There is no singular "real world". Your world and my world are very different, even though we are both human males(I think?). Imagine how different is the world of the opposite sex, or other species even. — Yohan

I often say "There's only one world," so, clearly I disagree. There are, on the other hand, lots of ways to think, talk about it. I think humans, men and women, are much more alike than different. Ditto with people with different languages and cultures. It may take some work, but we can understand each other.

As for non-human animals? I don't know.

Yes, I am a human male.

but then what? — Srap Tasmaner

We just do the best we can.

Science doesn't have a way of establishing fact. Rather than admit this, which I believe honest scientists do, some science advocates and probably actual scientists won't admit it, but will instead rearrange the goal posts so that a fact can mean something that is agreed upon by the majority of scientists. — Yohan

I don't buy this. A scientific consensus doesn't make something a fact, it makes it suitable for use. How do we use knowledge - adequately justified beliefs? We use them to make decisions about possible actions.

I think its a problem because how do we determine what counts as sufficient reason to accept something as evidence. And then how much of such evidence is enough to accept something as fact beyond a reasonable doubt? — Yohan

First off, we don't generally need to establish facts "beyond a reasonable doubt." Sometimes we do, but not usually. Choosing the level of allowable doubt is a matter of human of judgement. You have to take into account the amount of uncertainty and the consequences of being wrong. This is something people do all the time. It's nothing exotic or even particularly philosophical. Which is not to say they don't do it wrong lots of times.

Something is either proven to be a fact or it isn't. No amount of induction will ever establish a fact. — Yohan

This is silly philosophicationismness. The only things we can know that aren't established by induction are those that come from deduction, which have nothing to do with the real world. Maybe no amount of induction will ever establish a fact, but it can establish a provisional fact, belief if you will, that is suitable for use in making decisions.

I am getting at the problem of religious conflicts, and the democratic belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts. — Athena

If this is what you wanted, you should have said so in the OP.

I don't see how the belief that reasoning is the way to resolve conflicts is somehow a democratic principle.

If we are going to make laws that affect everyone, and put people in penitentiaries to save their souls, and go to war because that is the will of God, shouldn't we have really good grounds for what we believe? — Athena

I don't think many people, theists or non-theists, think we should put people in prison to save their souls. I also don't think theistic regime's are more likely to start wars than non-theistic ones. Please, let's not get into that foofaraw again.

Yes, yes, and yes. How can anyone today believe a god walked in a garden with a man and a woman and this is the beginning of our history? If that story is accepted as factual, isn't there a problem with our thinking? Like before scientific thinking why wouldn't everyone believe that story? There was not a method for thinking that would clarify the story as a myth, not a fact. — Athena

Gould said "in science." He was as big, if perhaps not as rabid, an atheist as you and @tim wood are. He, unlike you, was not anti-religion.

In 415, St. Augustine, one of the founders of the Christian church, stated that the bible should be interpreted metaphorically. Thanks to @Wayfarer for that information. Just because there are fundamentalists who haven't gotten the message, that doesn't give you leeway to let the straw dogs out.



And again, what makes you think democracy has some sort of privileged access to reason?

So the true is tentative? And, "turns out not to be true" means something else is true? It becomes a hall of mirrors. — tim wood

Our knowledge of what is true is always tentative, or as Gould writes, "provisional." any definition of truth that doesn't take that into account is missing the point. Truth that can't be known is meaningless.

Even the suicidal want to tie a good noose. — Zugzwang

I'm stealing that. — Banno

Actually, I've always thought that hanging would be a good way to commit suicide if I ever want to do so. When I picture it, I always just tie a slip knot. It is my understanding the fancy-schmancy hangman's noose was developed as a way to break the hangee's neck when they are dropped from a gallows.

I read the OP as asking whether there are things we can't describe in the English language and you guys are droning on about how we use language. — Hanover

I don't see how we can discuss the subject of the OP without talking about how we use language.

representational symbols with 100% accuracy — Hanover

Describing something doesn't mean representing something "with 100% accuracy." Red Delicious apple. About 3 inches diameter. Red. I don't normally need to count how many seeds.

I reckon the grear Lao Tzu is referring to what I suppose is some kind of God-like entity or a Cosmic Principle that's behind all there is, every object, every phenomenon, basically everything, with the Tao. — TheMadFool

I'm reluctant to get into a discussion about that here. You've been in threads with me and others where this was discussed. If I remember correctly, you have a pretty good idea of what Lao Tzu means by "Tao" even if you don't agree with how he sees things.

He picked "Tao" for some reason now lost to history. — TheMadFool

"Tao" means "way." "Te" sort of means "virtue." "Ching" means book. Tao Te Ching means the book of the way and virtue, more or less.

What's important to note here is Lao Tzu is employing apophasis to get us to realize what the Tao is. — TheMadFool

I think you're right, but I've always preferred to think about it as a joke Lao Tzu is telling.

What's going on? — TheMadFool

As I noted, I think you have a fairly good idea of what is going on. Methinks the laddie doth protest too much.

This is science apologetics. — Yohan

Explain please.

If something can be confirmed as fact, explain how. — Yohan

It says "confirm to a degree" and "provisional assent." I don't see any problem, just follow the scientific method, i.e. provide evidence.

This definition is like saying 'something is confirmed if its been so confirmed that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent'. — Yohan

I think you're playing around with language. Do you really not know what Gould is saying?

That's not an answer to the question. — Bartricks

Sure it is. It's just put in everyday language. People understand what it means. You understand what it means, even if you think it's not true.

That's a false statement — Bartricks

I think it's a very good description of what a fact is. It captures the uncertainty associated with all our knowledge while still enforcing a rigorous standard. Most philosophical discussions dick around with that.

You lot are so confused it is painful. — Bartricks

@Zugzwang, I don't know if you've come across @Bartricks in your wandering through the forum yet. He likes to insult people rather than engage in a collegial discussion.

Is that a fact? — Banno

Probably not. It may be a metaphysical statement which, as I've said many times, are not true or false, only useful or not.

But it is also apparent that there are facts that are not provisional. — Banno

Are there any facts determined by induction, as opposed to those determined by deduction, that might not be wrong.

Tomorrow will be Sunday. — Banno

I'm retired. I sometimes forget what day it is. Also, in Hawaii it's 7:30 pm on Friday now. There, tomorrow will be Saturday.

Hey, T. I was just joking with you. You jumped on me, remember? Yeah, I'm ambivalent about philosophy, but so is much of philosophy itself. — Zugzwang

We seem to be having a fruitful exchange now.

You posted that a moment before I made a similar point. I think it's a reason to not take such a definition of 'fact' too seriously, despite what it gets right. Definitions are a questionable enterprise anyhow. — Zugzwang

Which I think brings us back to the Gould quote. Here it is again for reference:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Facts are always provisional.

That's the difference between facts and beliefs. Facts cannot turn out the be false. Beliefs can. — Banno

Maybe that answers Athena's question - Facts don't exist. There are only beliefs.

Damn right, sir. But I'm aware of it. Are you enjoying yours? — Zugzwang

You haven't been here long. How many of my and other people's posts have you read? If you haven't read them, then you have no basis for judging the quality of my, or any other forum member's, work. If, in general, you don't respect the quality of the thinking or writing on the forum, what are you doing here?

It doesn't make sense.

But doubtless she would claim that her alternate facts are themselves "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent", in which case T Clark's definition is not much help. — Banno

As you note, a fact is a statement that is true. Any definition of "fact" has to take into account that what we believe is a fact may turn out not to be true when we have more information. That's what I like best about the Gould quote.

The Kelly-Anne Conway problem has nothing to do with facts. It has to do with convincing people of what the facts are. That's rhetoric, not philosophy.

You seem to be riding on your own pompous hobbyhorse.

Umm… it kinda depends. I mean, if I saw that in real life I’d probably puke, but I find beauty in it more so in how I interpret its meaning than just its aesthetics. I guess it’s similar to how people find stories beautiful. It has nothing to do with the way the words look. It’s about their meaning. — Pinprick

Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that I don't think it belongs in this thread.

It does kind of remind me of those old Monty Python graphics.

Stephen Jay Gould said:

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

Joel-Peter Whitkin- “The Kiss” — Pinprick

Serious question - Do you really find that beautiful?

"I don't like what you're saying, but I can't find grounds to disagree." — Tzeentch

Why do I need to provide grounds for my judgement when you provided no grounds for your original statement?

This is an excerpt from one of my favorite poems. It's the most romantic/Romantic part of a very, very, romantic/Romantic poem.

Nor forgotten was the Love-Song,
The most subtle of all medicines,
The most potent spell of magic,
Dangerous more than war or hunting!
Thus the Love-Song was recorded,
Symbol and interpretation.

First a human figure standing,
Painted in the brightest scarlet ;
'T is the lover, the musician,
And the meaning is, " My painting
Makes me powerful over others."

Then the figure seated, singing,
Playing on a drum of magic,
,And the interpretation, " Listen !
'T is my voice you hear, my singing ! "

Then the same red figure seated
In the shelter of a wigwam,
And the meaning of the symbol,
" I will come and sit beside you
In the mystery of my passion ! "

Then two figures, man and woman,
Standing hand in hand together,
With their hands so clasped together
That they seem in one united,
And the words thus represented
Are, " I see your heart within you,
And your cheeks are red with blushes ! "

Next the maiden on an island,
In the centre of an island ;
And the song this shape suggested
Was, " Though you were at a distance,
Were upon some far-off island,
Such the spell I cast upon you,
Such the magic power of passion,
I could straightway draw you to me ! "

Then the figure of the maiden
Sleeping, and the lover near her,
Whispering to her in her slumbers,
Saying, " Though you were far from me
In the land of Sleep and Silence,
Still the voice of love would reach you ! "

And the last of all the figures
Was a heart within a circle,
Drawn within a magic circle ;
And the image had this meaning :
" Naked lies your heart before me,
To your naked heart I whisper ! "

From "Song of Hiawatha" by Longfellow.

I tried to engage with you in a meaningful way about this topic. This type of response isn't exactly going to prompt me to keep trying. — Tzeentch

I think my response was completely meaningful, if a bit snarky. "Says who?" can be translated as "I disagree" with the snark added to tweak you for self-righteousness.

Lao Tzu - The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

Some guy - Hey, Lao Tzu, you're talking about something that can't be talked about. What's with that?

Lao Tzu - Tao as a thing is entirely illusive and evasive. Evasive and illusive. In it there is image. Illusive and evasive. In it there is thinghood. Dark and dim.

Some guy - This is such bullshit.

Lao Tzu - Go fuck yourself.

Is this Haiku, in your opinion, easier to deconstruct?

Demiurge

Imagination
Form giver to nothingness
Godlike in essence. — charles ferraro

Serious suggestion - Why don't we deconstruct it. Here's my attempt:

The poem is a haiku with the standard 5/7/5 syllable structure. The title, "Demiurge" typically refers to that which created the world. The poem seems to refer to the imagination as the demiurge, which implies, as the poem verifies, that the imagination is God. Or God is the imagination. Actually, it says "Godlike" and "in essence" which means "sort of." "Form giver to nothingness" is a common way of referring to how God created the world.

There are factors that could justify the making of significant decisions on someone else's behalf that apply to the raising of children, and not to the having of children. — Tzeentch

Says who?

The first, acting on behalf of another person's well-being. Assuming the parents' primary concern is the happiness of their child, this applied to the raising of children. However, the act of having children does not involve this, since there is no child on behalf of whose well-being one can act. — Tzeentch

Says who?

If the raising of children is not done with 1. The well-being of the child as its primary concern, and 2. The wisdom required to achieve that well-being, then the raising of children is not a moral act either. — Tzeentch

I didn't say having a child is a moral act, only that it is not an immoral act. Also, says who?

Can you elaborate on why you think so? — Noble Dust

The Whorf hypothesis, at least in my day, was a strong statement that language controls the kinds of things we can think about. Since then, I think the concept has become more nuanced, but I think it's easy to overstate the effect. The idea that language encourages us to think in certain ways and limits our ability to think in others is very attractive. I felt that way when I first heard about it.

Here's part of the problem, for me: is time better spent organizing/mobilizing those who agree, or perhaps with those who are "on the fence"/ those who are more persuadable, who really just want to understand the issue and weight the evidence? — Xtrix

Do you spend your time organizing others?

I wouldn't call it "impending doom," — Xtrix

Yes. Hyperbole on my part.

Not to be dramatic or self-important, but this "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis" is exactly the same idea that I've felt intuitively for years without any special knowledge of the subject; — Noble Dust

As I noted, I think this is probably an oversimplification.

Lol, there aren't sentences in poetry... — Noble Dust

Whose woods these are, I think I know. His house is in the village, though. He will not see me stopping here to watch his woods fill up with snow.

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.

Not all poems have sentences, but some do.

Then you're a more mature man than I am. I struggle with it because of the stakes. Climate change and COVID are good examples. — Xtrix

That means that conversations with those with whom you have disagreements become more important. That it becomes more important that you find a way to find common purpose with them. The great majority of people in the US share a core set of values. Mainstream, moderate, more or less pragmatic, sometimes idealistic.

Saying you're not mature enough to work with that is a pretty poor excuse given your apparent sense of impending doom.

Is it even worth it to engage with these people?

They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational but "on the fence"?

I struggle with this. — Xtrix

I've engaged with all these types of people. I've always tried to do it with respect for their intelligence and motivations and to treat them civilly. I think many of them are pushed into more extreme claims by the fact that there seems to be no room for moderate positions in the current political season. It's not often I convince anyone, but sometimes I feel like the discussion has opened us both up to compromise. I have even found myself convinced, or at least had my opposition softened, by other people's arguments.

Alas, poor VincePee! I knew him, forum members, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy.

But another thing people seem to think is that I am trying to personalize this. I don't go around shaming pregnant people or anything. In other words, I don't think parents are trying to be malicious. I think it's wrong to procreate, but I don't think it's out of bad intent or think them horrible people. — schopenhauer1

I never thought you would shame prospective parents or that you think they are horrible people. On the other hand, you do question their intent. Your argument about using children for one's own personal gratification shows that.

The child is already born and would be a dereliction of duty as a parent to not prevent greater harm. — schopenhauer1

If you think the only motivation or justification for a parent's action is to "prevent greater harm," you are wrong.

I think that is not charitable that everything I've written boils down to the consent argument. — schopenhauer1

Perhaps I am wrong, but I don't see how that makes me uncharitable.

It's not good (wrong) to create unnecessary (not for amelioration of a greater for lesser suffering for that person), non-trivial burdens/impositions/harms on someone else's behalf — schopenhauer1

I don't see how that argument is different from my summary in any significant way.

similar to Kant's second formulation of not using people, and treating individuals as ends in themselves. — schopenhauer1

This is your judgement of prospective parents motivations. Based on my own experience, both as a parent and observer of other parents, it's not correct for most of us. If you were to make the statement that having children solely for one's own personal gratification is immoral, I'd be more open to agreement, or at least negotiations.

I don't see how that is a good characterization. Why is it "silly"? See all my recent threads. — schopenhauer1

I have read all or some of many of your threads. Discussion after discussion, post after post, paragraph after paragraph, word after word. Long posts that finally boil down to just one argument.

[1] It is immoral to make decisions for another person without their agreement.
[2] Before they are born, children are non-existent persons.
[3] It is impossible to obtain agreement from a non-existent person.
[4] Therefore, it is immoral to cause children to be born.

• Response to 1 - We make decisions for other people, especially children, all the time without their approval. We take them to the doctor; make them take medicine; make them have operations; make them go to school; punish them for bad behavior....
  
  
• Response to 2 - Non-existent persons are not persons.
  
  
• Response to 3 - Even if non-existent children were persons, the power of consent for children resides in their parents.

I consider myself a happy person, yet I find the antinatalist argument quite convincing. It doesn't mean I like the implications, but the nature of things as it is apparent to me is not affected by me liking or disliking it. — Tzeentch

First, as I acknowledged before, saying that people are anti-natalists because they project their unhappiness on others is not a legitimate philosophical argument. My comments were gratuitous and irrelevant to the argument. On the other hand, I think the anti-natalist position is profoundly anti-human. It's also poorly supported, no matter how convincing you find it. And by "poorly supported" I mean "silly."

What an ignorant and irrelevant thing to say. — Bartricks

Then there's the irrelevance. Whether antinatalism is true or not h as nothing to do with the happiness or misery of antinatalists themselves. — Bartricks

I'll be honest, you're right that my comment about how miserable anti-natalists are is irrelevant. It says something about the anti-natalists and not about the argument. I should be ashamed.

It's a puzzler, isn't it - does having more money and more time and fewer responsibilities make one happier or more miserable? It's a bit like "is hitting your hand with a hammer likely to make you more happy or less happy?" I just don't know! — Bartricks

Although I have acknowledged that it is not philosophically appropriate for me to point out faults, failings, and weaknesses of anti-natalists, this text calls out for response. Your statement seems to suggest that responsibilities make people miserable. So what you're advocating is that no one should have children unless we can guarantee that they will never have to face responsibilities.

if the arguments of antinatalists do no more than express their own misery - which can't possibly be true in my case, as I am not at all miserable — Bartricks

In general, you're rude, insulting, mean-spirited, close-minded, and self-aggrandizing. You treat people, at least those on the forum, like shit. That doesn't seem like something a happy person would do.