I think the Gettier paper is so lost for inquiry, that it appears naive.
When the driver thinks he's correct in seeing a barn merely from driving past it and
the connection of assumptions to who lands a job, what? Without proper inquiry for something that seems trivial and does not warrant the proper inquiry.
If we were to relate to important assumptions, we would put all scientific efforts to it and certainly not be satisfied with these naive beliefs from superficial investigations if there were lives at stake in seeing a barn instead of movie scenery or one guy landing a job instead of another guy, let's say for the President of USA. Would really the coins in a pocket be something?
So perhaps inside information from the employer would seem more convincing in terms of who lands a job.
Conclusion: the paper is naive.

I think it's fair to say that current psychiatry is able to diagnose itself and more so too.
It's philosophy that's the output of the chemical mix in the brain. To put it simply: a person suffering from depression is a pessimist and a successful person enjoying life is an optimist along with a schizophrenic who feels the evil is advancing in the World.
Though there are problems with corrupt psychiatry and that a schizophrenic psychiatrist will not be able to pull out of one's insanity by oneself. There are objective criteria for psychiatry found in blood samples, specific descriptions of symptoms and the computer-AI analysis.
So who is healthy? Perhaps the easiest answer says those who are young, but they have also the least information to rely on vis-a-vis the old age in terms of accumulated information and IQ.
What to think of a person who walks in for a philosophical consultation, i.e., the conversation to clear things up? Well, for most, they are their brain-chemistry. Therefore, I feel philosophy falls short in terms of "medicine for the soul".

Edit: Note on hearing voices: The danger with schizophrenia is not hearing voices, I guess we all do, but them generating voices in their heads and then acting on them blindly.

Let me say something:
We have a living philosophy of causality in how the sciences evolve.
Physics for how causes and effects in physics, chemistry for causation in chemistry, biology for causation in biology, medicine for causation in medicine and so on.
That's a kind of categories description to me.
To continue: can psychology cause chemical effects, i.e., you think something in the laboratory doesn't effectuate anything chemical in the laboratory.
Then a "black list" of causation: The Fantastic Phenomena or of Freak Nature as Accounts of Reality.
Like with severe levels of torture to people in how desecrated places are created and so on.

Bottom line: causation is described by the unfolding sciences, the ways in nature.

"Are there any scientific grounds for god?" Yes. God is proven by radio-astronomy and radiological data-interpretation pictured on a tablet-pc or other screen as swirling white-silver-gold colors.
Further, if you put (f)MRI "hat" on the person viewing this imagery of God, then you'll discover that the person communicates with God via brain-signals (the fMRI). Cool or what?
Further, God has the same radio-signature as (some) ghosts as viewed somewhat similarly by "ghost-radars" or "ghost-viewing devices".

I think that if Taliban proves to be the will of the people in Afghanistan, then there's no other way than to be friends with Taliban and see to it that it becomes a fully developed nation.

In other words, we must make the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and network with them, co-exist, sharing tomorrow, etc.

We must get rid of war mentality and paranoia and begin to work smart toward a better Afghanistan. Why not use Artificial Intelligence for doing the nation-building the most intelligent?

The only reasonable conclusion is that there is no god. — Banno

The only reasonable conclusion is that there is God by science given radio-astronomy and operationalized God signals through advanced radiology on pc-tablets for mind to mind communication with God. Science implies God, indeed!

The neoliberal drive to psychologize every possible phenomenon including war - the most impersonal of human phenomena - is a real discursive cancer, and it really needs to stop. Not only is it incredibly lazy - any reference to history, sociology, or power dynamics is mute - a phenomenon that is primarily historical, sociological, and related to power becomes medicalized and introspective. — StreetlightX

:up: :up: :clap:

For a "Philosophy of War", perhaps we should read it as Just War Theory.
SEP has this for war: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.
Just War Theory on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

I support Just War Theory and I think the public in most nations support Just War Theory too. If they find that a war has been for evil, there will be consequences to those responsible.

Thanks for the replies. On the premise of increasing (lawful) happiness along with security arrangements as you noted above, I think it's important to connect the World in a rich business network. When nations have a lot of business going on and international military cooperation to keep radical militia groups (ISIS, Al Qaeda) away from prominence, it seems they gain lasting peace. But this is difficult from the outset so why not reinforce the business network in neighboring nations while maintaining the target nations as aim for much business and thereby (lawful) happiness for this lasting peace. This state of affairs may take a long time to achieve, but look to Japan and (West-)Germany what they achieved in 30 years or so. They became wealthy and connected both in terms of much business and militarily (security-wise). Your turn?

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes?

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence? — Corvus

1. I've tried to make the best use of my senses and by them, I've come to believe in God (Christianity). I think you classify it as "personal religious experience" (as a child, 8-9- yo.).

However, religion now stands irreversibly stronger in me, the Kierkegaardian doubt is killed by the following:
a) God is proven by radio-astronomy combined with radiological signal interpretation which output produced on pc-tablets is the closest thing of "God talking to you" as you look at it (white with gold and silver streaks), you'll ever come (except when you land in Heaven in the After-Life, second half of Life as such.
b) 100% Psychiatrically healthy people believe in God. This can be proven by curing a person of the mental illness of schizophrenia. It will become widespread truth later, just wait, please.
c) When the choice is between wart-religion (schizophrenia) and religion, I think all sane people choose religion. To be short: wart-religion is a deterioration of the nervous system that produces warts on the body or inside, also in the head, brain-area and turns around evil, moving closer and closer toward one totem person who is most evil. (Best practice psychiatry has made this "game" a chaos lately as they never quite know who is most evil these days.) Warts like these are also considered cancer now.
d) People suffering from (technical) schizophrenia are considered the negative proof of people who are not religious. To be short, schizophrenics are found to be so crazy that nobody would choose their life if they can. Nowadays, they seem to be able to deselect schizophrenia and possibly ending up in depression instead, but with far better cognitive senses and ability to be a good friend to all people they are connected to. Remember, please, that there are people who are deeper into their schizophrenic illness who are so far removed from normal life that resenting them and their mental inventory becomes a duty (unless professional relation or hospice).

2. That's easy, I find that life with God is unequivocally good w/ significant highs and non-important lows. This makes me try to convince the young people to turn to God (JCI++) by apologetics. That is, this is purely missionary on some grand ecumenistic scale. Though, this is also for discussion and connecting with people.

(Edited once.)

Satisfied? Corvus?

The Soviet Union never respected human rights (UDHR) and probably didn't follow much rule of law, invading every privacy to ensure "equality". Corruption must likewise have been rife, each taking all they could and avoiding sweat at work. Alongside the high rate of suicides.

No, still, communism and socialism are failures.

To decide on "pluralism", I say that science lights the way in such a fashion that an Atheist physicalist can become, by science, both religious and a believer in ghosts and spirits.
See phenomenology? In a sensitive and ethical/moral way, all comes under science insofar it can be studied systematically. If science says something exists, it exists! It's not more complicated than this.

I would certainly say that scientific theories exist and that the author implies description of reality by them. Of course, the theories enter the discussion of science as they are made. Time, Hypothetico-Deductive Method (HDM) and credibility of the theories will determine which theories that best describe reality, whom of the authors are the "winners". One may say that scientific theories have efficacy in effectuating changes in the World toward a scientific ideal of perfection.

As such scientific realism is completely open in discussing all that's subject to proof. I can't imagine ways any dualism is supposed to limit scientific realism. To commit to science is to commit to scientific realism. Any limiting ideas of the scientist represents a barrier against conducting the best science, a scientist's handicap which is deeply negative, a kind of stupidity. The ideal scientist has no such barriers.

Good?

I recommend you read Donald Davidson's paper for Monism. It's quite a thrill but demanding.

Others who want to join discussion? All the best.

Edit:
Anomalous Monism, SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/
Donald Davidson, SEP: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/
Davidson, D. (1970) "Mental Events", in Actions and Events, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980.

Some references and a cue.

Scientific Realism (SEP): https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Thermography (Thermal Imaging, Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography
Night Vision (Infra-Red Vision, Low-Light Image Intensification, Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision
Image Intensifier (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_intensifier
Infra-Red Search and Track (Wikipedia): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_search_and_track

The Ghost-Imagers and other facts are not widespread yet, but they are coming. As always, truth comes first to the Inventor, the Scientist who makes the discovery! :grin: :joke:

Why not simply scientific realism? Science comes down to objective description no matter what that's being studied!

Should we discuss brain chemistry here? :chin:

The deepest intuition of a mentally healthy person informs us that we're not attached to anything. Thus we're not brains-in-vats. IMO.

Again, I think conflict addiction is for real and that science can solve this by providing treatment to people who are suffering from schizophrenia, milder or not degree.

There are people who absolutely have to argue, no matter what and proof can be obtained after they have been properly treated. So I say conflict addiction is a symptom of mental illness, just an instance of human behavior on the spectrum of all that happens.

Why not this way? Socrates gave up his mortal body, I.e., Socrates died. He now lives on as ghost.
Any ghost hunting by "ghost radar" made possible with advanced use of radiological device. Still the photons that also constitute the ghost of Socrates, not very different from how an air-detection radar works. You can also see photons being emitted from your own body if your buddy directs it at you.

I say Dualism is true yet in a troubled world It's difficult to produce the very public evidence of it! That is, the security for all people involved facing all corrupt monsters in the World!

Libertarian Free Will does not imply outside causality, only that it's anomalous how it all works out.
However, LFW is supported by the intuitions for that avenue of arguments.

No, you can't--BECAUSE good people are capable of doing bad things, and conversely, bad people are capable of doing good things. — Bitter Crank

It's not so easy. Bad people are more likely to do more wrongdoing and the worst people may not be able to do any good at all because of their tendency to do what's bad not to say utter evil. Good people on the contrary are more likely to do good and the best people may be unable to do the blatant wrong unless threatened with (more) torture. Isn't it typical that when the child-torturer sees a child and thinks of opportunity to torture more? Do I sense a tendency to do evil in bad people? Integrity is probably more real than people commonly realize. Thanks.

Rephrasing Ought in a Sentence - Ought-less Language
Rewriting of ought: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule.
I think "ought" says this: you have a duty to do, but you can refuse to carry it through. "Ought" doesn't imply necessity and it does include human weakness implicitly. That is, you are likely to do it (as you should), but at times we all break our rules. No?
Dictionary.com:
1. (used to express duty or moral obligation): Every citizen ought to help.
2. (used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like): He ought to be punished. You ought to be ashamed.
3. (used to express propriety, appropriateness, etc.): You ought to be home early. We ought to bring her some flowers.
4. (used to express probability or natural consequence): That ought to be our train now.
The intention is to simply making the reduction of the convention (possibly) of "ought" by "is" statements, is what I want with this.
"Rewriting of ought: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule."

Yahadreas' example: "You ought to brush your teeth"
becomes...
There is a rule that says brush your teeth. This rule is the condition of brushing one's teeth. I follow this rule by brushing my teeth. However, I don't always brush my teeth.

jsidelko's example: "If you have a temperature tomorrow, you ought to visit the doctor."
There is a rule that says that if you have a temperature tomorrow, you visit the doctor. This rule is the condition of having a temperature. I follow this rule by visiting the doctor. However, I don't always visit my doctor when I have a temperature.

Metadigital writes: "There ought to be less oughts in the world, ought there?"
Reiteration: An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule.
And so: (1)"An action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule." and (2)such that there are less "actions that are defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule." and (3)is this "an action is defined by a rule. This rule is in relation to a certain condition. This rule is followed so and so. This rule isn't necessarily fulfilled by the agent who is following this rule."?
So this is even more ought-less now, I guess!

Religious morality is subjective so there isn't really a difference in terms of foundational strength. Just see how differently people even within one religion, say Christianity, see issues like gay marriage, the role of women in church and society, capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion. They are all over the place on these issues, change with time and base their moral position on their subjective interpretations of what they think God wants. — Tom Storm

There is fair disagreement on capital punishment, euthanasia, abortion among all sorts of people. So what about access to C-pills while we issue the question of abortion?
Though there is also a contradictory relationship between doing evil (re Satanists/others) and being religious. No person can honestly say that doing evil and being religious is compatible. While it's also true that Satanists can very well be Atheists (as opposed to Humanists). Secular Humanism is theoretical, does not truly exist?
Modern, religious people in "western" societies have usually no problem with gay marriage, the role of women in church and society.
Besides, what God wants is defined by The 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule and the prayer at start of The New Testament (come thy will on Earth as in Heaven).

It seems to me very flawed to ignore the big discussion of right and wrong, the legal one.
During these 2000 years, there's been a steady development legally resulting in Human Rights (UDHR) as well as already entailed within given national laws here and there.
To say that this is purely subjective says that some people are far out, they don't relate to people in pain and in trouble. (f)MRI can indeed determine pains in people and perception of unwanted circumstances.
Yet those who enjoy hurt in themselves must be mentally disadvantaged to be in this state, again indicated objectively by the many instruments psychiatry has nowadays.
So when we get there, with the objective ethics, also relating to the children, Humanists appear more theoretical as a group than religious people who rejoice in doing good as God has instructed them. Humanists display weaknesses here because the World throw so many challenges at them. Even religious people struggle to keep faith so why would Humanists do better?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism.

You may use Sandwich ◊∩ (Bread ∧ Cheese)
Notation: possibly and intersection. You may consider identity and union too, perhaps.

Check this link for notation: https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/c2373a8f-5536-423d-8cc4-fb83be42f049/downloads/Characters-UnicodeDotOrg.pdf?ver=1574920094574
Parent link: https://curp.godaddysites.com/projects

FYI: Moral atheists = Humanists. So it's humanism that's the address, not atheism. I happen to think that atheists know this so the question remains.

Art therapy is nonsense in terms of significance because best practice psychiatry is so superior combined with action to resolve problems in life, I find.

Still, the God issue may explain the anomaly situation just as much as the soul may explain the anomaly situation of Free Will (vs. Determinism). Just my 2 cents. I guess you can still call it "Causal Loop" however.

Why not get The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, 2002, Ed. Paul K Moser at 595 pp.? Only a click away on Kindle. :smile:

Paul Collier - The Future of Capitalism. Perhaps better than Thomas Piketty.

There is reason to believe that all the crime, evil blocks rationality to take steps against Overpopulation.

Besides, women are squeezed out of their rightful contraception, away from possible emergency abortion and to give births against their will only to fuel the flames of evil, tragedies guaranteed!

That is, combatting Overpopulation is important but fighting crime, evil needs to take priority in order for the necessary rationality to pave the way for all other problems to fall.

Just in case you don't find enough PoR here, you may want to check out "Debating Christianity and Religion" here: https://debatingchristianity.com/

what I'm saying is the moral standard you hold someone according to is completely subjective... For example Vikings used to think it was okay to rape and pillage now we say it's not... It's all a matter of opinion — Gitonga

If might was so right all would still be rules by might, but to the opposite... Today, we go to great lengths to win people's hearts and minds by being excellent in terms of democracy, human rights and general progress. If you travel to North Korea, does your head turn by the fact that you're under North Korean control? No! They are considered backwards, many challenges such as fighting starvation and keeping its people healthy. Now, what about the Vikings and gunpowder? In many ways, the Vikings were backwards too, by their barbaric ways, finally christened long after the continental others, like Germany and France.

Norway has been dominated 3 times by Sweden and Denmark combined. The Norwegians travelled to Copenhagen to get a university education, among many other things.

I disagree with the OP.

You can see morality of a person in a number of ways. Inner and outer bio-markers, for example, are sets of objective material to study.

The science for actual morality in a person is, of course, psychology, and one instrument is fMRI.

During interviews over morality, there are 5 different methods of objective lie-detection.
1. Polygraph
2. Mimicry including eye-dilation
3. Voice-stress analysis
4. fMRI
5. Near-infra red analysis for blood flow in the face
+ other, such a quantum testing, OR gate testing of claims.

True, corrupt power can distort investigation, but proper time span makes it certain that truth is acquired in the end.

Moral Reality by Paul Bloomfield supports my view of objective morality in nature. I mean, come on, people less of personal morality are monsters and no amount of corrupt power can make them moral people like that.

Note on training of the nervous system by cognition. Emotions change.

Therefore, Kantian ethics is still superior? Keywords are information and thinking.

So the surgeon ought to kill a healthy patient and harvest his organs to save five dying patients? — Pfhorrest

Gotcha! :lol:

"There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person." — Marin

What about the systematic genocide by repeated lever switch choice? Say there's a team of 5 on the track and one in the trolley driving it and they kill one person at the time "by a well meaning wanna-be philosopher"? Reductio ad absurdum? I think so.

If you have a job as police or surgeon or important politician, then inaction is clearly immoral.

You may want to look up this link, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour.
In connection with Kantian ethics, one may want to coin honor with its opposite, shame, as these 2 concepts govern ethical mindset and moral behavior, as I do. Very useful and strong!
God and Heaven crown the whole thing together though. But that's a different story, the religious one.

Mysticism. Why I don't care!
Superseded by:
* Philosophy (especially phenomenology)
* Sciences
* Paranormal sciences (also paranormal psychology, though it's not psychology as such)
* Organized religion (Civ-series is correct about something, surely)
Good? :up: :smile:

PS: Doing voodoo (with that ugly mentality) is just too stupid in the name of bygone mysticism.