I think that when people believe experts and authorities, this has more to do with social dynamics and, to some extent, belief economy, rather than some "blind trust" or "not thinking for yourself". — baker

When people believe experts and authorities in various fields it is because they trust that those expert's expertise has been rigorously tested and demonstrated, and could be retested and redemonstrated if needs be. The same does not apply with sages and gurus. There is no way to rigorously and without bias test their purported expertise, even in principle, let alone practice.

Except that I would not ask the sage "How do you know?" anymore. There was a time in the past when I would, but not anymore. And no, this doesn't mean that I now accept their claims. It's that I contextualize the whole matter entirely differently. Namely, I don't see the declarations of a "sage" as being some kind of opening for a discussion and dialogue. — baker

I actually agree with this. The declarations of a self-styled sage are meant to be followed devotedly by aspirants without question.There is no room for discussion and dialogue in such institutions. I know this because I have participated in several in the past.In one way there's a good reason for this; you are not there to have a philosophical discussion; you are there to learn how to change your consciousness, and I have no argument with that aim at all as such.

But I know what kinds of cultures of gullible mythologizing actually arise around cult leaders and gurus of all kinds; the same kinds of lamentable human dynamics play out everywhere. People happily relinquishing their capacities to think for themselves; listening to the oracular voice of the "master" and believing every word; it's just sad in my view.

Because you have attained some higher knowledge that allows you to know such things. — baker

There cannot be demonstrated to be any such higher knowledge, though. Even the person who purportedly has such knowledge cannot be sure (as opposed to feeling sure) that it is true knowledge. It's a conviction that things are a certain way; if things turned out to be that way it just means that the conviction would have turned out to be in accordance with reality.

The problem is that no one could ever be sure of that being the case. Knowledge as it is normally understood is always uncertain, and consists in there being found no good reason to doubt, and that what we believe is also true. But the latter is what is always rationally uncertain.

If you wanted to be strictly accurate there is no possibility of certain knowledge that anything is the case, so really humans don't have propositional knowledge at all, they just have beliefs. That said of course within limited contexts we can be said to know things for certain, like I know I am sitting here typing on a laptop, or I know it is raining because I can see the rain falling and things getting wet.

It's not like there is an actual need to decide about such things! Nobody is putting a gun to your head or a knife to your throat forcing you to decide one way or another.
Whence this need to decide about whether there is consciousness after death?? — baker

That's a silly comment, given what Ive been arguing. I've been using that as an example; I'm not claiming the individual should decide one way or another. That's a matter of faith, of personal conviction, and up to the individual. I sometimes doubt you even read what I've written. I'm not even saying someone should not follow what some purported sage has to say; just that doing that is not an example of thinking for yourself, but rather of allowing someone else to do your thinking for you.

What a strange idea of "thinking for yourself".

I think "thinking for yourself" is about epistemic autonomy, ie. being autonomous in how one knows/believes one knows things. Like I said already, it's epistemic autonomy that is questionable.

Relative novelty of one's ideas isn't the measure of "thinking for yourself" (although this is how it is often understood in popular discourse). — baker

I'd say this is far stranger. Firstly what could being autonomous in how one knows/ believes one knows things even mean? Are you suggesting the enlightened sage is or could be epistemically autonomous? You seem to have been disagreeing with my arguments that the enlightened person cannot rationally know that she knows whatever she thinks she knows, no matter how convinced she may be that she does, and yet here you say that epistemic autonomy is questionable. So, I can only guess you must mean something else.

I haven't said that relative novelty of one's ideas is the measure of "thinking for yourself" although having novel ideas might be an example of thinking for oneself.

As I said before in my view thinking for yourself is just thinking what seems to be in best accordance with and evidenced by your own experience, understanding and rational assessment rather than thinking something because some authority told you it was so without providing any empirical evidence or rational argument to back up their assertion.

So, if the purportedly enlightened sage tells you that there is an afterlife, and you say how do you know that and they say 'I just know', or 'I remember my past lives', you would be warranted in being skeptical about such a claim. That would be thinking for yourself. If you accepted the claim, and henceforth believed it yourself because you believed the person was enlightened and must know the truth, that would not be thinking for yourself.

If one is "sublimely confident and perfectly convinced", then no further demonstration is necessary. — baker

That's not the point. I haven't argued against people being sublimely confident and perfectly convinced. They would feel no need for demonstration to be sure. But their sublime confidence and perfect conviction is no good rational reason for anyone else to believe what they are so perfectly convinced of.

It might turn out, at death, that one was correct, if consciousness survives death,

but no one could know it in advance, and you could never know it was anything more than a lucky intuition in any case.

How can you possibly know that?? To rightly say what you're saying requires omniscience!!!! — baker

How could you possibly know that consciousness survives death before you have died? You might say via remembrance of past lives. But how could you know those memories are accurate or are actually memories at all and not some other phenomenon like tapping into the so-called akashic records or whatever? We don't even know for sure if our own fairly distant memories in this life are accurate or factual rather than fantasized.

Oh, come on, this is false dichotomy you're operating with. Either think for yourself, or have others impose their thoughts on you. This is so impoverished!
I myself am not much of an optimist, but even I don't believe that humans relate to eachother only in a competitive and adversary way.

To say nothing of how your view requires epistemic autonomy, which is highly problematic in and of itself. — baker

We are discussing a particular context here; beliefs about the nature of life and death. What other alternative could there be apart from thinking about it carefully, weighing all the evidence, such as it can be, and deciding for yourself versus believing what someone else tells you because you believe they are enlightened or whatever?

And it's not true that "epistemic autonomy" is required, whatever that could even be. All that's required is the resolve to weigh the "evidence" and decide for yourself, and take no one else's word as to what you should believe, just on account of thinking they have access to some 'knowledge' that lesser mortals cannot access.

that there is no possibility of absolute rational certainly, or certainty of any truth, even if certainty of personal conviction is possible

What a strange thing to say, your very claim undermines itself. — baker

It's one thing to say that what I said "undermines itself" and another to fail to explain why you think that. That complete rational certainty is not possible does not entail that people cannot be absolutely convinced of anything, if they are blind, willfully or otherwise, to the fact that complete rational certainty is not possible.

You make some good points Isaac. As you probably know, I've been wrestling with the decision whether or not to be vaccinated myself. I'm 67 and have no children, but I live in a rural area, so my chances of exposure are nowhere near what they would be in the city.

If what you say about the studies done to determine the safety of the vaccines in the under 25s is true then that is cause for concern and I would be worried too if I had children in that age group. Well, I am concerned anyway, I wouldn't want to see young people as a group harmed by the vaccines, but of course I would be more worried if I had kids myself.

In an emergency situation, which I think this arguably is, there does seem to be an imperative to suppress the voices of dissenters just for the pragmatic reason that they create unwarranted fears in many impressionable people, which serves to undermine the program. I say unwarranted because there are many dissenters, some very well-regarded medical experts, who speak as though they know this is going to be a disaster, an experiment on a vast scale that is going to cause millions of deaths and so on.

See this for example. According to my anti-Covid vaccines friend there is a league of thousands of doctors in the US, who believe the vaccines are killing and injuring many more people than the official figures show. But this all seems to be hyperbolic speculation (or should I have said speculative hyperbole?) as far as I, the non-expert, can tell.

The issues involved in more informed disagreements over safety, whether they have a more or less equal balance of advocates on either side or relatively few on the dissenting side, are beyond the capabilities of non-experts, that is those who are not epidemiologists, virologists or immunologists, to critically assess, and that seems to be a big problem.

The only basis for my argument is majority consensus among the experts. You may be able to (I doubt it given your background is in psychology), but I cannot assess the plausibility of possible future negative outcomes of vaccination as outlined in the paper you linked from experts who differ from the dominant consensus, So why would I believe them as opposed to the official consensus? The actual negative outcomes remain statistically small if the official figures are to be believed.

If the number of experts dissenting from the official line were significant enough then of course that would be a different story.

So,

Simply untrue. The more isolated have a lower chance, those practising more non-pharmaceutical interventions have a lower chance. — Isaac

That's true. It was hastily written, but what I meant was that if the virus is everywhere through the community then if you get out at all there is a fair chance you will come into contact with it.

if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced. — Janus


Do you have any evidence for this? Or do you expect me to just argue against whatever you reckon? — Isaac

My only evidence is that this seems to be the official consensus. That said, if the vaccines stop the virus replicating then it seems to stand to reason that the vaccinated will, on average, carry a lower viral load than the unvaccinated, and thus shed less virus and be less infectious.

Unbelievable! How does one argue against such insanity? You're advocating injecting the entire population of the world with a chemical that had not even been invented a few years back on the basis of the fact that 'you don't see any reason not to...' Not on some evidence you've got immediately to hand. — Isaac

No, I'm advocating it because it seems to be the expert consensus motivating the official advice, and I don't have anything else to go by. Do you?

if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed.. — Janus


No, if your chosen experts are to be believed. I've presented evidence from experts who believe that vaccination does not significantly increase the chances of a good outcome. You've chosen to ignore them in favour of some vague notion that 'the experts' say it will without even having any evidence to that effect which you can cite. — Isaac

Again, they are not my chosen experts, but the majority expert consensus. Or are you denying this?

If we followed your argument and applied it to global warming we might discard the majority expert consensus, and follow the minority that deny it on account of the fact that doing anything about climate change will hurt the economy and might cause more suffering and death than global warming will.

and you can't even be bothered to actually look up any evidence at all, — Isaac

The only "evidence" I've seen is in the form of theoretically possible long term negative outcomes; ADE seems to be the main one; purely speculative stuff. This is opposed to the majority consensus which says there is no reason to believe the vaccines are not safe and effective for the vast majority of people and that there is no sign of ADE and it is believed to be highly unlikely. Of course this consensus might turn out to be wrong; there is always some risk, however small. But it is a matter of risk assessment, and frankly you are sounding somewhat hysterical.

Anyway its is also a matter of pragmatics. This vaccine rollout, in the absence of any future evidence of likely significant negative outcomes, will proceed, and if you are unvaccinated your activities may be severely curtailed and you will have to make a decision based on whether you are prepared to give up eating out, travel, sporting and musical events, cinema and so on, just so that you can protect yourself against what seems to be the very minor risk of a serious negative outcome from vaccination.

I have a good friend who thinks just like you, and I was thinking somewhat along those lines myself earlier, and I have been through all the arguments, but as I say I am not an expert, so I realized I have to follow some advice more or less blindly and I can't see any better candidate to follow than the official expert consensus. Good luck.

So what if I might call some colour red one day orange on another? All that indicates is that on the borderline cases there is no clear boundary, or the lighting conditions might be different. I might even say that it's kind of reddish orange. naming in this case is by no means precise, but that imprecision does nothing to cast the habitual association of colour names into doubt.

I don't see anything of significance that you are trying to get at here.

If you said "that thing is red, and this thing is orange", and I asked you why you say so, and you said because I associate the term "red" with the colour of that thing, and the term "orange" with the colour of this thing, I'd say that's a very poor explanation. In fact, I'd reject it as most likely false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you deny that some animals see different colours? What explanation could there be for seeing different colours other than that there are different colours? I would see different colours regardless of what I called them; or are you denying that? So what does it matter if you call two colours red and I call one red and one orange?

What could explain that difference between us other than I associate a different name to one of the colours than you do or else you see one as being more red than I do due to your inferior capacity to distinguish differences among colours? I'm telling you the truth as I see it: reject it if you like. I don't care. This "conversation" has already been a complete waste of time.

Then you've changed the subject. We were discussing how one would distinguish red from orange, not simply how one would see that one thing's colour is different from another thing's colour. The former, distinguishing red from orange, is what I argued requires theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

We distinguish red from orange by seeing one thing as red and the other orange; which just means that we associate the term 'red' with one and 'orange' with the other. There is no theory involved; it is just seeing and acquired association; and the latter is just habit, if you like. I am at a loss to know what it is that is confusing you about this, so I am afraid I can't be of further help.

So is that a great, or profound, epochal "loss"? Is the infancy, or even childhood, of our species, especially traumatized to the extreme (re: sanguinary histories), "lost" by recently becoming a barely adult species (maturing, or wisening-up, much too slowly for our own good) which completely debilitates h. sapiens' further cultural and social development? Is it all downhill metaphysically (or spiritually) once we've entered puberty and our "eyes opened, and saw that we were naked"? And that striving to think for ourselves (i.e. learning to take smarter risks despite uncertainty aka "black swans") rather than submit to being told by invisible "mysteries" & "revelations" what to think and believe is a(nother) "fall from grace"? — 180 Proof

I don't know if it is a general loss. I don't know to what degree the average person in ancient and medieval times was suffused with feelings of the magic, the poetry and mystery of existence. I don't much favour analogies between the development of humanity as a whole and individuals: Babyhood, childhood, adolescence, adulthood as applied to general human development; I think they are somewhat facile.

As I said I don't think those experiences of magic, poetry and mystery are reliant on any particular worldviews, at least I don't believe they are for those whose thinking is sufficiently subtle. As for the so-called "common man", I really don't know if anything has been lost for them.

We can't take that for granted, that's the point of skepticism. Things are not necessarily as you perceive them. So the conclusion "they are different" is not validly derived from "I see them as different". — Metaphysician Undercover

You're not paying attention. I already said I am not making any claim beyond what is the case in the context of seeing colours. IF we see different colours we see colours as different from one another, from which it logically follows that there are differences between colours, as seen.

I don't follow you. Why, if it's on average 90% efficacious would it be less likely in all categories? If, on average drunk people are more likely to have a car accident, does that mean drunk people are more likely to have a car accident even among those who don't drive? Averages don't apply to all groups unless the criteria are random, which, with susceptibility to hospitalisation with covid-19, we know they're not. — Isaac

Your car accident analogy doesn't work. If the virus is circulating through the community then everyone has an equal chance, statistically speaking, of coming into contact with it. The point is, if you get vaccinated and you are exposed to the virus, your chances of infection are reduced, your chances of symptomatic infection are reduced, your chances of hospitalization are reduced and your chances of death are reduced.

I see no reason why this would not apply to the unhealthy, smokers, the obese, alcoholics, drug addicts, the healthy, athletes, fitness fanatics, and so on. Unless you isolate yourself completely you cannot ensure that you will not come not contact with the virus; if you do come into contact with it your chances of a good outcome are increased greatly if the experts are to be believed..

If your chances of infection, symptomatic infection, hospitalization and death are reduced, then chances are you will, if infected, carry less viral load and thus be less infectious. So, on average, vaccination will reduce transmission.

All of this is assuming that what we are being told by the medical authorities, which is, or at least should be, assuming good will, the dominant expert consensus, is true. If we reject that then what do we have to guide us?

Far less likely than whom? The unvaccinated? The unvaccinated but masked? The unvaccinated but healthy, the unvaccinated but rural dwelling, the unvaccinated but young, the unvaccinated but non-smoker... — Isaac

If vaccination is roughly 90% efficacious at preventing hospitalization compared to lack of vaccination then it would be far less likely for the unvaccinated compared to the vaccinated in all of those categories, most likely.

I haven't seen the latest figure but here in NSW a week or so ago all bar one out of the 150 people in hospital with covid were unvaccinated. The other one had had one shot, so was not fully vaccinated.

Where does medical advice suggest that getting vaccinated is best for society as a whole? Give me one single medical advisory that suggests I should get vaccinated, in my circumstances. — Isaac

In general if it is true that vaccination greatly reduces transmission of the virus then it is obviously in society's best interest that as many people as possible be vaccinated. I don't know your circumstances, so I can;t comment about that.

Would you advocate the same for smoking, drinking eating red meat, not exercising enough, practising sports, doing office work, foreign travel, insufficient handwashing... — Isaac

Those activities do not enjoy pandemic status and are unlikely to overwhelm hospitals, so probably no.

we see them as different, we infer that there is a difference between them. — Metaphysician Undercover

If we see them as different then from the point of view of seeing there just is a difference, otherwise how could it be that we see them as different?

If your theory explains the difference between two colours as a matter of there being a third colour between the two, you will have an infinite regress of colours, and the necessary conclusion of an infinity of colours between any two different colours. — Metaphysician Undercover

The theory would be that humans cab see different colours on account of differing wavelengths of light (and also possess the requisite visual capabilities, obviously). But I don't need that theory in order to see different colours, obviously; I don't need any theory at all to do that. Animals can do it too, to varying degrees and in different ways.

Humans can differentiate millions of different colours. Computer monitors purportedly can generate over a billion. I haven't said anything about the difference between two colours being on account of a third colour between them. The difference between two colours is on account of the fact that we can distinguish between them. If there are more colours that may be generated by a computer than humans can differentiate, it follows that there are different colours that humans are unable to see any difference between.

Excellent point. And by the same token, I assume you favor restrictions on the free movement of the vaccinated, since they too may infect others.

Vaccinated People May Spread the Virus, Though Rarely, C.D.C. Reports — fishfry

I'm sorry to have to say it, but this is simplistic. Firstly the vaccinated are far less likely to spread infection, even though it is acknowledged to be possible. The vaccines are not perfect, and to say that because they are not perfect I won't be vaccinated is like saying I won't put locks on my doors because sometimes thieves can pick them. Simplistic thinking!

And secondly, the vaccinated are following the medical advice in doing what is judged to be best for society as a whole, whereas the deliberately unvaccinated are acting only out of self-interest and against what is best for all.

One aim among others of vaccination is to allow freedom of movement and opening of borders and businesses which is what is needed lest our economies crumble causing much more suffering, hardship and many more deaths.

If people don't want to play their part then why should they enjoy what those who are playing their part do? And how much less so if they are also much more likely to become sick and burden the hospital system perhaps thereby denying a bed to someone else who needs it for some Covid unrelated emergency condition.

No one is saying that even the vaccinated will enjoy totally unrestricted freedom in any case. Mask-wearing and social distancing may become the norm, since the latest advice is that Covid is very unlikely to be totally eradicated and the vaccines are only around 70-90% efficacious in preventing symptomatic infection. None of them are sterilizing vaccines. A sterilizing vaccine would be ideal; but we don't have it.

How about this: if you want to remain unvaccinated would you agree to sign a waiver relinquishing your right to hospitalization if you became infected with Covid and sick enough to require it?

That’s where we differ. Something genuinely was lost, and it’s very hard to discern what. — Wayfarer

I don't think it's that hard to discern; I'd say it's a sense of profound mystery, awe and the reverence that goes with that is what has been lost. It lives on in (some) philosophy, arts, music and poetry and in (some) religious and spiritual practices. Some scientists also seem to be alive to that sense of mystery, awe and reverence.

You can have that sense without needing to draw any conclusions about the nature of reality. That's really the point; the sense of mystery and reverence do not warrant any such conclusions and become banal when they are applied.

I think the greatest need is to learn to live with uncertainty. But the modern sensibility characteristically feels entitled to answers, and to the assumption that it knows all the answers. That sense of entitlement and smug self-assurance is what has been gained to our detriment in my view.

Notice that the logical conclusion requires the unstated premise, of a correspondence between what you sense, a difference of colour, and the reality that there actually is such a a difference. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm only talking about what we see not some purported reality beyond that.

This is just theory though, which you appear to be presenting to justify your claim "there are different colours". I will warn you that this principle, a "continuum" fails in any attempt at such a justification. It implies that there is an infinite number of differences between any two colours. — Metaphysician Undercover

I used the word continuum to refer to the fact that there are many many gradations between red and orange, not a clear boundary, I haven't said the gradations are infinite.

There's no name for the perceptible difference. One thing is an orange colour, and another thing is a red colour. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is no single word for the perceptual difference. But the term for the difference would be "the difference between red and orange". The fact that there are two colour names 'red' and 'orange' entails that there are two different colours, red and orange, If there are different colours then there is a difference between the colours. Of course red and orange are not each one determinate colour; there is a continuum shading between them; a range that goes from almost mauve or purple to almost yellow. There is nothing controversial or puzzling about any of this.

Distinctions are not explanations.

The person sees that if there is a hint of yellow in the red, it ought to be judged as orange. So the person applies this theory (you agree that this is theory?) — Metaphysician Undercover

No I don't agree it is a theory; it is a name for a perceptible difference, a distinction.

Theories are imagined purportedly plausible explanations for observed phenomena. They come with predictions as to what would be observed if they were correct. If you think it is a theory then I think you have an eccentric notion of what the word means.

I was also extremely impressed by Huxley's ' The Perennial Philosophy' which I read about 4 months ago, and that was partly what influenced me in thinking that there are underlying themes underlying the various religious traditions. My basic belief is that it is about achieving a sense of the transcendent or numinous, although it don't think it is necessary to believe in God to achieve such states of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Experiencing a sense of the numinous may also happen with the arts; for my taste painting, music and poetry in particular. My view is that it is best (for myself at least) to enjoy the experience while forming no conclusions about its possible implications.

No problem. It's good to see someone who's open enough to change their mind when it's warranted. :up:

also there's the issue of Myocarditis https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X21006824 in young people which significantly outweighs their risk from Covid-19. — Isaac

From the paper:

"Interpretation

Our report of myocarditis after BNT162b2 vaccination may be possibly considered as an adverse reaction following immunization. We believe our information should be interpreted with caution and further surveillance is warranted."

I think it's a bit of a leap from that to your conclusion that the risk of myocarditis from vaccination outweighs the risks from Covid.

Right, probably not deep in the sense of complexly elaborated thought, but perhaps in the sense that the bottom cannot be reached, or the depths of the ocean that are yet to be explored.

What I'm getting at is that something can seem deep if it feels mysterious and remains ungraspable, but no, not determinably deep like a complex analysis or subject matter might be thought of as being.

Your point escapes me. I accept the cosmic scale fractal as a mathematical analogue to "as above, so below", but what do that have to do with anything I've posted to this thread? — 180 Proof

The point was only that what might seem shallow to you could seem, and obviously has seemed across time and cultures, deep to many others. The idea is that the Higher Truth is embodied in the Lower Manifestation and may be apprehended through intuition or the seeing of a "seer", gnosis, or through meditative practice and so on. The idea is common to both the Eastern and Western traditions and also the shamanistic practices of hunter/ gatherer cultures.

From this initial reading, I am not interested in Hermeticism as it seems to be a form of special revelation, have supernatural aspects and predate our modern scientific worldview but perhaps you can somehow make it interesting? — prothero

I can't "make it interesting" to anyone; it;s either interesting to you or not. It has been interesting to me at times over the years, but less so of late. I never had real faith in the idea, as should be obvious from my arguments with @Wayfarer. On the other hand I don't dismiss others' interest as being delusional or without value.

I'm not saying the vaccine is the less good choice. I haven't seen any what I count as good reasons to think that there will be long term consequences, even dire ones, but some well-respected (or previously well-respected at least) medical experts apparently do:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-covid-19-vaccine-holocaust-the-latest-antivaccine-messaging/

It seems reasonable to think that just because someone is a well-respected Professor in the medical field, that doesn't preclude the possibility that they might lose the plot and start having and fueling paranoid delusions..Part of those what certainly seem to be delusions are driven by what @Isaac identified as a justifiable distrust of "Big Pharma".

On the other hand the possibility that experts are rejecting these kinds of possibilities out of hand on account of fearing criticism from their peers for not towing the official line, losing their positions or research funding and so on, should not be blithely dismissed either. There would seem to be some truth in that too.The complaint from the "anti" side is that there is no reasoned debate. But it is an emergency situation, and if these concerns are not merely dismissed out of hand, but publicly debated, the worry is that it would spook even more people increasing vaccine hesitancy thus undermining the response to the emergency.

It's a complex situation, but I'm certainly not convinced by what seem to be conspiracy theories and wild speculations that are abounding. But then I also realize I'm just a lay person and not really in a good position to judge what is correct and what is not, and so I, like most other people, are left with the decision as to whether to place trust in the official narrative, in regards to which it seems reasonable to think there are good reasons not to trust it entirely, or be left completely at sea with wacko conspiracy theories, or speculation involving possibilities which are dressed up as being likelihoods or even certainties, which it seems we have no reason at all to trust..

The choice seems clear;I'm going to go with the dominant, the official narrative, but not entirely without misgivings, which means I have some empathy for those who place themselves on the other side, and don't want to simply dismiss them, even though the emergency nature of the situation seems to call for that.

The safety and efficacy have been established. — Fooloso4

Long term safety certainly has not been established. That said, I have no doubt many therapeutics are approved prior to long term safety being established.In this case, since we are dealing with a virus that will evolve, long term efficacy cannot be established.

And that "perennialist" sentiment is shallow. Whatever is "ultimate" necessarily is beyond all traditions made up of non-ultimate, or proximate, minds, no? — 180 Proof

Unless you accept the Hermetic principle of "as above, so below"; the idea that the microcosm inevitably reflects the macrocosm, in which case you would think it is deep not shallow.

Really, I am interested in what we can learn from the comparative analysis of religion. — Jack Cummins

You could learn about the various ways that people in different cultures have imagined deity and deities. You could learn about how the ways deities have been imagined has related to proscriptions on behavior and prescriptive practices designed to appeal to, or gain a vision of deities. You could identify commonalities and differences between these various cultural phenomena. Can you think of anything else?

If the official data can be trusted the pharmaceutical companies and (hopefully) independent research facilities (such as Oxford University) have produced several vaccines which enjoy 90% plus efficacy in preventing symptomatic disease. That they will make a huge profit from this feat is lamentable, and even disgusting, but does nothing to diminish the achievement (if the data are correct, of course). As I see it the salient question is what would be the alternative to trusting the official data and narrative? Where would rejecting that leave the layperson in their need to make a decision?

When you say "it feels or seems or looks orange to me", how do you think you can make that judgement without applying theory? — Metaphysician Undercover

I have no theory in mind, so I am not applying a theory. I'm not claiming that it is orange or red just that it looks or seems orange or red to me. As I said it's a matter of a lifetime of impressions and associations, not theories, that have formed my association of 'orange' or 'red' or any colour word with some impressions and not with others. If you think it is a theory then explain just what the theory is and what its predictions could be.

You "feel" the difference between the meaning of two words, rather than thinking it? That's a new one on me. You call it "orange" because when you see it you get the feeling of orange from it?

I can't say that I know what orange feels like, but I think I can judge whether or not something is orange. When I make this judgement I do not refer to my feelings, I refer to my memories, so clearly my judgement is not derived from my feelings, it's derived from my mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Orange is a sensation, a feeling, just as red is. When I look at something and it feels or seems or looks orange to me I say it is orange. There is no right or wrong in this as there is no definite boundary between orange and red. If I said it was green, yellow or blue that would be a different matter. I have no idea what you are looking for beyond that.

I’m sure vaccination helps. From what the news tells me, those who are hospitalized with the disease are largely unvaccinated. What they never mentioned was how quickly the virus can circulate among the vaccinated. In any case I much rather assume the risk of living than let governments, all of which failed to contain the virus, continue to contain human beings. — NOS4A2

If the vaccines are 90% effective as claimed, and 100% of your population is vaccinated then 100% of the people in hospital and ICU will be vaccinated. Moving towards that situation is probably why we see in some areas more vaccinated people in hospital than unvaccinated. In New South Wales 100 % of people in hospital are unvaccinated according to the official figures I last saw (a couple days ago)

Why would you need to demonstrate it?

If one had truly come to a spiritual attaiment, that would be the one knowledge, the one attainment that one would not feel the need to demonstrate to others. — baker

Right, and that's exactly all I've been saying; that such knowledge is not demonstrable, even to oneself.. no matter how sublimely confident and perfectly convinced one might be that one possess such knowledge.

It might turn out, at death, that one was correct, if consciousness survives death, but no one could know it in advance, and you could never know it was anything more than a lucky intuition in any case. At least if you turned out to be wrong you'd never know, could never be proven to be wrong. I have no argument with anyone who feels so convinced they know something as to not entertain even the shadow of a doubt, provide they don't seek to impose their beliefs on others, or expect others to be convinced by their personal conviction and profession of certainty.

Yet freethinking won't necessarily stop you from falling into an abyss, or save you from it.
Freethinking is no guarantee for success, in any field of endeavor. — baker

If you don't want to think freely, but would rather have other's impose their thoughts on you then you are at least free to do that. It's up to you. At least be honest and admit to yourself at least if not to others, that there is no possibility of absolute rational certainly, or certainty of any truth, even if certainty of personal conviction is possible

We are children of the State to whom we owe obedience. Or the State beats it into us. — baker

There are laws we have to obey or face the consequences, of course. But the state doesn penetrate into every corner of our lives; at least not where I live anyway. experience.

"But it turns out you only have to hop a few feet, to one side, and the whole huge machinery rolls by, not seeing you at all". Lew Welch.

Rumor has it that an enlightened person could, in fact, step in front of a semi-trailer, but the semi-trailer's engine would fail or its brakes malfunction and block just in time for the semi-trailer to stop before it would hit the enlightened person. — baker

Yeah, rumour....or fairy tales for children...

On what basis would you say "it's red", rather than "it's orange", unless you are applying some sort of theory which enables your judgement? — Metaphysician Undercover

It's not theoretical (for me at least). I would say it's red rather rather than orange if it seems to be red rather than orange. It's just a seeming or a feeling. as associated with my felt sense of my overall experience of colour, not theoretical at all.

If one is blissfully ignorant of how one's opinions came to be (and whom one got them from), then all is well in la-la land... — baker

All ideas may be "the same old stew reheated"; but so what? You choose the idea and opinions out of the suite of those culturally available to you that seem to fit best with your lived experience. We don't have to be that rare person who comes up with a completely novel idea (if there be such at all) in order to think for ourselves.

That would require one to be an epistemic autonomist, and to in fact be epistemically autonomous. Epistemic autonomy is not possible. Because, as you later say: — baker

I don't see why you say that. As I see it all it requires is not being concerned about the opinions of others and making up your own mind.

Except that humans have developed such vastly different ideas of what counts as "thriving", "happiness", "peace", "harmony" that the above criteria are too general. People can thrive, be happy, live in peace and harmony while living under tyranny. People can also thrive, be happy, live in peace and harmony if they are politically correct androids. — baker

I disagree. Sure people can make the best of bad situations, but I don't believe anyone with any self-respect would choose to live under any form of tyranny. As to being politically correct androids, I don't count failing to think for yourself as an example of fulfilling your potential and hence it also doesn't count as an example of thriving in my view.

Note, I haven't said you have to agree with my view; you should have your own view which you have worked out for yourself, if you have the capacity for that at least; otherwise you will fail to reach, or even approach, your potential in my view.

And what is more, spiritually advanced people tend to resent to be put to the test and their actions judged. — baker

Oh really, and how do you know that? What criteria do you personally employ to enable you to judge whether someone is spiritually advanced or not?

Of course. But as ↪Apollodorus
points out repeatedely, acknowledgement of doubt and uncertainty can lead to a schizoaffective disorder. — baker

Rubbish! Chronic and crippling doubt may lead to mental disorders, but mere acknowledgement of uncertainty is just being intellectually honest.

Your arguments are not convincing; surely you can do better?

I don't think that's right. What I call 'red' at the two extremes of the range some may call 'orange' or 'mauve'. That would just be personal perception and choice; I can't see what it has to do with theory.

Fair enough, Banno, apologies for my misunderstanding and overreaction.

We do not agree here. Every observation is theory laden, starting with the words we use to describe something. Call it "red", and there is theory behind the meaning of that word. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree. For me 'red' is just a word we use to refer to a certain colour or range of colours that are commonly observed. Indeed there may be and have been various theories associated with our use of that word or its cognates (not specifially our use of 'red', our use of colour words in general) but is there any essential theory underpinning its/ their use?