I'm trying to understand people who are quick to defend Russia. — frank

The answers have been given over and over.

1. That Putin's actions are awful is a) obvious and b) all over every form of media in the western world. Why do we need to repeat that every third word?

2. We're almost all either American, European or allies of those blocs. The policies we can influence are their policies, the power we can hold to account are their governments. We have virtually no line of influence to Russia so what would be the point in criticising those policies?

3. America and Europe are a crucial part of any solution. If you're comparing options it vital to be aware of who you're dealing with.

4. Not everyone feels an overwhelming compulsion to inform the world at large how they're feeling every thirty seconds.

I see. So nothing to do with the comment you cited then. Perhaps consider just making a fresh post next time, rather than opening with a completely unrelated comment?

The facts are quite evident now after a long investigation, but due to ignorance it's easy to voice doubts over who was responsible of the shooting.

One can see it happening here with Bucha: — ssu

You self evidently can't.

You just don't seem to get it, you don't see your role in this. You are one of the useful idiots.

1. Commit atrocity
2. Tell the world you didn't, and everyone who says you did is lying, western propaganda.
3. People like you point out that the (weak) evidence of their atrocities should always be taken at face value, any discussion of it is 'conspiracy theory' and dispute nothing but apologetics for the perpetrators.
4. The perpetrators say "see, look at the propaganda methods they're using"

Your attitude just serves their agenda.

If you want to fight against a side using propaganda to cover up crimes, and claiming that you're using propaganda to lie about them don't do exactly the thing they're claiming you do.

When you are killed as an Ukrainian nazi, A Chechen islamist terrorist or a Syrian jihadist... or a supporter of them, you don't choose yourself that "national" identity. The guy who shoots you has decided that on behalf of you. — ssu

None of those are national identities. They're all choices to join certain groups. I'm English, but I'm not going to commit others to war just to remain that way. I'll be Russian instead.

The point was simply that the 'national identity' argument doesn't have any moral force. There's no moral element to wanting to be Ukrainian instead of Russian.

The more the Russians murder innocent bystanders, children, grandmothers and the likes, the more hospitals, maternities and supermarket they bomb , the harder it will be to make any lasting peace. Ukrainians will never forgive such a behavior from their neighbours. I think they could forgive the war, being attacked for nothing, but not the massacre of defenseless innocents. — Olivier5

You're right.

What that's got to do with the comment you cited, which was about the morality of fighting for universals such as 'national identity', I'm afraid I've no idea.

If they are in a dire position, if they are suffering, if there's something fundamentally broken with their government that makes them suffer, then we shouldn't give a fuck. That's your argument. That's your simple conclusion to all of this. — Christoffer

How? You've suggested education. I disagree, so suddenly I'm saying we should do nothing? How on earth have you arrived at the conclusion that anything that isn't education is 'nothing'?

If I present an actual real-world solution, right now, as a pragmatic and practical thing that can actually be done; — Christoffer

You haven't. You've just vaguely waived about the words 'education' and 'westernised'. I could counter by vaguely waiving about the terms 'socialism' and 'worker's revolution'.

Here's my suggestion for westernized Russia. Implement social democracy, write a constitution with a strong focus on the protection of people's right to free speech, implement laws that protect independent media, and have state media be just funded by taxes, but ruled by constitutional law to be a critical entity of the government, free from any capitalist biases. Have a great form of welfare, either direct or through basic income, and have active organizations for anti-corruption work, much like Ukraine has had and successfully reduced corruption with. Outside of that, let them have a free market in order to engage internationally if they want. — Christoffer

Right.

My suggestion is exactly the same without the so-called 'free' market, and with worker-owned means of production.

What's on offer right now is none of the things we actually agree on and just the one we disagree on. What's being offered to Ukraine is western financial support in return for a reduction in social welfare, an increase in elite ownership over the means of production, and an opening up of markets.

I said nothing of that, that's your words. — Christoffer

I see. So from what non-western source did you anticipate this 'education' coming. Which textbooks of say, Senegalese, origin were you thinking of?

So you mean that critical thinking, the process of being able to be unbiased and rational in reasoning is not part of a quality education? — Christoffer

What 'specialist equipment' is required to investigate critical thinking?

you seem to miss that philosophy is pretty much built upon methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases — Christoffer

No. Again, I disagree that philosophy is built on methods to make sure you don't get stuck in biases.

What actual knowledge in psychology do you really have to propose that "thinking" requires nothing? — Christoffer

Well I'm a professor of Psychology - so there's that.

Thinking in of itself, even with a high intellect means nothing without the knowledge of how to structure such thoughts into reasonable and logical arguments. — Christoffer

And your evidence for this would be?

Education enables tools of thought for examining one's own pre-existing concepts and ideas, it enables you to realize just how little you know. The way you're describing it is extremely naive and excludes every basic knowledge of how psychology in sociological terms works. — Christoffer

Well, if it's so naive then there's something very wrong with the recruitment strategy of England's major Universities.

limiting the ability to gain access to tools of thought that make you able to think critically. — Christoffer

By claiming that native education methods limit this access you are claiming that these 'tools' only exist outside of these cultures. That is the racist element. Why do these tools only exist outside of these cultures?

Chernobyl was a globally known incident — Christoffer

Known to you. I know about Liverpool's chemical waste dump.

If "western" is just America I would agree with a shitload of what you say, but it's become a strawman for your arguments so I can't take it seriously. — Christoffer

Of course America is not the sole representative of 'the West', but it is a significant power. So when you say 'westernise' that could lead either to Sweden or America. What prevents one route and promotes the other? Not 'western' values clearly - they're represented by both.

if I say "quality education", I mean neutral education, I mean free of propaganda, even western propaganda — Christoffer

Right. So what Senegalese thinkers were included in your oh-so-non-westernised education?

What exactly do you disagree with in that text?? That good quality, neutral education, that enables people to see unbiased facts, different perspectives, concepts of how to think with deduction and induction... is not giving someone the tools to think critically and without bias? — Christoffer

Yes. That's exactly what I disagree with.

What exactly do you not agree with? Or are you saying... on a philosophy forum... that the concept of philosophy itself is bullshit? — Christoffer

Yes. Again, that something seems to you to be the case does not mean it actually is the case. Your incredulity is not an argument.

Are learning facts a universal human constant of gaining knowledge? — Christoffer

Yes.

Is a high level of knowledge required to reach wisdom? — Christoffer

No.

Is wisdom not needed to be able to internally pitch different perspectives against each other to induce a probable truth? — Christoffer

Yes.

you don't even understand that my idea of quality; unbiased education is about gaining the ability to see different perspectives. It's the core point of how to be able to think critically. — Christoffer

I perfectly well understand it. I disagree with it.

when I see children in schools funded by charities, when I see the hope in their eyes of getting doors opened to do things in their life and not just be victims of poverty and politics, then I feel hope, because the actual people of the country gain the knowledge to do something and not just have to wait for whatever political problems that is going on or whatever political boot the west push down on them. — Christoffer

Since education and development aid, growth in fair trade, reduction of debt, withdrawal of support for corrupt regimes...all tend to go hand-in hand. I don't see how you could present any evidence that it was the education that did it.

Have you not even had the thought that if there's a western boot pressing them down and not enabling them to rise up against it, a quality education, neutral education that grants them the knowledge to act against that boot might just be the solution to getting rid of that boot? — Christoffer

How? Explain the mechanism. We have the 'boot' of trade tariffs, pecuniary aid terms, environmental pressures, military power imbalances, arms sales to oppressive governments, political power being abused for financial gain, TNCs exploiting cheap labour... then you give the children of the country a good Western education and then...? What? How does knowing about Plato sort all those problems out? Talk me through the process.

Giving access to ... methods of unbiased thinking, which is my core point. — Christoffer

Exactly. Why didn't they already have access to methods of unbiased thinking from their own rich cultural heritage? What was wrong with them, that they didn't come up with these 'methods' already? They certainly didn't need any specialist technology. They had more time than we had. So explain to me, in non-racist terms, why these cultures (which have had longer to think about it than we have) don't already have these 'methods of unbiased thinking'?

if I teach someone how to do proper deductions, that has nothing to do with anything other than logically fine-tuning thinking itself to better reach valid conclusions. That is a universal method for human beings to bypass bias and is critical for anyone wanting to reach beyond set ideas. — Christoffer

If it is universal, then why is it not already part of their culture? Why is it not already passed down from parent to child, or cultural leader to children?

People who are fighting against a puppet governments of some foreign power (as Yanukovych was to the Ukrainians) in defence of their national identity and independence are not fighting against their flag, but for their flag as expression of their national identity and independence. And I find this kind of fight morally defensible. — neomac

Right. Well we'll just have to agree to differ. If you find it morally defensible and I don't, I don't see how much further we can go as there are few arguments that can profitably be brought to bear. The working class in both societies have more common interest against the ruling classes of both societies than the entire population of one has against the entire population of another.

fighting over national identity is morally defensible (even through war) because people can morally value things more than their own lives, like national identity and independence and unlike a piece of colored piece of fabric on top of a building or a puppet government. — neomac

It's not their lives. Zelensky (and his government) decide how to proceed. Western governments decide in what way to assist. Ukrainian children die. They didn't get a say in the matter. If you think that's moral, that's your lookout, but I don't see how. I don't see anyone asking the Ukrainian children if they'd rather lose both parents and remain governed by Zelensky, or retain their family and be governed by a Putin puppet.

knowing that in this war USA and Russia are fighting a proxy war in a piece of land called Ukraine for human and material resources, doesn’t tell me enough to decide whom I have to side with in this war. Knowing who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed, knowing that the oppressed is fighting for something I would value too at his place, knowing that this fight is a conventional war with its toll on civilians and their homes, etc. all this is more relevant for me to decide if one should support America or Russia or neither. — neomac

It's not about 'sides' it's about tactics. It's not possible to support a nation (like Russia, or the US or Ukraine). There are 41 million people in Ukraine and they have different opinions. You can't support them all. You're picking a method and supporting that.

all get’s compromised when parties start from such a position of mistrust as in this case. — neomac

I don't see how. How are you measuring 'mistrust' and why say it's too high here?

At this point partaking is not the problem, because there have been many negotiation sessions between Russians and Ukrainians, but they got stalled. — neomac

I'm not talking about Russia and Ukraine, I'm talking about all parties. That should include the US and Europe who are funding the war. they can't pretend to be innocent bystanders. Notwithstanding that, whether negotiations are taking place is not the question. Whether you support them is the question.

Putin’s dictatorial power extends over the last two decades so he could take all his time to prepare for this war and take effective decisions consistent with his goals, meanwhile in the US there have been five different administrations (including a philo-Putinist Trump) in loose coordination with an even greater number of changing and politically divided EU leaders and governments, decided also thanks to a growth of anti-globalist populism that Putin contributed to feed with his money and troll armies. So not exactly the same situation for responsibility ascriptions. — neomac

That assumes the power in America lies in the various ventriloquist dolls chosen to act as mouthpieces for the vast industries which run America.

Sure, then again the West tries to help the oppressed by delivering weapons instead of trying to help the oppressor. — neomac

Again, whether they 'try to help' is what's in question. Does a supply of weapons help? Is there any evidence that that's even the intention? A supply of weapons certainly boosts the profits of one of the most politically powerful industries in the world. Are you arguing that that's a coincidence?

No idea of the number of victims on both sides. — neomac

Then by what standard are you measuring? You seem pretty clear that Putin's tactic (a gross brutish bombs-and-guns approach) is morally worse than, say America's (a more sophisticated economic domination causing death by famines, ill-health, and 'collateral damage' in their proxy wars). If it's not the numbers of people killed or immiserated, then what? Are Putin's methods just to uncouth? Do you prefer a more sophisticated murderer?

What am I supposed to do with that? What evidence to you have?

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2022/03/04/are-ukrainian-values-closer-to-russia-or-to-europe/ — neomac

That's better. I don't see in there evidence that Ukraine clearly has more open views on standards of life than Russia. I see a complex picture. Views on homosexuality, for example.

you just repeated Putin’s demands and related blackmails without considering Ukrainian demands at all. — neomac

I know, that's why I said them. Those are the demands on the table at the moment, so of course they're Putin's. The argument was that they don't push Russian expansionism futher. They are the de facto positions already.

Therefore you do not care to offer an opposing strategy against Russian terroristic expansionism — neomac

Why would that lead from caring more about civilian lives?

Who is us? I didn’t throw anybody under tanks. And the antecedent of that conditional is false. Nothing to explain here. — neomac

I'm dissecting your support. Do you support those who do?

Western leaders have moral reasons to contrast Putin offensive expansionism the best they can, as long as they can. — neomac

Again, it's methods, not reasons. Just because we have a moral reason to oppose Putin's expansionism, doesn't' give us free reign to do so by any method available.

Concerning “methods”, I simply claimed they have moral implications and therefore I take them into account: a stick and carrot strategy (a mix of incentives and deterrence) may be morally more defensible than a full blown-war as in this case. — neomac

Yes, but that's why the US's tactics in Yemen matter, because you're claiming to "take them into account". Where have you 'taken into account' the fact that the US and Europe are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths too? So wherefore the moral justification for choosing their methods over Putin's?

Maybe this is your kind of thing?
I'm thinking that differentiating socialism and communism is needed. — jorndoe

An Interesting prospect. I'll wait to see if anything arises.

But then there's the socialist extreme left who think inventing utopias in their heads solves real problems people face right now. So far I'm all for structuring away from neoliberal market societies, but the radical socialists have dreams just as problematic. And how is that a solution to what I'm writing about?
How is that a solution to freeing the people of Russia from Putin's authoritarian boot? This is the problem I'm talking about, you have no actual real-world solution, you have a utopia in your head, a conceptual dream that won't help anyone until their basic needs are met. — Christoffer

So again, what you mean when you say "people haven't supplied me with an answer..." is "I disagree with the answer...". It's astonishing on a philosophy forum how often this seems to need repeating...

Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

People disagree about what is the case.

Because if you want to change for the better when every one of them is bad... you pick the lesser evil. — Christoffer

Yes, but you've still not answered the question. Why must they pick the lesser evil from already existing alternatives? Why not pick the lesser evil from some theoretical system? Why not try something new?

I want you to pick a type of society that can actually be implemented in Russia that will enable a better outcome than my example. — Christoffer

Again, you've not supplied a reason why the society that can actually be implemented must already exist. New types of society can be implemented. That's how we make progress.

I just have a greater understanding of the concept of time and change. Political landscapes are just like geography, mountains stand strong because they change slowly. Changes that are stable and fundamental for a nation might take many generations to reach its final stable goal and when reaching them they have merely become a synthesis of more concepts than originally thought up.

But such change needs a foundation so it can change. If free speech, free and independent media, free communication, free education, free knowledge, and a great protection of the people and their voice against power is there at the foundation, it is the soil that new types of societies can grow out of. If you take that away, like in Russia, like in many nations with authoritarian regimes, you take away the soil and the growth dies, becomes dirt and static death.

Utopias mean nothing if there's no soil for them to grow out of. Dreaming of such utopias means nothing if the goal is to change the world. You start with the soil and go from there and if the fact of the world today is that this "soil" is most common in westernized nations, then so be it, that's a fact of reality right now, start there and build from there instead of trying to grow where there is no soil. — Christoffer

Again...

Something seeming to you to be the case is not the same as it actually being the case.

You just thinking all that doesn't render it the case.

So, you mean that the fact that a large portion of Russians is educated, especially outside of the denser cities, is racist? — Christoffer

Yes, partly just on the grounds that you've provided no evidence at all, but simply assumed it. But more importantly the racist trope is the idea that 'education' (from Western sources) is needed to teach people things like how to govern, how to hold government to account, to avoid tyranny...

If one needed any specialist equipment to discover some aspect of science, one could make a reasonable argument that poorer societies, on account of their poverty, would not have that knowledge. But all that's required to govern is thought. No specialist expensive equipment is required. So what you're implying with your assessment is that the people in these countries have simply failed to work it out for themselves, they need us to teach them, they can't, parent-to-child, simply teach their own children how to be good citizens, they need us to come along and show them. That is inherent racism. It's about the narrative that we in the (largely white) West are civilised and peaceful and we have to teach the violent uncivil 'natives' how to do it.

Is Russian soldiers not even knowing what Ukraine is or what Chernobyl is because they didn't get any education about any of it... racist? — Christoffer

Yes. Do you know where the chemical waste dump outside Liverpool is? You're taking a perspective of some knowledge you happen to have, applying it to those that don't and then taking the absolutely enormous leap that they therefore don't know how to run their country, how to be good citizens, how to rise up against their government... It's outrageous and it perpetuates racist tropes. You can't possibly have missed the "50% of Americans believe..." type reports that come out again and again. American education is a mess of religious indoctrination, crowd control and vocational treadmills. Are you so sure an American conscript (should such a thing exist) would have the faintest idea what to do or not to do at Chernobyl?

a nation under a government that is corrupt or has little means to handle poverty on their own and almost no people educated enough to be able to work to better the nation's situation, does not need to change that status quo? And helping those nations with getting children free education so that this structural problem can be bypassed in order to have a new generation that can build something better on their own... is racist? — Christoffer

Yes. Again, it's a racist trope that they can't simply do this for themselves. Why does it need a school? Why does it need a qualified teacher? Which country (which racial heritage) would have educated that teacher? It's all about information flowing from the 'civilised races' to the 'uncivilised' ones. Why can't a parent in these countries simply teach their own child what they themselves have worked out about how to be a good citizen using their own rich and long cultural heritage?

you don't understand what I mean with education enabling active thinking about ongoing problems in their nations? Like, you don't get that I'm implying that education gives tools to channel the intellect because if you have knowledge about the world, you can organize thinking philosophically to arrive at solutions to problems you need to solve. — Christoffer

No. I disagree with you about it. Your inability to tell the difference between someone not understanding and someone disagreeing is at the heart of these problems. Something might really seem clear to you, that doesn't make it a fact, it doesn't mean that people who disagree have somehow failed something. It just means you lack the imagination to see how others could see things differently.

I, of course, mean that they have gotten an education that gives them the tools, the knowledge to deconstruct the problems in their nation. — Christoffer

I know what you mean. I disagree. People in poorer nations do not need to be "given tools" to deconstruct the problems in their nations. They know what the fucking problems are, it's our boot on their fucking neck. And what they need is for us to remove it.

If you get poor nations free education, you give the people the ability to more effectively think about their own life and their country and how to fix things that are broken with it. — Christoffer

The assumption implicit here is that they lack this ability natively. That there's something about their native culture that needs 'fixing', by us. These people have a cultural heritage stretching back tens of thousands of years. Are you suggesting that in all that time they haven't worked out what we in 'the west' worked out in the last few hundred? Do you not see how that plays into racist stereotypes of the violent savage and the enlightened westerner?

But it is a fact that the Russians who want to get rid of Putin, the corruption, the war and everything are the educated, more wealthy citizens of the major cities. — Christoffer

Right. So on what grounds are you claiming it's their education and not their wealth which gives them the leeway to oppose Putin?

Nowhere did I even remotely imply that poor nations have lesser intellects, that's your words, your writing, your concept in mind, not mine. So stop making that part of my argument, I talked nothing of the sort. — Christoffer

You literally just implied it in the paragraph from which this quote is taken...

learning philosophy, math, politics, nature, writing, and reading, tools for thought, tools to use intellect for change. — Christoffer

Why can a Russian child (or an Indian child, or a Senegalese child...) not simply learn those (bolded) things from his or her parent? From his or her grandparent, cultural leader, religious teacher, stories...or just watching their parents live life? Why do they need some (universally white, western) textbooks to tell them all those things?

What are the real-world actual solutions to the problems in Russia and Ukraine? I think the problem with this thread is that too many sit in their comfort and invent utopias in their heads and are unable to accept that the lesser bad is the better solution at this time. — Christoffer

You do know there's a global socialist movement don't you? I can't think of any way to interpret this question other than a rhetorical one implying you find those approaches inadequate. I can't believe you're genuinely unaware of them.

The point I've made is that if you take all forms of societies and pit them against each other, on a large scale, the form that has the most ability to change over time is the western version — Christoffer

Yes. And the counterargument takes issue with your use of 'all'. If you compare current societies, the Western ones probably experience more freedom overall than ones like Russia or China. But this is an irrelevant fact without some argument as to why we are obliged to pick from the current ones.

solutions in the now and real-world today in terms of this conflict need a pragmatic perspective that enables actual solutions based on what is actually existing, not what utopian form of world past capitalism that we can think of, because that doesn't help anyone right now. — Christoffer

As has been pointed out before, your lack of imagination, or unwillingness to read up about alternative politics, is not an argument. It's just a poor reflection of the depth of your engagement with the issues.

My apologies. I'll try again.

This...

Russia is filled with uneducated people who really have no way of knowing what is true or not because they were never given any tools to figure that out. — Christoffer

...is a racist trope.

As is...

However, some charities develop schools and if people could be a little patient in observation, they will see that this education has an exponential effect on the nation. Status quo changes since you get more people able to actively think about how to improve their own nation. — Christoffer

I'm not saying @Christoffer is racist, but those two positions are both common racist tropes that need to be called out as such.

Societies which are less well developed (whether governmentally or economically) suffer from a range of constraining conditions - the majority of which are created and actively maintained by the more developed nations, and it is those conditions, not a lack of intellect, which keeps them where they are.

Were the proposition that a lack of education in advanced engineering held back a country's engineering capabilities, it would be perfectly arguable - but that an education in essentially, 'how to think' is necessary implies that these country's natively lack such an ability.

To be clear - the relation to this thread - it is Russia's material conditions, not the intellectual capabilities of its inhabitants, which prevents change.

Little things like that, yes, should be pointed out. — ssu

Why?

I'm asking you to find a better alternative, that exists today. Please present an alternative that actually counters my argument here, because I still haven't heard any actual and realistic alternative yet. — Christoffer

This has already been answered. That you refuse to engage with the answer is not something the rest of us are responsible for. Western capitalism entails, as an intrinsic part of it's approach, efforts to destroy or harm alternative systems. As such, systems compete, and are successful, not on a metric of human well-being, but on a metric of being able to survive that inter-system competition. The most sucessful systems are those which compete best in that fight. If that's a metric you're impressed by for some reason, that's your problem.

The 'solution' such as it is, is to bring down capitalism so that it is not one of the competitors. That way alternative systems can compete on the grounds of their impact on human well-being rather than on the grounds of their ability to withstand the onslaught capitalism directs toward them.

That solution is not brought about by making countries more capitalist.

I think here media reporting doesn't use the word accurately. — ssu

Seriously? You're quibbling about the correct terminology?

The only matter of substance with regards to the 'siege' is it's impact on the question of whether sending (more) arms to Ukraine is going to do more harm than good. In respect to that question, it hardly matters if the term is being used accurately. What matters is whether the action (whatever it was) was something successfully frustrated in its objective by the Ukrainians sufficient to increase the leverage at the negotiation table, or whether the degree of obstacle Ukraine presented was within the range of responses Russian plans anticipated.

It's to that question @boethius is applying his analysis. You pointing out that some of the terminology could be interpreted differently has no bearing on that question.

Do you have anything of substance to add?

I'd think you'd almost need a survey with a finite number of options for choosing between or rating statements simple enough to neutralize the interpretation problem. But maybe that would be too constraining. — jas0n

Yeah, that's how it's generally done, but nonetheless, I'm not sure one could ever devise statements of such clarity and circumstances wherein people felt no narrative pressure to ascribe to any given one, to elimiante the problem. That's not to say it's not a very useful approach. One just needs to be aware of the limitations.

A very considered answer, thank you. — Tom Storm

No problem, glad you found it of interest.

It seems to me that spoken and written words (as opposed to postulated thoughts) make good data. One could test, for instance, the relationship between answers on a survey and actual behavior (such as verbal beliefs and actions manifesting such belief.) — jas0n

This is done quite frequently, with mixed results. The problem is in interpreting the statement. Statements are vague and it's not always clear what the speaker means by them, so any result contrasting their behaviour with the researcher's interpretation of the statement, is always going to be problematic if used to claim a relation between their behaviour and their interpretation of the statement. If you can track down a copy (though it's very old now and probably massively out of date) I suggest reading through 'The Problem of a Logical Theory of Belief Statements' by Nicholas Rescher.

Essentially, belief statements as either speech acts or acts of agreement are only tangentially connected to beliefs as 'tendencies to act as if X'.

More often, for example, they act like badges signifying membership of social groups - like a password one must utter to enter a building - and such belief statements are exchanged to ascertain groupings in uncertain environments. Take, for example, any divisive topic and look at the clichés exchanged. The semantic content of the statements doesn't matter and is rarely even considered. What matters are keywords which signify the group, the narrative, to which one adheres.

In other cases, they act as comforters, re-enforcing narratives which are important. For example, the belief statements one might use to reassure oneself, or those one might use to clarify in the face of uncertainty.

Finally, there's Rescher's problem that people do not always understand the logic of the statements they assert such that a person can assert the premises of a valid argument but assert the opposite of its conclusion. We cannot understand both assertions in terms of a belief - a tendency to act as if X - because one often cannot act as if two contradictory states of affairs are both the case.

What are your thoughts on phenomenological approaches? — Tom Storm

To be honest, I don't think I ever saw how it was a sufficiently unified approach to be collected under a single banner. I read Giorgi when I was at university and found a lot in there of interest, but didn't see it as ending up with anything much different to the behemothic theories of human minds to which I was so opposed. As an approach to therapy I understand it has had some great success (clinical psychology is not my field, so I can't really comment, but I've certainly heard good things about it). As an approach to social or cognitive psychology, however, it doesn't seem to offer much new and in fact re-enforces much of what I see as being wrong with the mainstream approaches in those fields.

I think all psychology suffers from the problem any form of anti-realism suffers from, in that you cannot get outside of a way-of-thinking to think about a way-of-thinking. So if one wants to do some work on the question of how we think, one needs not only to compartmentalise, but to do so within a model which allows for the fact that such compartmentalising has itself taken place within a framework which pre-existed it.

That, to me, is the advantage of methodological behaviourism. It compartmentalises the metal processing by 'black boxing' it in a manner which, whilst still reliant on some mental framework (here cause and effect), minimises that reliance to something about which there is little genuine doubt.

Re-introducing descriptions of those mental processes, therefore, should, as I said above, be an act of necessity, not one of foundation. One should avoid, at all costs, seeing any kind of foundational view of psychological systems as anything other than a story. A pragmatic narrative on which to hang the various results. And yes, that too is just a narrative. It's narratives all the way down - as the expression goes.

I see. I have a lot of sympathy for the methodological behaviourist approach and most of my earlier work was from that perspective. The reason, at the time, was what seemed like a lighter reliance on theory. I felt that too much of psychological testing was about shoring up these grotesque theories rather than the more simple matter of making better guesses about behaviour, so in that respect I agree.

Such an approach runs into problems, however, when looking at the constraints the physical system (mind-body-environment) places on intention, especially over time. It's as if the contents of a box were analysed purely in terms of what it did when you opened the lid, like a spring (the contents) might fly out after the lid is removed (the behaviour). But if the box was damp, the spring might have rusted, we'd lack an explanatory framework for the new 'behaviour' of the spring because we bracketed out the interaction between it and the box.

I now prefer a slightly more cognitive approach, but I'm still extremely leery of allowing theoretical constructs to gain too much concreteness, so don't really fit well in that field either. Fortunately for me, I'm now old enough to no longer need to.

I believe Isaac is/was a psychological researcher. Perhaps he could provide some input on this. — jas0n

I'd be happy to, but I'm not very clear on what you're asking. Perhaps you could clarify, if it's still relevant?

Because you wanted to score a cheap point on a message board? — Olivier5

Nice use of irony, but no. To try and get you to see the unpleasant ease with which arguments you think are important can be rendered trivial by some dick on the internet trying to 'catch you out' instead of assuming even the most basic level of charity. But as usual, you are the exception, the true path from which all others stray.

And of course you know that, and deleted it from the quote on purpose, to make it look like I was contradicting myself . Which I didn't. — Olivier5

Exactly. But your narcissism prevents you from seeing why.

No, I just proved that you willingly distorted a quote of mine — Olivier5

OK, if you seriously want to get into it. What do you mean by 'side'? What could choosing, a not-side possibly mean?

Next time, quote the whole sentence. — Olivier5

So we're equivocating about what 'side' means?

Of course we are.

The point I was trying to make is that we can easily pick up comments out of context and put you in a position to have to explain yourself. It's pointless.

If you want to know what @boethius meant, ask.

I didn't say you must take side. — Olivier5

...

The choice ... is about which side to chose...

The choice for a poster here is somewhat similar.

...You must make a choice — Olivier5

Not a single Russian POW, soldier, officer or official ever said otherwise at the time — Olivier5

Out of how many?

dozens have reported the delusion was widespread — Olivier5

Doesn't answer any of my questions.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that when @boethius says "I use the word surround rather than encircle", he possibly doesn't mean "I literally always use the word surround in place of the word encircle, and you will never find me using the latter". That would be a somewhat heterodox thing to say the least.

What conflict of interest do Russian soldiers have, when they call their family and say in essence: "Our officers told us it would be a matter of a few days, but we are in this hell for X weeks now"? — Olivier5

You're joking, right? You're surely not seriously asking me what conflict of interest an actual soldier fighting in the war might have?

Are they experts? Do they have insight into Putin's plans? Do they have a clear, unfiltered access to leadership? Were the soldiers surveyed, was there proper stratification to ensure the survey wasn't biased, were their stories corroborated, were their credentials checked? Did you hear their stories directly or a newspaper choose them? If the latter, did they reject any conflicting stories? Did they seek out any conflicting stories?

You've got a couple of soldier's reports and you're trying to present that as "established fact"?

This a rather paranoid picture you got there. How come the mage boethius can still post on TPF then? — Olivier5

It's not about presence of information, its about unfettered access to it. Are you denying those censorship policies exist? If not, then on what platform do you expect experts contradicting the mainstream narrative to publish?

And these criteria do not apply to "the Russians believed it would be a short and easy operation" because? — Olivier5

Mainly on this occasion it's because there simply isn't any unbiased access to sufficient expert analysis of Russian intentions. Assuming you're continuing your analysis of my approach, you'll recall I specified...

check they have no glaringly obvious conflict of interest — Isaac

Any information which might be considered pro-Russian has been censored, all social media sites are enforcing active bans, search engines are de-ranking anything straying from the mainstream narrative, and it would be corporate suicide in that environment for any media outlet to be anything other than jingoistic flag-waivers. We live in a fully censored information environment (despite not actually being at war, apparently).

Notwithstanding the fact that you've failed to provide any expert support at all for your assertion - I'll extend you the charity to assume you read it somewhere - there simply isn't the time, nor the environment for any conclusion to have been sufficiently scrutinised to be labelled as fact.

In practice, how would you go about establishing the fact that the Russians thought it would be a short and easy 'operation'? — Olivier5

Intelligence data, transcripts, emails, interviews with key personnel, political analysis...

How one would go about establishing a fact is not the same task as how one would go about determining if a fact had been established or not. The former requires empirical data, the latter I can do by proxy - if no experts really disagree I can safely assume it's been 'established' without my having to go through the process of establishing it myself.

I never asserted anything of the sort. — SophistiCat

No, but you 'really' intended to assert it, that much was obvious from your posts up to that point (according to my armchair psychoanalysis of you from miles away).

So it's utterly right that we should spend the next dozen pages, at least, explaining in painstaking detail just how much you failed in supporting that assertion which I decided you definitely were trying to make.

just a loan; I expect it to be returned and not carelessly left somewhere in Mordor — boethius

Well yes, who'd be careless enough to flood a volatile region with small arms?

"My only regret is that I have but one life to give for my country."

"Give me liberty, or give me death." — frank

I love the way a load of armchair-bound foreigners are invoking noble virtues of 'freedom' to explain their advocacy for someone else doing the fighting.

You know Ukraine are accepting volunteers don't you? If it's so noble, why aren't you and @Olivier5 on a plane already. I'll even lend you my rifle.

the evident military setbacks — SophistiCat

I don't see why we should be expected to accommodate for your faux inability to tell the difference between what seems evident to you and what actually is evident.

Just because your limited assessment of a tiny proportion of the available data leads you to conclude what we're seeing is a series of setbacks, it doesn't mean that's actually the case.

You're sufficiently well versed in epistemology to tell the difference. Your failure to do so here is nothing but tribalism.

Oh and here of course is a useful idiot echoing the generals' line with his trenchant "analysis": — SophistiCat

And what 'analysis' are you contributing exactly? "Russia said it, so it must be false". Stunning next-level analysis there.

Of course Russia also said they expected Ukrainians would 'lay down arms and welcome them'. They also said they wanted to unite Ukraine with Russia. But we believe them there because...

"When Russia says something that matches our narrative they're definitely telling the truth. When they say something that doesn't match our narrative, they're definitely lying"

you did not mention the necessity for a body of knowledge in your definition of an established fact. — Olivier5

I said...

Something which I would simply assume someone knowledgeable in the subject believed without feeling the need to ask. — Isaac

Your definition isn't working then, it is too close to that of a beauty contest. — Olivier5

It's not even remotely close to a beauty contest. I've just explained that.

There's no body of knowledge about beauty, so there's no 'epistemic peers' relevant to the matter. — Isaac

If a majority of your 'epistemic peers' agree that Merkel is the sexiest woman alive, by your definition then it is an established fact. — Olivier5

It doesn't make any sense. There's no body of knowledge about beauty, so there's no 'epistemic peers' relevant to the matter.

If you just mean 'everyone' then the answer is obviously yes. If everyone agreed that Merkel is the sexiest woman alive, then that's clearly what 'sexy' means. The word is defined by the community of language users, it's not defined first by God and then we find out what things fit it.