on the other, ignoring anyone else on that field who has their own voice, opinions, and reasons to act.

Your argument becomes a shallow surface level hateful game of focusing all criticism on the US, whatever the cost of intellectual depth.

Your moralizing may well seem genuine and heartfelt to you, its opposition seeming thus beastly by contrast, but there are those who genuinely believe your position does more harm than good, and by several fold. — Isaac

Yet you ignore the Ukrainians and you argue that I argue for something that does more harm? Like, if it ends up as things seem to end up now, with the Ukrainians winning, pushing Russia out, and returning Ukraine to themselves to live as they see fit and not under the boot of a despot, all of this fighting was not in vain, was not a waste, but a defense for the right to exist as they want to exist, without being under the boot of Russia.

So who's actually arguing for more harm? The one who is open to the idea of Ukraine being under the boot of Russia just to end the war, or the one hoping for them to win back their freedom against Russia, even if it comes at the cost of lives? My vote is for fighting to survive, to live free from Russia and you are pretty alone if you feel otherwise.

These are not trivial questions of philosophy. Thousands of actual people's lives are being destroyed by the forces and strategies we're debating the merits of. — Isaac

And how would Ukraine be if no one helped Ukraine? If the US didn't help Ukraine with material and intel? Looking at the war crimes of Russia, the horror and hell that could have happened if they had to succumb to that outcome.