I can't burn an idea for heat
— Cheshire

Without the idea of 'fire', you couldn't burn anything for heat. — Olivier5

It was meant as a bit of faux concession in hopes I'd have 180 off guard following his acceptance of it. Well, he took the bait and ate it. I don't really know where to steer this iceberg.

I was going to try and sum up the position I believe you are communicating. It's not meant as anything definitive; just a chance to look for misinterpretations on my part mostly. (not a comprehensive description or representation)

Ideas are real, but metaphysical things are not real, so ideas are not metaphysical things.

To me an over-emphasis on gatekeeping could create a bias; one might argue it's a bias for rational threshold criteria, but if there's nothing there it won't get through the gate. I see it as taking place in defense of a philosophical ideal standard. It's one I'm familiar with but let go of after a couple decades. I don't intend to give false support to everything the imagination is capable of; but actively excluding to maintain a cherished position is what Popper was trying to get away from. If 'metaphysical' doesn't describe a state of affairs then so be it; but assuming everything that can be, must be a type of physical inserts a universal - that if correct - demands support.

In contrast I see the point. If I start imagining extra dimensions where only ideas or information lives and travels then I'm so far off the map of reality what's the difference in making up words and clown particles and anything that a fever dream produces. I'm willing to risk it and if I start to believe I'll try to test it. I guess this turned into me thinking out loud. I don't want to debate whether everything is physical, because I know I can't win. But, I don't know if I believe it's the case because I can't win a debate about it. That's how flat earth societies get started, when argumentation proves things.

Precisely. 'The metaphysical' is not real, rather an idea (ideal) is a speculative tool for orienting us with respect to the (encompassing) real – naively invisible to us for being too close (i.e. transparency of water to fish) – and, once made explicit (visible), thereby the most general abstract criterion for composing alternative frameworks for interpreting (promixal) reality. Thus like 'prescription lenses' – eyewear, microscopes, telescopes, cameras, etc. — 180 Proof

Bit of trap that was in retrospect. I mean if I haven't read the book that I'm burning, then in a sense I can. I'll read it again tomorrow. Sometimes I have to shake the etch a sketch.

↪Cheshire Reification fallacy I think (or is it misplaced concreteness?). Prescription lenses*, for instance, are just pieces of 'glass' independent of us. 'Ideas' are abstract tools insofar as we (or some complex information processing systems) use^ them, otherwise they are just 'footprints on the beach at low tide' so to speak. *Benny & ^Witty, respectively. — 180 Proof

I see the validity in raising the issue, but the difference in the rate of progress in rebuilding society would come as a result of access. If there was a building full of ink and paper that could shoot us forward in technology a thousand years you wouldn't ask what type of ink or paper.

Popper brings up the example of the knowledge to construct a modern aircraft. No one person knows how to fully assemble a 747 or airbus or whatever; so in this example they remain as separate intangible existing things.

But, I see the merit in the objection. I can't burn an idea for heat.

Rather: With ideas we can change our reality, so we must be real. — 180 Proof

Rather than rather, ideas by way of us interact with our reality; exhibiting their metaphysical reality. They could remain apart from us as the content of books so they exist in their own right; even without demonstration.

I think you're referring to Alisdair McIntyre, 'After Virtue'. — Wayfarer

He may have referenced it as part of the "Three Worlds" lecture where I encountered it. Surprise agreements are the best. Cheers.

I'd buy tickets to this one. :eyes:

I am interested in how one can even begin the process of legitimate metaphysics? — Shawn

Popper's explanation is the one I at least understand. The difference between restarting a civilization after collapse with access to all the books it produced versus without. The point of which is to say ideas change reality, so ideas must be real. But, since they can't be sold by the pound they exist in a way that isn't tangible, but none the less real. Ergo, metaphysical. How wrong is that? Anybody?

I see. But, what was the problem with the notion of analysis it employed? — Shawn

I imagine I'll be corrected for quality control, but I believe it favored verification instead of corroboration. There is no way to verify some future event won't negate a conjecture. So, settling for the corroboration of theories better suited induction than verification.

But, if you can't verify your posits then why posit.

More precisely, if knowledge is Justified-True-Belief, then how do facts fit into such a conceptual scheme for or of knowledge? — Shawn

If knowledge is JTB, then facts carry the T bit of the matter. They are the 'it just is what it is" of this model.

In a pragmatic world facts are what we intend our conjectures to correspond to if indeed they are good approximations of truth.

I was under the impression Xenophanes criticized the local religion. Which is a bit opposite of the single side of things approach being suggested. In all fairness I can tolerate your prose better than the Wittgenstein impersonators. I question the shelf life of the content, but from a purely having to wonder if I'm missing something point of view; I'd say it's preferable.

Christianity on the other hand teaches salvation. — Ross Campbell

Christianity required a sales pitch that is the 'good news'. The actual message of Jesus if it can be extracted from the carnival of weirdness that surrounds it does offer an ideal that's worth it's weight. Which results in more wisdom on average is probably Buddhism; if nothing else it encourages reflection on a more everyday level.

It is appalling that they are making massive profits out of this emergency. "Oh, but what about the shareholders" I hear them braying. Well, fuck the shareholders! — Janus

I don't understand how half the country fights tooth and nail against socialized medicine since recent memory, but when the vaccine is produced by the same system it's untrusted? Where are all the free market capitalist insisting it must be the best vaccine because it's made for profit? The conservative right is doing a handstand on this issue.

We're on a European administered website. They have a functioning public education system, so the esoteric water coloring doesn't do as much lifting 'round these parts. Do you have a thought on the matter?

In this case Xlaxtric is referring to the central planning of economies. Seizing the heights of industry and so forth. That thing that no one tries to do anymore because it gets supplemented with an untaxable 50% black market; or everyone starves.

Assorted tantrums for reference only:

Too big of an idiot, I see. That’s fine. Save your simplistic comments for elsewhere. — Xtrix

Thats why "Sir" Popper's philosophy is as a monstrously one-sided one, like the monstrous one and only god of Xenophanes. — Prishon

Which side would that be? Not saying I disagree, but what's the other side?

You mean delete the record of narcissistic rage you decided to alter. I might if you have a good idea by the end of the thread. Maybe, read what others said and aggregate some knowledge. Proceed.

Why couldn't my parents name me Xenophanes? Greek names give one the impression that whoever the name belongs to is going to either say/do something awesome! — TheMadFool

Could make for some awkward juxtapositions depending on the kid; "Look, Spartacus got picked last for kickball again."

Redacted....Don't want to be quoted, don't post. Save your stupidity for elsewhere. — Xtrix

You know it's interesting how people only seem to get upset when you accuse them of something they are guilty of.....Why not let whoever you are ranting at off the hook and let whatever punch line you are setting up hit the floor like the sorry sack of manure it surely resembles.

As a follow up Popper credited Xenophanes as the origin of his position. The fellow went around criticizing his teachers work; so I recall.

(1) is like an unmoved, silent, word- and thought-free witness that is aware of itself and of the thought-processes, emotions, and sensory perceptions taking place on the lower levels when looking as it were downward, and grasps the higher realities of the Forms, the Good, and the One, when looking upward. — Apollodorus

Interesting; I would describe this as psychology if I didn't know the context. I need to roll this around a little. Thanks again.

The one preceding it I meant to say. I was misrepresented by any measure. How about don't quote me.

I more pro-social, healthier view of human beings should be assumed before we decide how to organize a society, its government and its economy. — Xtrix

You quoted me out of context; ignoring the sentence directly following this one spoke to your entire complaint above. Do you have anything honest to say?

It's not an 'illusion' if they're all real is it. Are you claiming I've fabricated them? — Isaac

It wouldn't be an effective illusion if they were all fake. To cite things that aren't intended to support antivaxx messages; and suggest otherwise with undue emphasis does create an illusion. So, yes it is, even in this case; you wouldn't need to fabricate anything.

I think I have a loose understanding of what you and Plato are getting at. It sounds like giving labels to the different species of thought. The one we play with by the rules being logical, the associative or intuitive connections we make that aren't set to any logical criteria, the background processing like the "what it is" to see in 3D space, and lastly the gray area of mathematics where a self consistent model runs up against a world in flux. Or I'm out in the parking lot chasing fireflies; history suggest it's usually a bit of both. Thanks for the comprehensive response.

I still didn't get it. There's merit wherever there's irony. Can you dumb down your argument from epistemic irony for God so that I too may see what you seem to have seen. Thanks in advance! — TheMadFool

Socrates demonstrated the merits of classical skepticism showing expectations of certainty aren't the products of wisdom; but for some reason people choose to struggle to establish certainty instead of critical inquiry of their own ideas. He was basically delivering Popper's critical rationalism thousands of years in advance but it was misinterpreted and dogmatically applied into absurdity. At least they let Popper live a while longer.

The lack of a chorus of statistically trained analyst covering the anti-vaxx position — Cheshire

Do you need me to provide all of my 30 something citations again? Do you think enough time has gone by now that you can safely pretend I haven't fully cited every claim I've made with several experts in the field? And you accuse me of arguing tactically... — Isaac

Your citations create the illusion of such a chorus, but this thread is a solo performance.

Out of a group telling me Bill Gates wants to install an update in my brain to help depopulate the world; I have one person arguing the nomenclature of 'prevalence' that is understood to be common to epidemiology studies. You have been conceding it's good public policy and not citing info wars like a scientific journal. Either you really can't differentiate between an antivax position and the principle of anything being doubtable or this is a charade.

Right here is quality antivax material. Using an idiom incorrectly to support a position. Generally stating the Rosemary's Baby hypothetical they brought to the table is undecidable and suggesting a preference. Like, I prefer to divide by zero from right to left.

It is a rock and a hard place, but I know to which side I am leaning. — Tzeentch

If you have room to lean you aren't exactly caught between two rigid structures.

The real question is: What's so great about "markets" to being with? — Xtrix

Like democracy, it relies on the assumption we are flawed. Democracy limits harm through inefficiency and the free market functions on people serving their own interest above others. The free market doesn't describe a value for society; I think that's where things take a turn. It is a system of exchange that relies on humans to be selfish when they want something. It's organic and works with the least proud aspects of human nature. Central planning isn't a thing; too many people doing too many things. Trying to organize a forest.

I don't see anything trivially entertaining about discussing ethics, no. I think it's very serious. There's some entertainment in poking the ants, but the subject matter is a serious one. — Isaac

Do you want to get at the truth of the matter or defend your argument? Because, it isn't clear what is a genuine position and what's a high degree of tactical mastery in arguing a position. The lack of a chorus of statistically trained analyst covering the anti-vaxx position; like finding flat earthers with physics degrees from places that exist makes the authenticity, well statistically questionable. Aside from your "Phd" survey. Which is just an odd thing to have on hand. I'm surprised academic professionals would provide an answer to an up or down question regarding vaccination.

I agree. I don't think skepticism implies foundationalism, but JTB does. Now, this is an area that's never been very clear to me

We must not forget that for Plato true knowledge is not about some propositions, but about Ideas or Forms. — Apollodorus

. Is that to say true knowledge is internalizing propositional truth into some refined state or knowledge is about a system/method/mode of thought?

Arguing philosophical positions, such as ethical ones, is what we do here. Did you not notice the sign above the door? — Isaac

Never had the chance to use 'daft' in a post and appreciate the opportunity. Notice the sign above the door to this particular room concerns anti-vaxxer as a position. So, the matter at hand is regarding the position, not philosophy in general. At any point you want to acknowledge this as a charade by all means. We all have lives, some less prone to viral infection, so if this is just entertainment it would be nice to know. Otherwise, I think this argument falls below even your standards.

Interesting. I never imagined another way to take it.

A good example is potatoes. — Isaac

A good example is a lifetime study of epidemiology.

Until then, I don't see a case for why my preferences (which I take seriously, and are both social welfare based, not personal gain based) need be sacrificed to achieve a risk threshold which is not demanded of others exercising far more trivial preferences. — Isaac

No ones complained about a preference; it's the nonsense supporting it that is the issue. The question is regarding dissemination of reasoned positions for convincing the public it ought succumb to viral infection. Like I said weeks ago, simply stating "I rather not" is the pseudo responsible approach to this maelstrom of idiocy. No one needs justification for making that observation. It's the need to convince yourself by convincing others or in this case arguing to no foreseeable end that your decision though detrimental when applied broadly is the best course of action.

Not my problem, — Isaac

Good. Not my problem either.

That study shows that unvaccinated infected are 29 times more prevalent... — Isaac

Correct.

Perhaps get a shot then.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc-study-shows-unvaccinated-people-are-29-times-more-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

Better?

You cited a paywall.

Making people feel like idiot scum for not being vaccinated when you're happily approaching your 70% target already doesn't help (using up 85%of your vaccine stock in doing so). — Isaac

Find that number on paper.

No it isn't. Check your statistics (or learn some). — Isaac

I'm 70% right by your math.

The very fact that you write "harmful" lroves that you emphasize harmful. Why didnt you write "potentially harmless"? — Prishon

It's implied by the use of the word potentially that arguments which are harmless exist. In example, anyone reading this discussion would not be overwhelmed by the perceived creditability derived from the counter position being served. If you made a really good argument that compelled some one to forgo protection from the virus it would potentially be harmful. The harm is ultimately done by an outcome that results in an element of chance. Currently, it's a 29x greater chance of harm from an infection without a vaccine.

Why do you emphasize harmFULL? — Prishon

↪Prishon Distribution of a potentially harmful argument that others mistake for medical advice. — Cheshire

I emphasized potentially.

Its getting all mixed up now. — Prishon

Don't see how. I essentially provided a single sentence that I've had to requote against misstatement several times.

Do you disagree with the sentence? Would establishing that prior to throwing words at it help zero in on your target?