what happens after this realization is a dramatic shift in treating individual problems as societal problems. — Posty McPostface

That's all I require of free will, that when I realise I am going the wrong way, I can turn around; that my actions are determined by my understanding. So if a dramatic shift happens as a result of a change of understanding, that is a scientific demonstration of free will in action, in contradiction of the proof you posit. So it ain't gonna happen.

The most convincing way to me is to come up with a plausible definition of 'God' that has a referent. — bert1

Definition. God is that which is most important.

Everyone has something that is most important in their life. One gives supreme worth to something - worships it. Self, wealth, society, power, fame, family, love, justice, pleasure, survival, some book or tradition, etc. Even 'nothing' can be one's god, but that is a miserable life.

This is a tiresomely practical definition that has little to do with the expression of beliefs or unbeliefs, or the existence of what is worshipped; "Ye shall know them by their fruits". Accordingly, it will find favour with no one, because everyone likes to think they have the right of it.

Here. — ssu

No, no mention of conspiracy there.

It's important to understand the motives of people's actions and not just put them into a broader context of an ongoing discourse in the media. — ssu

I agree with this and what follows. Except to say that being disgruntled at the loss of privilege is not cranky, but a very common reaction. I don't know much about male attitudes in physics, but Strumia's views are widespread, (though not commonly as baldly expressed) as well as widely opposed in society in general. And this opposition is part of that general alignment of views that folks refer to with 'left' and 'right'.

I think we should be careful, but loss of privilege is not victimisation, and fraudulent publishing is not debunking.

Yes, however, creating a rock so heavy that one cannot lift is not an impossible task. I can easily create objects so heavy that I cannot lift. — Yajur

I'm not a great creator myself, but I have come across rocks so heavy I cannot lift them. But not rocks so heavy that an omnipotent being cannot lift them, those are impossible objects by definition. As such, it does not limit God in any way, but only what we can sensibly say. God, or Bio-Med Inc. might create vat grown muscle tissue from piggy DNA, or avocados that oink, but neither would be vegetarian bacon, unless we change the definitions, because non-meat meat is impossible. A rock that cannot be lifted by someone who can lift any rock is impossible - a nonsense.

I honestly don't know which principles of philosophy of science the so called "grievance studies" go along with. — LeBerg

Nor do I. I imagine it involves some notion of justice, and comes under the general rubric of sociology and social studies. And of course that is a field particularly prone to bias and also to garbage.

Yes, you are being paranoid. Especially thinking this is some kind of right-wing conspiracy. — ssu

Where did you read me saying anything about a right wing conspiracy? Technically, since it was several people planning together to commit a fraud, it would count as a conspiracy, but it is not a term I applied - that's your paranoia showing.

Academic journals are narrow in range, and the editors expert in that narrow field. Your situation at PF would be analogous to Science or Nature accepting papers from biology, chemistry, and physics as well as French literature and Russian history. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, and they are probably full-time and paid. They fucked up big time. If you work in retail, every now and then the mystery shopper rocks up and deliberately makes himself a pain in the butt to see if you can deal with difficult customers appropriately. So maybe these guys are like that - mystery submitters seeing if the editors are on their toes, and maybe if the editors prove to be crap, they should be fired.

But I don't think that is the aim and purpose of these people, to improve the journals and weed out the incompetent. I could be wrong, but I think the aim is to undermine the whole enterprise. In which case it is less like the firm using mystery shoppers to challenge and improve its customer service, and more like a rival company seeking to create a scandal.

When I was admin on the old site, (admin is like editor), there were times I could not e sure if a post was garbage or something I didn't understand, or something that was profoundly wrong but worth arguing through. So I can well understand that the presumption is that if you have gone to the trouble of submitting, that you have at least done so honestly, rather than with the intention of making me, the editor look foolish. Actually, in the scheme of things, the editor looking foolish is one of the least of the dangers he faces. I'd rather let through some garbage than not let through something valuable and innovative because of my extensive ignorance or even more extensive bias.

Unfortunately, the clearly intended intention of such scams is to devalue all the legitimate pieces in the journal. Or am I being paranoid again?

The authors of the hoax hailed from the left, not the right. None of them are members of the power elite. — Bitter Crank

And turkeys often vote for Christmas, but that doesn't make it vegetarian.

He isn't.

vegetarian - not made of meat
bacon - a meat product.

God cannot make vegetarian bacon, although he is omnipotent, because I have just defined it to be an impossible object. This does not restrict what God can or cannot make any more than it restricts what Global Soya Inc. can make. It just restricts what I am willing to call it.

Well my darlings, it is very easy to find and mock contradictions in human endeavours of all kinds, and such mockery is not without purpose. First you denigrate, then you demonise, and then things get less pleasant. There are very few of us that are immune from being defrauded and made to look like idiots. Trust is not a vice.

Have a nice simple little piece about identity politics that even you might understand.

You and me are a mob. It means two or more people who disagree with received wisdom.

Twas ever thus. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/oct/05/artemisia-gentileshi-painter-beyond-caravaggio?CMP=fb_gu

I absolutely agree that a life should not be ruined by an uncorroborated allegation. — Relativist

This seems an odd sentiment to me. Suspicious characters get arrested, locked up, remanded in custody, sometimes for months, and then eventually maybe prosecuted and maybe not. It happens all the time, and if it didn't we wouldn't have much of a justice system. These things 'ruin lives', they cause break-ups, affect children, destroy reputations, and generally fuck people about big time. Some of them are innocent. Having the police search your property is a scary humiliating public event. The neighbours always blame you, your friends look at you sideways. And the papers aways publish that photo of you hungover and half dressed. The process of corroborating allegations ruins lives.

I get the feeling though, that it is only certain lives, well dressed, educated, affluent, important lives that should not be ruined. And the price of not ruining these lives with intrusive investigations is (amongst other things) that sexual predators in positions of influence get away with it over and over again, and other lives, less influential lives but many more lives get ruined instead. And everyone knows that, so I wonder why I bother to mention it. And I thought the Catholic Church was corrupt. I believe in justice, and there is no justice.

Do children steal their DNA from their parents? Property seems the wrong concept for this area.

What questions do you propose be on the local Sunday school teacher's application? Should it ask detailed questions about juvenile acts 35 years prior, even if there were never an accusation of it? — Hanover

When I was a night porter for a hotel for the disabled, I had a police background check, because I would be alone with vulnerable adults. I imagine it was a fairly cursory record search. I also imagine that if there were three separate complaints of sexual offences on record, I would not have got the job. I think the checks for a supreme court justice should probably be at least as extensive as that.

As it happens, one of the waiters was accused of sexual assault (not at the hotel) . He was immediately suspended from his job, arrested and interviewed under caution. And all this before he was convicted of anything.

I'd have no problem trusting my kids when young with him. Regardless, the guilty "if I would harbor concerns with them tending my daughter" standard is an irrational standard. It justifies finding guilt based upon hunches and feelings of creepiness. — Hanover

No it doesn't. I justifies erring on the side of caution and protection when there is a credible accusation. I'm not basing this on his ugly face and sneering mouth, but on credible sworn accusation, and other credible similar accusations supported by his own writing at and around the time.

Do you propose delving into the ancient past of every school teacher to arm up every parent who might one say have a run in with the teacher? — Hanover

Yes. Every person in a position of trust with a vulnerable person should have a background check, and every such person credibly accused of a sexual crime at any time should be suspended until thoroughly investigated.

Yes, he might. I wouldn't want my daughter working for him.

But more to the point, I wouldn't want my daughter tried by him or have his decision rule her, any more than I would want her in his classroom. What is your non-mob mentality?

Which mob is that? You have heard of a precautionary principle, right? It applies in all sorts of situations, but particularly in matters of the protection of the vulnerable. If Kavanaugh was a schoolteacher, I would expect him to be suspended, and if he wasn't, my children would not go to that school. But you are happy to send your children to his court?

When it comes to my daughter, I wouldn't wait for proof, and I wouldn't be concerned about the rights of the accused, I simply wouldn't leave her in the hands of someone under a cloud of accusations. I would apply a precautionary principle.

But justice - the legal system, who cares about that, who cares if that gets raped?

A bit of history and economics with your politics? Sorry, this vid is a bit long, but what it shows is not that democracy is a bad idea, so much as that it has only ever been an idea. The 'cradle of democracy' has never really implemented it.

Ok, can I press you a little further? If atheism is impoverished in relation to monotheism, is not monotheism impoverished in relation to animism? (I hope my shorthand here is comprehensible and acceptable.)

The problem is symptoms and diseases are two different things, the former is caused by the latter. Why has the field of psychiatry conflated the two? — Purple Pond

This is a comparatively weak criticism of psychiatry. It is part of the process of medial science that one begins with a group of symptoms, that used to be called a 'complaint' (now a 'syndrome') and looks for a causal mechanism. Sometimes, in finding causal agents, one finds that classifications need to be refined, for example distinguishing between CJD and Alzheimers.

You expect a disease to be a pathogen, or a gene mutation or some such, but if you consider the root meaning, it is whatever leads to a 'complaint', in other words the disease is more so the symptoms, not their cause. So one fairly well established causal mechanism is psychological trauma - not a gene or a pathogen, but an experience that distorts the operation of the brain.

As a nice mechanist analogy one might liken it to a power surge, that causes a computer to crash, without actually burning out the circuits. Or perhaps only one program crashes, and the others continue to function, but poorly because the wifi is down, or whatever. As might be expected per analogy, the effects of psychological trauma are fairly variable and unpredictable, and unfortunately the wizz-kid's standard cure-alls of turning it off and on again, or restoring from back-up are not available for brains.

The de-divinization of the world was achieved as a direct effect of the development of monotheism; a monotheism that insisted (against all evidence, in the contemporary worldview) that the one god that mattered (originally -- later, they would claim that he was the only god that was real in any sense) was emphatically not to be identified with the sun, the storm, the ocean, and other "big powers". — Mariner

I find it hard not to continue the progression to the denial of the last God, and eventually the de-animation of humanity itself into a 'mechanism'. Even our own consciousness is now 'an illusion', or 'an epiphenomenon'. I suppose you would like to see this as progress up to the point of monotheism, followed by degeneration, but I'm not sure how to justify drawing that line?

Sounds like Jordan Peterson. — Agustino

Then it must be wrong.

No, it sounds like him, because he is a plausible deceiver.

Speaking of truth and ethics, do you think it would also be appropriate to bring up ideas of lying and whether or not it is okay to lie? — Dexter

Well sure. But the question only arises in the context of it not being ok in general. My own view is that every lie is destructive of meaning, and of communication, and of society. If I never tell my wife her bum looks big in that, my reassurances become meaningless. So a lie needs a strong justification, just as violence does. It must be the exception, the emergency, a desperate measure.

I imagine you are familiar with these, but just in case,

Paolo Friere
A S Neill
John Holt
J Krishnamurti

There's not much I might say on love or education that they haven't said already with more eloquence, rigour, and authority of experience than I can muster.

It seems entirely natural to me to treat things as beings. People even now talk to their cars or computers and try to cajole them into behaving themselves. Why would one not thank the tree for its gifts, apologise to the gazelle one kills and eats, try and persuade the river not to flood the village, but to provide more fish? How could one not understand that the volcano gets angry and lashes out?

The volcano is a big and powerful god, the tree spirit is perhaps a small god, or perhaps an aspect or an incarnation of a bigger god. What I find more in need of explanation is the depopulation of the animate world into the abstraction of things and laws. Things follow laws but know nothing of them - like that makes sense?

I applaud and honour your vocation.

I am trying to narrow down the main ethical and moral values to emphasize throughout the story. I need help dissecting which values would be considered the most important, why, and in what aspect? — Dexter

It is perhaps particularly appropriate to the times to begin with truth and honesty. It's as old as Aesop's 'The Boy who Cried Wolf', but I would want to relate it to advertising and political spin. To the extent that we do not tell the truth reliably, we undermine meaning and communication, and become isolated from each other, in the end, facing the wolf alone. Everything of society, including your program, depends on truth.

'Love' is both a vague and a horribly embarrassing word for your target age-group. I would talk about 'kindness'. Kindness implies inclusiveness, that the other is my kind, that anyone who suffers is my kind, because I can suffer. This relates to the new child in school, the child that is bullied, the child that has a disability, the child that is unhappy. And then in the world, it relates to the homeless, the jobless, the exploited, the refugee.

Courage. When the world is lying when the world is hating, one needs courage to stand with the victim and against the bully, to speak the truth that makes the teacher, never mind the bully uncomfortable. To deny what everyone finds it convenient to affirm, because this is the truth.

Faith. Not the cheap faith of recitation, but the faith that holds you to your vocation. To believe in justice when there is no justice, in love when there is no love, in peace when there is no peace. Faith in humanity when humans are inhuman.

But there is a solemn warning I must give. Children do not learn from programs so much as they learn from teachers. If the teacher recites the program but does not live it, it is from his life that children will learn and not the program, because if the teacher does not live the program then he is not telling the truth himself and communication is destroyed; the program becomes meaningless.

Here's a song for you, and for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe: https://www.bobdylan.com/songs/chimes-freedom/

Interesting topic - to me anyway - I studied both at ninnyversity. I think a historical account is a good place to begin. Philosophy is old, and psychology is new. As a shorthand, originally philosophy was all-encompassing, and fairly central to the Western tradition was the three-way distinction of Man, God, and Nature. With the rise of Natural philosophy (science), and corresponding decline of Theology, this foundational distinction became unstable, and without God, it was impossible to sustain the distinction between Man and Nature. Thus the study of Man became a branch of Natural philosophy, that became psychology, anthropology and sociology, another three way distinction.

Under the old regime, and lingering in folk psychology, the study of Man also had this triple aspect - mind, body and spirit, but again, psychology dispenses with spirit, and then cannot sustain the distinction of mind and body - mind becomes brain, an organ of the body. But there is a further difficulty, that 'the psyche' is to a great extent formed by, because informed by, these fundamental conceptions. The distinction between the observer and the observed, which is essential to science cannot be maintained in psychology except by an hallucination, whereby the scientist becomes God and the subject, man, is pathologized. In other words, there is no place to stand, conceptually, and consider human nature, one has to occupy human nature, and contemplate the inhumanity of the other.

Thetans are stupid then, by the sound of it. In which case there's no particular reason to go back to that state. This seems like the equivalent to the problem of evil - the problem of stupidity. If OTs got us into this mess, why go back to that?

I have this problem generally with cosmologies that posit a 'higher reality', that they invariably work like that annoying know-it-all that spoils the film by giving away the plot, or the one that insists that it really doesn't matter where the ball ends up when you're playing a game. Even if the game is to escape from the game, still such religions are like cheat-modes.

Let me make my mistakes on my own, I don't need your help. — Jerry Garcia

I think we might agree that in this case a moment's consideration is due consideration, if not rather more than is due. Whereof one cannot eat, thereof one must remain un-sated.

However, it is true that some people really excel at being full of crap. — Jake

Indeed, and so we have the notion of holding to account, whereby we like to show folks their crap and rub their noses in it. In this case, the cameras were there, and despite the 'what do you expect' attitudes, I expect my representatives to be honest, diligent, and servants of the nation, and I reserve the right to be pissed off when they are not. That man was not fit to be sheriff, and this man is not fit to be supreme court judge. People that know that, but acquiesce in their appointment are traitors themselves to the fundamental principles of government, whether by philosopher kings or democratic representation. It is not ok to appoint another arsehole because there are already a lot of arseholes appointed.

"Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light." Dylan Thomas. (no relation)

A moment's consideration shows that to be true.

What's the story about how a mighty OT comes to be a neurotic wimp that has to or wants to or ought to, go through the process of rehabilitation? What power, other than our own has bound us to this mortal coil?

If A eats B, B cannot eat A; a moment's reflection will show this must be true. — Banno

A moment's reflection shows me that this is the opposite of the truth. We all eat worms, don't we? And we understand that eventually we will be worm-food. Your principle does not even apply to individuals, as most of us have experienced being eaten from the inside out by something we have ingested.

The process was not designed to be just, nor was it designed to discover the truth. — Hanover

Yes, that is clear, as to the process, it is a job interview not a court room. But in that case, there is no reason to be overly concerned about corroboration. You get a credible negative reference, you don't ignore it and make the job offer when there are other qualified applicants.

You need to remember that though Rachel Mitchell is prosecutor for a county in the State of Arizona, she was not working in that capacity at the Senate hearing, but was being paid by the Senate Republicans. So, she did not need to conform to the ethics required of her as a prosecutor. She was just a lawyer hired to ask questions for the Republicans. — Dfpolis

Oh, if she was paid by a party and not the committee, that is more understandable. Bias against the poor and powerless is almost inevitable whatever the process. I wonder why the democrats didn't think to hire their own female prosecutor, then? I suppose they thought they were competent to do the job themselves, and didn't need the fig-leaf of gender equality...

Anyway, it comes to this; a credible complaint of sexual assault has been made, and is being ignored or dismissed in favour of party politics to the detriment of the justice system, by a committee whose only job is to preserve and enhance justice. Personally, I would not consent to serve on such a committee, and lend it any legitimacy. And that at a time when sexual offending by people in power is being exposed and talked about as never before.

This isn't a very interesting topic either.

Yes, she was a partisan hired by the Republicans on the committee to avoid the appearance of a panel composed only of male Senators trying to undercut the credibility a female victim. By denying her request for an investigation before her testimony and by refusing to subpoena, or even to allow, any other witnesses, the Republicans hoped to pit an inexperienced housewife against a trained lawyer -- effectively having a show trial. That plan was ruined when she turned out to be very credible, and Kavanaugh very evasive. — Dfpolis

I'm with Trump on that, not merely evasive, "Kavanaugh's testimony was 'incredible".

Are US prosecutors routinely partisan in their case management, or is she a notorious exception?

I am sorry, but I see no case for equal blame here. — Dfpolis

You may well be right on that score. I'm not really competent to judge the background behaviour, only the couple of days of hearing I have followed. It does seem to me though that it would have been worthwhile having the sex crime prosecutor question Kavanaugh, since he was alleged to be a perpetrator, and it was open to anyone on the committee to allow that. That she was brought in and not used in this even handed way, seems to indicate that either she was partisan, or she was assumed to be partisan. If she wasn't partisan, but was being used by the Republicans as a fig-leaf, it would have been sensible and possibly very effective for the Democrats to use her to interview Kavanaugh. If she was partisan, then the whole thing was a charade, what we totalitarians call a 'show trial', in which everyone who participated is to blame, except Ford, the political prisoner.

In other words, I'm doing my best to be charitable to 'the other side', while really not thinking much of what has gone on.

So, what makes a good thread a good thread? — Posty McPostface

It goes to church on Sunday, and cleans its teeth twice a day, and likes beer.

Or is that a good supreme court judge?

Size isn't everything, and speed isn't either. My ideal for my own threads is to garner just enough responses to keep it on the front page for a few days, and end up with maybe 3 - 5 pages. To be provoked to new thoughts, to be pointed to new sources, to make new connections, come to a new understanding. I want a few thoughtful, challenging replies, not a stream of instant to-ing and fro-ing

Perhaps Frank's point was that we have little evidence in this thread that anyone is open to persuasion. — Jake

Perhaps it was his point, and perhaps it's true. I wonder what you or he would count as evidence? One could obviously count anyone admitting they were wrong, or visibly changing their opinion, but although I am both right in my opinion and cogent in my exposition, and you are open to persuasion, yet you may not be persuaded. Still, if you engage and respond, if you at least offer a counter to points that are raised, that would count for me. Whereas if you ignore different opinions or respond with diversions or insults, that would be evidence against open-mindedness. I think I've spotted some of each in this thread, but not so much of the former in the committee.

Robocop is not my utopia.