You and I are not getting anywhere. I think we're using words to mean different things. Let's leave it at that.

I just don't think that Metaphysical methodology is any longer all that useful. — thewonder

As you can probably see from my and other people's posts on this thread, there are a lot of us who disagree.

I don't think that the abstract realm exists. — thewonder

The statement that the abstract realm doesn't exist is a metaphysical statement.

I guess I'm looking for the examples of bad responses to the shootings. The usual response I've seen is sadness, crying, anger, maybe a prayer vigil, some speeches from frustrated citizens, some promises by politicians, and then beefed up law enforcement at public places and events and even some greater vigilance in locating the next attacker. They seem to follow a fairly logical pattern, moving from emotion to ideas to thwart future attacks. Emotion moves people to action. That's why its called what it's called.
It's not like people run into the streets screaming and yelling torching cars and breaking windows. — Hanover

Well, for one particularly egregious example of a bad reaction to mass violence, following September 11, 2001, blind outrage and indignation ultimately lead to an unnecessary war in the middle east which caused tens of thousands of lives, destabilized the politics and security of the region, and finally caused significant damage to the security of Europe. It severely damaged the national security of the US and our friends.

We have spoken about this in the past but I do not really see the way that people emphasise racial inequality as being productive, I think it exacerbates the problem and creates new problems. — Judaka

As I said in my post, I'm starting to come around to that way of seeing things, but it makes me uncomfortable for the reasons I gave.

I'm sort of critiquing the metaphysical assumption that abstract truths exist. I'm not stating that there is an abstract truth which Metaphysics seeks to discover. — thewonder

Aren't we saying the same thing?

I never characterized disclosure of classified information as hate speech as you can see — Wittgenstein

I was responding to your indication that speech should not be restricted if it does more good than harm. My point was that whether or not it does harm is not the important thing. It's almost backwards. Except in a limited number of specific cases, It does more harm to restrict speech, even speech we think is vile, than it does to leave it alone.

Is it possible for the government to censor hate speech and protect all other forms of free speech. Yes, it is. — Wittgenstein

No it isn't.

That's why its important to know who you are voting for and to always know when the government is crossing the line. The public decides what is hate speech and the government implements restriction on it. — Wittgenstein

You have what I would consider a naive faith in the public. That's why rule of law is important - to limit decision making by public opinion in cases where important rights are at stake.

There are many western countries that do not allow hate speech and still manage to be safe havens for advocates of free speech. — Wittgenstein

As I said previously, I won't criticize other countries that find their own ways of protecting speech.

How is a statement about the methodology "metaphysical"? Everything can be defined as being metaphysical, but I fail to see how I've made a metaphysical statement. — thewonder

What you wrote is:

You originally wrote:

the methodology does sort of assume that there is an abstract truth that is to be deigned somehow. — thewonder

The idea of abstract truth is a metaphysical concept. There is a good case to be made that the idea of an objective reality is not the only or necessarily the best way of looking at things. Even many scientists recognize that.

And yet you compared the two to "apples and apple trees", so you seem to see some, er, relationship between them. What is this relationship? — Pattern-chaser

The reason I picked apple trees is because apples grow out of them. I guess you could say science grows up out of the philosophy of science. As I've said, another way to look at it is that science and the philosophy of science are both part of one thing. Like apples, apple trees, soil, rainfall, the farmer could all be seen as part of the system that grows apples.

One of the saddest things about privilege is that the privileged usually come to believe they deserve it, — unenlightened

Yes, rich people think they deserve everything they have and everything they can get.

The penultimate work on “white privilege” is Peggy McIntosh’s White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack — NOS4A2

Downloaded it. I'll take a look. Thanks.

Privilege is separated across racial lines, thus dividing people across racial lines and increasing tribalistic sentiments. We could focus on being charitable, trying to reduce poverty for all, improving education and basic things like that but some people choose to instead focus on race instead. — Judaka

I've started to think that the focus you suggest on advantage and disadvantage, class I guess, rather than race is the right one, although it still makes me ...uncomfortable. I've said this before - white people in general don't like black people in general. I have middle class, professional black friends who are routinely treated with suspicion and mistrust by white people everywhere they go. It is my understanding that's a common experience. I think that puts an extra burden on black people as opposed to even working class white people.

I was talking about the government - to go through every context, each one needs to be dealt with individually. The government needs to protect free speech and that may include regulating businesses like Google and Facebook. The responsibilities and powers of privately owned venues like this forum are negotiated but ultimately decided by the owner, that is fine. I would look at the ramifications rather than just the action alone though. Some businesses are too influential and powerful to allow to censor their users for political gain. — Judaka

You and I agree.

So now in 2019 I'm supposed to be ashamed and disgusted of my upbringing and education? I think not! — Teller

As @Judaka said, I don't feel ashamed of my advantages, I feel grateful. That doesn't mean I think I somehow deserve what I've been given more than others or that I don't recognize that how I have been treated is fair to a lot of other people. I am middle class. It was expected I would go to college. Same is true of my children. There is an automatic path, I think of it as a rail, that takes us in the direction we are expected to go - to education, affluence, and security. It takes effort to get off that rail. For many people, it's the other way around, it takes heavy effort to get on the rail. Sure people do it, but that doesn't mean our system is fair.

We have a responsibility to do what we can to make our society fairer. It would be more becoming for you to recognize that instead of complaining about the mean people who criticize people like me and you.

Of course there are, as there are restrictions. Just like everywhere. — hairy belly

No. The administrators and moderators have total control over what is written here. There is no countervailing force except for their commitment to good philosophy, fairness, and open discussion and their desire to have a successful and active forum. As I said, that is as it should be.

"Rights apply to governments". Nonsense. Rights apply to whomever states decide they apply. — hairy belly

Decide that rights apply to you all you want. That doesn't mean anything without a force of some kind to back you up. That force may be legal, moral, practical, political....

This is a public forum. The communication here is public, not private. — hairy belly

As I said, this forum is owned and controlled by private parties who are in complete control of it. It's public only in that they allow access to it. Just because I invite you onto my property, that doesn't mean you have any rights of access. I can tell you to leave, ban you, vote you off the island, any time I want.

Your speech is already restricted and these restrictions are already misapplied. What you fear so much is already happening. Your precious constitution does that, that's generally what constitutions do. — hairy belly

Again, you are mixing up what is a right and what is allowed. As for my precious Constitution, and constitutions in general, no, it does not primarily act to apply restrictions. The US Constitution does two primary things 1) it sets the rules and procedures for government and political action and 2) it provides protections against government action. 2) is primarily accomplished in what is known as "The Bill of Rights," the first 10 amendments ratified along with the original Constitution, as well as additional amendments added later. The Bill of Rights was specifically added to prevent the types of government intrusion which took place before the Revolution. The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified without it.

I read a 2013 book by Jim Baggott called 'Farewell to Reality: How Modern Physics Has Betrayed the Search for Scientific Truth'. ' — Wayfarer

Thanks for the reference. The first two or three chapters are available free on the web. Just the preface is worth the price of admission, so I bought the book. I look forward to reading it.

Before it get's into a discussion of the title subject, it spends half the book describing what the current, "authorized" understanding of the world is. Baggott writes very well and has a very direct and clear understanding of the metaphysics of science.

the methodology does sort of assume that there is an abstract truth that is to be deigned somehow — thewonder

That is a metaphysical statement. It is one, probably the most common, way of looking at things. It's not one I endorse on an absolute basis, but it is useful depending on the particular situation.

So what do you think metaphysics is, if it is so similar to science, as you imply? Please compare/contrast science and metaphysics to show the similarity you claim. I await your reply with genuine interest. — Pattern-chaser

First off, I've never known you to play games here, so I always assume that your posts reflect genuine interest and I try to respond appropriately.

I don't think science and metaphysics are similar, I think they're different aspects of the same subject. The assumptions, methods, practice, results, and interpretations of what we call "science" are inextricably wound together. The current separation of the philosophy of science from science is artificial, unnecessary, and misleading.

By the way, just to show the value of the forum, this is a new idea for me - the idea that the philosophy of science should be part of science. It changes the way I think about things and clarifies some ideas in my mind. Somebody in this thread said that part of the reason philosophy is looked down on by scientists is that the philosophers don't do or understand science. We should turn that around too, make people understand that so-called scientists who don't understand the intellectual underpinnings of what they do are just technicians.

I'm also thinking now - how can this insight be applied to other aspects of philosophy and practice. I'm going to think about that.

What I've suggested is that the problem be addressed in a meaningful way, and simply declaring that people are going to be shot in the head from time to time doesn't address anything. It just ignores the problem under the guise of bravado. — Hanover

I'm all for addressing the problem in a meaningful way. In my opinion, what I have called an hysterical response makes that less likely and does harm of it's own.

I'm not sure you're really in a position to tell others how to grieve or to tell them how far removed the murder must be from their immediate circle to care. I realize that El Paso is quite a haul from where I live, but I don't need the murders to occur on the square of my little suburban city to have concern. — Hanover

The typical public response to this type of event is not "having concern." It is, as I have said, hysterical, misrepresents the actual risks of this type of event, and may lead to actions that will not make people safer.

You accuse me of misunderstanding the true statistical risks of death when I complain about the recent rise in mass shootings, yet you then present a specious argument that there is some real injury occurring day to day due to the stress and worry kids now have from excessive media reporting of shooting deaths. — Hanover

I have had personal experience with the type of fearful response by parents and children to dangerous events which cause no significant risk to them. Multiply that by millions in this case.

If you're going to argue that the media coverage is harmful, you're going to have to show who's really being harmed and how that harm exceeds the harm attempted to be prevented. All I'm hearing is that you're annoyed by it. Suck it up. Deal with the way society reacts to issues. Nobody cares about your feelings. Bravado goes both ways. — Hanover

I'm not annoyed, I'm embarrassed. It makes the US look like a bunch of chooches. Our inappropriate and pointless reactions fill people who wish us ill with glee. It shows just how effective that kind of action really is. I'm also disgusted that public institutions encourage this type of reaction. It's not "bravado" it's the expectation that we should act like grownups.

I am dealing with how society reacts to issues - I'm expressing my opinion, even if you don't care about my feelings.

This hysteria has led to meaningful changes by the way, some of which likely do curb the violence. Most school districts near me have full time police officers who are assigned to the schools, courthouses have all beefed up security with more metal detectors and greater scrutiny, public gatherings have more officers and more safety checks. It's a whole new world out there reacting to real threats, and I'm thankful we haven't ignored this issue and just allowed the chips to fall where they may. — Hanover

I'm all for reasonable responses. I'm not sure if I think the ones you list are all necessary or not, but I won't quibble about that. There are other types of responses which are being considered, e.g. allowing teachers and adult students to carry firearms on campus, that will probably cause more harm than good.

When I look at the West today, it seems to me that free speech shouldn't be taken for granted at all. Criticising religions like Islam is already hard in many Western countries and that's just one example. — Judaka

I have no problem with making it hard to criticize religions like Islam. It's just that I don't want it to be the government that does it. I also want the government to protect the safety of people who say unpopular things. I don't think there's anything wrong with making it hard on people who criticize religions by legal social control means, e.g. public criticism, restrictions on speech by private parties, and other similar acts. Some of that might be harsh and unfair, but it's not inappropriate to have to face the consequences for the things you do or say.

Would it be wrong for an employer to fire an employee who is a member of the Nazi Party... I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure it would be legal.

Further restrictions are not a consequence of previous restriction in the sense that a lighning strike is a consequence of carrying a large pole during a thunderstorm. — Echarmion

Of course they are. Further restrictions are a direct, I say inevitable, consequence of allowing government intrusion. And it's not "further restrictions," it's restrictions that damage fundamental rights.

To me, it was more like if you do X, Y can be triggered too. We can separate free speech and hate speech and a lot of countries have a general understanding of the differences and the public too. — Wittgenstein

This comment was in response to your invocation of the "slippery slope" defense. It was my intent to show that it didn't apply to my original comment. Also - how is "if you do X, Y can be triggered too" different from "If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences."

There is also another form of free speech which l have no problem with since it causes more good than harm, — Wittgenstein

I think you've understood our point, we don't claim there is no harm from what you call "hate speech," only that there is more harm, much more harm, from restricting it.

I agree with this statement 100 percent. I would go on and say that the enforcement against hate speech will also be imperfect and such legal works are always adopted to minimize certain deeds as they can never totally wipe them out. — Wittgenstein

Again, I think you've missed the point - restrictions against what you call "hate speech," perfect or imperfect, cause severe damage to the exercise of "unalienable rights." Imperfect would be better than perfect. Non-existent would be much better.

As for Julian Assange, I'm generally sympathetic to the things he's done. I don't think he should be prosecuted. But I don't think it's

a clear example of violation of human rights — Wittgenstein

when we restrict hate speech and give government the power to do so, we may end up restricting legitimate speech. That's clearly a slippery slope argument. — Wittgenstein

If you do X, there are potential very serious negative consequences. Because of that, I don't think you should do X. How is that a slippery slope argument? If you go walking during a thunderstorm in a field on high ground carrying a long steel pole, you are likely to get hit by lightening and killed. I recommend you not do it. Although, I guess if you are walking on high ground and it's raining, there may actually be a slippery slope.

Taking us back to 1790s and using an example from over 200 years ago and applying it to 2019 won't strengthen your case. Constitution doesn't really help since the judges can interpret it differently. The UK doesn't even have a written constitution. — Wittgenstein

I think it's a very good and relevant example. John Adams, one of the authors of the American Declaration of Independence and considered a hero of liberty and freedom signed it into law. There is only one thing that can really help ensure free speech rights, and that's the rule of law. In the US, that means the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights; tradition and common law; and the courts. Of course it's imperfect and fallible, but it's all we've got.

That's how it works in the US. Other countries enforce the rule of law with other documents and institutions. I won't criticize any other country because their protections are imperfect, just as I don't expect perfection from our own protections.

It is the collective consciousness of society that prevents those in charge from committing immoral acts. That's precisely why dictators try to brainwash people because a piece of paper cannot prevent violation of human rights, it's the people who prevent and raise a voice. — Wittgenstein

As I indicated, I disagree. It's the rule of law that matters.

Νο, no. You must take advantage of your free speech rights and answer 'Fuck you, you dumbfuck'! — hairy belly

There are no free speech rights on the forum. As I said, rights apply to governments. In private communications such as the forum, dems whats in charge can restrict what we say as much as they want, which is as it should be. The rest of us get to choose whether or not we participate.

Also, keep in mind, @StreetlightX is The Man.

So I misread this as I don't like Monkeys and I had a whole response formulated in my head. — Virgo Avalytikh

Please, please, we all want to read it.

dumb — StreetlightX

Knowing the deep respect and admiration you feel for me and my ideas, I'll interpret your response as "I disagree with your point of view."

uman history to a large degree the results of the power of speech and action over and with others. — StreetlightX

Which is the reason it's so important to protect free speech rights.

On the "I don't like Mondays" thread currently active, there has been a discussion of the differences between the US's and other country's attitudes toward violence. There has been talk of a "warrior culture" of hero worship. I am skeptical of that sort of explanation, but I do recognize there are cultural differences and that the US is at one extreme, at least among liberal democracies. I wonder if the differences in opinions on free speech is related.

If one wants a more philosophical answer to this question as to whether an infinite lifespan is possible, then I can assert that if the world can be simulated in minute detail, then there should be no reason why the human brain can't be similarly simulated. — Wallows

An infinite life is impossible. For me it's not desirable. I do think it will be possible to extend life for quite a while. I'm not sure how I feel about that. It's not really relevant for me. I'm 67 and it is unlikely any breakthrough will be developed in the time I have left. That doesn't seem like a tragedy. Ray Kurzweil, a respected professor at MIT, is a few years older than I am. He's working hard to keep himself alive until 2045, when the technological singularity will take place. Then, either the machines will take over and destroy humankind or we'll all upload into computers. Yes, that is a simplification of what people actually believe.

I think it is much likelier that one of our current technologies will end our time on earth in the next few decades rather than significantly extending our lives.

Random murders occurring where one ought be safe is cause for alarm. — Hanover

The world is full of random negative consequences where one ought to be safe. That's part of what's known as the human condition. Is it cause for alarm? I think only if you want to live your life hiding out. Solution? Suck it up. Take your chances. Try to be fearless. Most important, try to teach your children to be fearless. Fearlessness is more important than safety.

Sure more die in such mundane events as car accidents, but we realize that danger, so we pack our cars with airbags and we buckle ourselves in and perhaps we don't drive on some roads late at night. Is it not cause for concern when we now must have the same thoughts and take all sorts of safety measures just to go to a public event? — Hanover

As I've said, I think this represents a misunderstanding of the real risks we face in our lives.

Our hysteria is a sign of health. How do you propose we behave when we bury our children? — Hanover

I can't think of any time when hysteria is a sign of health. We're not talking about burying our children. Your children in Atlanta are at no (read infinitesimal) risk from the events in Dayton and El Paso. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of children are afraid to go to school, not because of the risk, but because of the public reaction. As I've said, the current reaction represents a vast misunderstanding of the true risks we, and our children, face in life.

Metaphysics assumes that there are things that are "out there" that are "true". — thewonder

The idea that there are things out there that are true is a metaphysical position, but it is not the only one.

Where does science begin and philosophy end? If we don't know that, how are we supposed to know what we call science and what philosophy? — TogetherTurtle

That's sort of my point - they don't. They used to be together and that's where they belong.

It's worth drawing a firm distinction between appropriacy and utility here. One does not necessitate the other. Feeling a mixture of anger and indignation at your child being slapped in the face by a stranger is an appropriate reaction regardless of utility. Conversely, not feeling much and being concerned only with utility could be considered inappropriate. Same with mass shootings. It's not about being reasonable, it's about being human. — Baden

I don't agree. My kid doesn't need me to be indignant - she needs me to keep her safe and take care of her. Indignity doesn't help anything. For me, at least, it doesn't even make me feel good. I think that's what indignation is all about - it makes you feel like you've done something when you really haven't. Also - I think indignation leads to doing things that make it harder to effectively deal with the problem.

I have no criticism at all for the families of the people who were hurt or killed. I'm not talking about them at all. It's the politicians and newspeople that infuriate me.

I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. — leo

I think a lot of scientists recognize that there are significant problems that undermine the credibility of science and scientists. We've talked about some of them previously in this thread - Replication problems, fraud, misleading interpretation of results for gain, poorly designed studies, misuse of statistics, public distrust of science, the inability to translate scientific results to effective public policy, political interference.

Whether or not that's enough to lead to improvements, I think the solutions will have to come from within scientific institutions. I don't think there's anyone else to do it.

OP is a muddle. If it can't be clarified this thread will be closed. — StreetlightX

I don't think I agree. I think the OP would be ok if he would just identify the quotes. As usual, I'll leave it to you on the Council of Elders to decide.

Suppose you have a young child and while you are out with them, a random stranger comes up and slaps that child in the face. You are outraged.

Suppose the same child gets cancer. You are deeply saddened. Now someone asks you why you are only saddened at a serious chronic disease but outraged at a temporary trauma. What do you say to them? — Baden

Well, I wouldn't be outraged unless you are using outrage just as a synonym for angry. Outrage is not just the same as anger. It also carries a meaning of indignation, resentment. What good does indignation do my child? I would be angry and afraid if someone hit her. I would take her away somewhere safe, make sure she wasn't badly hurt, and then decide what to do about the attacker. What more would you have me do? Making her safe is what really matters.

Really? I mean REALLY? You think my discussion of international news from the other side of the ocean is a hysterical reaction that hurts the country? That's a seriously delicate little flower of a country you got there. Either that, or it's your hysterical reaction to my wanting to discuss something. — unenlightened

I either didn't know or forgot that you don't live in the US. Why in God's name would you care about what happens in another country when it doesn't have anything to do with you?

No, trolling the thread = calling me silly and hysterical and presenting
absolutely no argument or insight but rather attempting to shut down the discussion. Trolling the the thread is making a whole lot of noise about something else to drown out any possibility of learning anything about the topic. — unenlightened

I went back and checked. I didn't call you silly or hysterical. I called the Viking argument silly and the public and media reaction hysterical. I also read through my posts. I think they are thoughtful and to the point. It surprises me how angry they made you.

Is it a valid philosophical argument to question my motives for what I write? I don't think so. For the record, my motives are pure. You started a thread with statements that I think are misleading and, as I said earlier, lack perspective. I also think they mirror American public reactions, which I characterize as hysterical. Given that, it seems appropriate for me to comment.

Nowadays, some discrimination is more accepted and/or mitigated than others... right? — BrianW

Yes, and that's appropriate. Prejudice and discrimination against the most vulnerable is much more important than that against those with more power. It damages, sometimes destroys, their lives. Rich people will always come out ok.

Does financial discrimination take precedence over racial discrimination?

I've come to think that focusing on class/economic issues rather than racial issues makes sense. It has become harder to pass and enforce racial affirmative action laws.

Aren't the wealthy and rich more likely to accept someone of like financial status of a different race than someone far less financially capable of the same race?

Aren't men more likely to discriminate against women (even of the same race) than against men (including those of different races).

I once raised a ruckus when I said that white people don't like black people. My point was that even well-off black people face discrimination and suspicion from white people. And no, white men are not more likely to discriminate against white women than black men.

Is begging for acceptance or equal consideration the right way to go about overcoming discrimination? — BrianW

No, the way to handle it is to demand acceptance, at least politically and legally. That worked pretty well with the civil rights movement in the 50s and 60s. There is still a long way to go.

(These are just a few highlights.) — BrianW

Where do these quotes come from?

But this is so blatantly fucking obvious that I have to think you are just trolling the thread now because you have some axe to grind. — unenlightened

Trolling the thread = Disagrees with me.

And yes, I do have an axe to grind - I think this kind of hysterical reaction to this type of event hurts the country. The US is under the pall of a period of government by outrage and it is damaging.

Except, none of them used hate speech to my knowledge.
In the context of arguments before, we were arguing against letting leaders get away with inciting violence under the banner of free speech. — Wittgenstein

You call it "hate speech" and it appears you want to give the government the power to both define it and enforce it. In the late 1790s, Congress passed the Sedition Act which severely restricted protest against the government. That's what happens when you give the government the power - it restricts legitimate speech. It's true everywhere and always. That's how governments work. That's why we need the Constitution and the will not to let it be eroded.

Commands can also be ordered by cult figures, religious figures. — Wittgenstein

The subject at hand is military commands, commands with the backing of the government, not commands by Charles Manson.

If you think the topic is of no significance, what are you doing posting so much about it? Feel free to turn your attention to significant issues any time. — unenlightened

I'm posting about it because the mismatch between the events and the attention being given to them is significant. I'm commenting on the weakness of the arguments being made, which I think represents an important philosophical issue - the unrealistic understanding people have probabilities and risks.

You are talking complete bollocks anyway; should we ignore presidential elections because they don't happen 'again and again' by your ridiculous interpretation? — unenlightened

They happen every four years and 100,000,000 people participate. I think that meets my criteria for significance. Please tell me why the deaths of 120 people out of a total of 2.8 million is significant.