I suspect you rely more on instrumentation, measurement and science for your evidence i.e DNA vs eyewitness testimony.
I'm not solipist or a skeptic just recognizing the limitations of eyewitness testimony and evidence. — prothero

I suspect you rely more on your senses to read those instruments, though you probably don't remember.

Jesus, how hard do I have to press the Non-Sense button before the alarm bells start ringing?

Rely on your senses, or rely on your nonsenses - it's your call folks.

The limitations of our "senses" in combination with the fluidity of our "memory" make eyewitness testimony among the worst forms of "evidence". — prothero

Yes I always rely on my non-senses, for proper evidence.

I read that too, but I didn't believe my own eyes.

This is the problem with skepticism; the more I believe it, the less believable it is. But I have never met a skeptic yet who could follow this simple logic.

Yes it was an argument. Your hallucination agrees with your potent argumentation, and is completely convinced, and this is evidence that you are not hallucinating and and that skepticism, though perfectly reasonable, is in this case disproved. That's right, isn't it?

Totally convincing argument, dude. Your hallucination is convinced by flattery, where logic utterly failed.

News just in. The people down the road, that have the children Mrs un used to tutor, and who rushed up to hug her a couple of weeks ago, have tested positive for covid. So this increases the probability that the bug we have been suffering from the last couple of days is also covid. We don't merit a test because we are not care-workers, merely old biddies, and the contact tracers have unaccountably not contacted us. Meanwhile the government thinks children are 'probably' not big vectors of the spread because otherwise it would damage the economy. I will probably not be giving daily briefings on the situation in the street because you probably don't care very much.

Look how we argue (in the logical sense). It reveals what we trust in - logic/reason — TheMadFool

Just your perception dude. I'm not even here, I'm just an hallucination.

... we aren't making a mistake by looking for and evaluating good reasons to believe whether our perceptions are hallucinations or real. — TheMadFool

And what, pray, does skepticism recommend we use to make this evaluation? Given that even if we find what we are looking for in the way of reasons to believe, they are just as dubitable perceptions as the perceptions we doubt, there seems no reason to do any such thing and that it is indeed a foolish mistake.

But I speak from the bane of philosophy, the skeptic's point of view — TheMadFool

Well from there, you have no more reason to believe any answer you might get, than the original perception. In fact there's no point my talking to you as you will dismiss it as 'mere perception'. In fact you don't even have a point of view, merely a point of perception. In fact... no, there are no facts, only perceptions. The perception that you or I are saying anything at all is... merely ...

Do you think a person should corroborate what he's perceiving by checking how many other people also perceive the same thing? — TheMadFool

I asked Mrs un if you were saying what I thought you were saying, and seeking to corroborate what you're thinking with what I'm thinking, and she said "Stop being a twat, Mr un!" or words to that effect.

You'd have to trust your perceptions of what other people are perceiving, so ordinarily no. You need a reason to doubt a particular perception before seeking 'other evidence'. Mainly, things are as plain as the nose on your face, and if you seem to have mislaid the nose on your face, that is the time to consult your nearest and dearest.

What you do is different than what you say, so what am I suppose to believe? — Harry Hindu

I don't want to discuss what I think you ought believe about what I claim to believe, because, apart from being off-topic, I cannot expect you to believe what I might have to say about it, given that you already don't believe what I have just said as clearly as possible more than once, and done my absolute damnedest to elicit your agreement about. But you don't want to agree, even about what we are talking about. So we seem to have a disagreement about what we have a disagreement about, but without actually disagreeing, but merely by not believing what is being said. It's a very neat demonstration of the limitations of logic and common sense. If I am not to be trusted in what I say, no amount of logic can resolve that. Our disagreement cannot even be expressed.

'Did you see that flying pig just now? I'd swear it was smoking a pipe!' — unenlightened

And you think you're the mad fool!

Circumstances, dear boy.

Sometimes less is more. https://phys.org/news/2015-11-colour-blindness-aid-efforts.html

It's not a principle at all, but if something leads one to doubt one's senses, one looks for corroboration. I ask whether you saw that flying pig, because it is, as you say, odd. If it were normal, it would arouse no doubt and no comment, unless, 'Did you see that flying pig just now? I'd swear it was smoking a pipe!'

Sometimes it is wise to shoot yourself in the foot.

You might face a firing squad for cowardice, but the risks of remaining in the frontline trenches are far greater.

Mind you, this is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury.

A blind man lacks a common sense. But he presumably has all the other common senses.

I'd like to reprise common sense for a moment, and suggest that it is common, not in the sense of there being no shortage, but in the sense of it being shared. Meaning is shared, senses are shared, and this is the bedrock on which all communication is founded. Our discussion cannot begin without this commonality.

It is hard to communicate with a deaf-blind person, because the senses we have in common are not the ones we usually philosophise with.

we don't convict people for being pieces of shit — Hanover

Is motivation not a factor in criminal law in the US? Malice aforethought and stuff? In the UK being a piece of shit is the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Perhaps people would rather die with a full belly than perish from starvation. — TheMadFool

Except that food production and distribution has not shut down. Millions of people are dying around the world from a lack of foreign holidays, football deprivation, and amateur haircuts. Not. What one ought to learn from this crisis is how extraordinarily trivial most economic activity is. That the economy can shrink by a staggering amount without doing more than oblige people to change their habits a little. That if most people never work again, it really doesn't matter much as long as we can still feed and look after them, which is a matter of will and organisation, not of economic luxury.

Yeah, but not on the topic at hand, because you decided to engage in ad hominem political attacks rather than defend your statements on the topic at hand. — Harry Hindu

Sorry, are you saying we shouldn't be discussing how to resolve conflicts of opinion or that we should be? I take the latter view - do you agree?

Note. I am here following my own stricture of trying to establish some common ground.

I thought we were supposed to be talking about the topic at hand? — Harry Hindu

Oh. I'm glad we agree.

I blame that Caxton fellow. When everything had to be hand written, one copy at a time, folks were more careful about what was being promulgated.

The topic we are supposed to be talking about isn't a political one. — Harry Hindu

That's right Harry, I forgot, there's no conflict of opinion in politics is there?

Even if we allow that it is trivially true that my statement is really my statement, — Pantagruel

I would like to suggest to you, in relation to the topic we are supposed to be discussing, that this conflict cannot be resolved, because no genuine communication is taking place. You might as well argue with Trump, because you are a a very bad person, and very illogical, and you are dealing with a very stable genius.

Thus the answer, without discussion, "Logic." partakes of this authoritarian attitude. One might suppose that reputable logicians have never been known to disagree. Yet we surely know that this is not the case, and so the word becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one with. — unenlightened

And so we find ourselves arguing about the length of the stick and who has the better grasp on it. And the original question is quite forgotten.

Is there a tried and true universally applicable method of determining for ourselves what's best to believe regarding the subject matter? — creativesoul

It is as others have said the Platonic method of dialogue. But one can say some more about the elements of dialogue. First, it requires an assumption of equality. We must begin our dialogue with the assumption that we are both able to change our opinions and both able to understand each other. This begins the second element - finding the common ground.

We need the common ground at least of this much in order to even disagree. So if one is unable to begin this dialogue with an equality and an engagement that will look for first common ground and then for the detail of disagreement, then it all becomes impossible. Someone, for example, with a strong sense of superiority, or even infallibility, cannot begin such a conflict resolution, but will resort to authority, dictat, threats or insults. They cannot communicate.

Thus the answer, without discussion, "Logic." partakes of this authoritarian attitude. One might suppose that reputable logicians have never been known to disagree. Yet we surely know that this is not the case, and so the word becomes nothing more than a stick to beat one with.

Yup. The medical model fails again. Mind can just about operate on the body as an externality. It's mad, but cosmetic surgery and body-building can be done. But the very idea that misery can, let alone ought, to transform itself into happiness is ridiculous. The effort of trying to lift oneself off the ground by pulling hard on the bootlaces, is not even amusing to watch any more.

But this is the condition of the depressed in any case; they are busy not feeling how they feel. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to be focussed on, and highly vigilant of one's feelings, and I suppose one does this by making an external identification of what m(other) or 'the neighbours' approve and disapprove. Only from outside can one bestow on oneself the identification 'depressed'. *

The miserable (fragmented) family/society is thus recreated as identifications; from the alienated place one contrasts what one 'is' with what one 'ought to be', and demands that the bootlaces be pulled harder, because one hasn't quite left the depressed ground and floated into the fantasy of one's 'potential'.

And the final irony, that this non sense becomes entrenched to the point where one longs for an authentic self, one seeks to reach the ground one never managed to leave.

* This is the case with every identification; one see's oneself from the outside, and so psychologically, identity is duality. In pointing to myself, I inevitably reverse my hand so that it comes as if from outside. The duality of identifier and identified is implicit in every identity.

So does medicine. — Shawn

Yes indeed. Shall we call purveyors of medicine purveyors of death? The crack or spice addict and the alcoholic are not a long way from the suicide. What the doctor prescribes is probably an improvement on these, but it does the same job of 'getting out of one's head' when one's head is intolerable.

But I say, and the evidence supports, that it is not entirely one's head that is intolerable, but the what society projects into one's head. When society is projecting onto some other 'enemy', as in war time, then the suicide rate drops. When homosexuals are not persecuted, labeled as perverted and deviant, beaten up on the streets, and, ahem, forcibly treated by psychiatrists, lo and behold, they commit suicide less.

A horse doesn't care... — Shawn

This is about the only question that psychology has given a clear and unambiguous answer to. If you want an obedient docile horse, or dog, or child, rewarding good behaviour outperforms punishing bad behaviour by a huge margin.

But more so with highly social apes and especially humans, learning takes place by imitation. So violent punishing parents bring up their kids to be violent punishers. Monkey see, monkey do.

The idea that society will collapse without punishment comes from those punished punishers who cannot conceive that anyone would cooperate without a background of fear and threat. And it is still a dominant attitude unfortunately. One has to prevent violent people from hurting others and so perhaps they must be forcibly restrained behind bars, and in the same way one has to forcibly restrain a child that does not know better from running into the road. But punishment is a waste of time in every case. One cannot teach or enforce cooperation by means of coercion.

I don't think we should go overboard and be ocd about hand washing and stuff. — Julia

Chefs have to wash their hands whenever they have handled raw food, and before they handle any cooked food or food the will not be cooked especially dairy. Maybe 40- 50 times a day. Wash your damn hands every time you change environment, and don't be a whining antisocial idiot.

so... who's voting for Starmer in 4 years time? — Professor Death

Well personally I'd vote for Lord Buckethead if I thought he'd beat Boris the professional turnip, so wet dish-cloth Starmer will probably get my vote unless he does something, which seems very unlikely.

Meanwhile, have some advice chaps.

https://erinbromage.wixsite.com/covid19/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR1BO5HezHqJ43-QY8bSC5oE7ycNfHmgRUJ7vmEQMoSeXavYbHai9wHBb2g

I'm pretty good, considering, thanks for the concern though. I have a daughter working in a hospital and that's a worry, but I'm loving the less traffic and hearing some birdsong again.

3. Absence of pain is good even if that good isn't enjoyed by anyone. — TheMadFool

Good for no one = no good at all.

Basically, he's treating unborn, potential persons differently in 3 and 4. — TheMadFool

Yes. but he thinks it is justified; we don't. But Let's try and give devil his due here.

Imagine a really bad life, someone has thrown acid in your face and you are blind scarred and ugly in terrible pain and needing many operations unable to work and having to beg homeless on the street. Add gore to taste. Nothing can justify that, nothing can make that suffering worthwhile. But my vaguely pleasant unremarkable life of parenthood and comfort has brought into existence not only my children, but potentially untold generations, one or more of whom will quite likely have just such a life of unmitigated suffering. So this is the sense in which I think in those untold generations the pleasant lives of the many cannot compensate for the one miserable life. This is the radical choice you are offered, to be responsible for many ordinary pleasant lives and some miserable ones, or no lives at all. No one is deprived by you not having children, but some will suffer if you do. That is the asymmetry.

So to say yes to life, to the extent of procreation, is to say yes to a life you would expect to say no to if you had to actually live it. The vale of tears, they call this world; the same world that God saw was good. Religion is very ambivalent about procreation.

Secondly, Benatar's "good" must be viewed vis-a-vis suicide. The person who takes his own life chooses to do so because nonexistence is a better ("good") option for him compared to, say, being subject to a long drawn out battle with a painful life-threatening illness. It follows then that people's intuitions on the matter are in line with Benatar's views. — TheMadFool

Yes, I think one should take the suicide seriously. But I think the non-suicide such as thou and I should also be taken seriously, and clearly our intuitions are different. But you confirm my point, that good and bad are relational. The suicide considers his existence bad-for-him, (and probably bad-for-others). I don't.

40
The asymmetry is not an argument, it's a description of how we humans experience pain and pleasure. — zookeeper

I don't think it can be. Humans don't experience absence and they don't experience non-existence.

Benatar's asymmetry, as far as I can tell is that the absence of pleasure is not bad but not bad. — TheMadFool

It's quite hard to articulate the nonsensicality. "It's a good thing unicorns don't exist, because it results in them feeling no pain. If they existed, they might feel pain." As soon as you say 'good thing' it becomes clear that non-existence of anything cannot be a good thing in its own right. And indeed good and bad are relational, so that x is good for y. Creation is good for God, or logic is good for philosophy, or an axe is good for chopping wood, sugar is bad for the teeth, smoking is bad for the lungs pain is bad for the peace of mind.
Non-existence is good for unicorns? And everything? Nothingness is good for nothing! Benatar is doing one of those proofs that divide by zero.

0 * 0 = 0
0 * 1 = 0
therefore, 0 = 1

Death solves all problems. It is the way out when there is no way out. In particular it solves problems of the form 'wherever I go, there I am'. We have formed a society that does not value individuals, but materials, and it is perfectly rational, if one is unproductive and therefore unvalued and unloved, to consider oneself a problem and a burden.

We know that depression and suicide vary widely according to social conditions, but curiously do not consider them symptoms of a social malaise, but make them personal problems. This makes things worse for those who manifest the problems and further isolates and stigmatises them.

Personally, I do not accept 1.
I do not like pain, and not liking pain keeps me safe. Therefore pain is good.

In the past month, Covid-19 has killed more Britons than died in The Blitz.

https://appeasement.org/?fbclid=IwAR0FgnPPk_u8TVeZInqm_lAtLQ42UWwsIbgP8SzTUUwsIjFa0_Q92nvyxdQ

The way I view the symmetric universe — QuixoticAgnostic

But are we not describing the universe from the outside? — QuixoticAgnostic

You have to be careful which version of the principle it denies; not the one you quoted. I think as soon as you introduce the term 'indiscernable' the objection becomes cogent. Because to discern is to observe.In a symmetric universe, the observer is also symmetric, and cannot distinguish + and - . If you add asymmetric coordinates, the universe is not the same universe. Plus and minus is just the same as left and right, and cannot be distinguished.

I don't think i can explain it clearer, but perhaps Stanford can.

surely the location of each sphere is a unique property? — QuixoticAgnostic

It's quite hard to get your head round this, because the universe is being described as if from the outside. One tends to imagine a box or a sphere with the symmetrical spheres in, and one can see that there are two, and that they are not in the same place - one on the left and the other on the right, or some such. But now imagine you are a symmetrical observer, looking at the same time from opposite sides.

Now the one on the left is also the one on the right, and the one on the right is also the one on the left. So there are still two, but they are indiscernible. Not identical, but indiscernible. How this feeds your structuralism, you'll have to tell me.

Know your audience but don't just play to those who clap... — Amity

That's an excellent principle, but I would add "...and don't assume that people who don't clap are lazy stupid or mean." In particular, there is the role of advocatus diaboli, which does not apply only to @Hanover, but is a quite general principle of considering the opposing view in all seriousness. One's most sympathetic friends ought to be one's sternest critics.