Karen Armstrong has an interesting take on it in her essay Should we believe in 'belief'?



It was during the late 17th century, as the western conception of truth became more notional, that the word "belief" changed its meaning. Previously, bileve meant "love, loyalty, commitment". It was related to the Latin libido and used in the King James Bible to translate the Greek pistis ("trust; faithfulness; involvement"). In demanding pistis, therefore, Jesus was asking for commitment not credulity: people must give everything to the poor, follow him to the end, and commit totally to the coming Kingdom.

By the late 17th century, however, philosophers and scientists had started to use "belief" to mean an intellectual assent to a somewhat dubious proposition. — Wayfarer

A lot of interesting insights, especially where religious myth is compared to art.

That explains a lot about where Christians have gone wrong.

But how do we explain the fanaticism of the irreligious over "beliefs"?

Again, I think that it is all political. If you want to increase your power and reduce other people's power then an often-practiced strategy is to make it about "us" vs. "them" and portray "them" as subhuman, inferior, backwards, etc.--or say that their "beliefs" are dangerous and must be exposed, contained, eradicated, etc.

May be applicable if you want to live within a small community. May not be applicable though if you want to scale things up like food production and transport unless you agree to go back to manual labor and to forgo quick and convenient long-distance travel. — OglopTo

Indeed, that is the almost universally unquestioned response in the West. If we practice self-control, conservation, modesty, simplicity, etc. the sky will collapse and the whole globe will be in abject poverty. It's either save our way of life--perpetual economic growth; continuous commodification of everything under the sun (and probably the sun itself; savvy investors might want to get a head start and figure out who will end up with ownership of the sun); ever-increasing exploitation of the Earth; etc.--or life will be "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short" for everybody on the globe.

The fact that only a small percentage of people have benefited from that way of life is almost always omitted. The fact that most people have suffered from that way of life is almost never on anybody's radar. On the contrary, it is always stated or implied that everybody--even people whose relatives have been murdered, indigenous cultures have been destroyed, land has been degraded, and lives have been subjected to colonial domination--is better off.

Don't reduce energy consumption by buying local produce! That is irrational! The sky will collapse! More energy and more consumption is the answer!

Has there been any worse ethnocentrism, narcissism and hubris in pre-history and history?

Have people always been so fanatical about what "beliefs" we have or do not have?

If you read enough of these debates something you might notice is that evidence is never presented to support the claim that "beliefs" are the powerful determinants of behavior that fanatics on both sides say we must control.

Beliefs, rather than being determinants of behavior, could just be necessary intellectual tools. Evidence--solid, concrete evidence--is never presented one way or the other.

Do people really consistently hold the same beliefs? Or are our beliefs​ in a constant state of flux?

Is a belief really a distinct entity? Or are beliefs gray areas that can't be categorized?

And, good grief, why do people get so agitated, offended, annoyed, etc. by other people's beliefs? Probably 99% of the time I could not care less about what other people believe. Somebody might believe that I am a trespasser and be prepared to shoot me with a gun, but somebody else's belief being a threat like that is an extremely rare scenario. And we pay little attention to those kinds of beliefs--often, clinical psychologists have to bring them to our attention. But if somebody believes​ in a deity we've already got our guard up!

I think that it is all politics and has very little to do with intellectual or spiritual life.

I thought that omnipotent means able to do all
possible things; not able to do all things, period.

Use less energy.

I've been talking about pursuing a degree in Philosophy. I don't think I've ever heard a positive response. Some people (acquaintances, relatives, friends) just blurt out something like, "that's stupid", or "Philosophy is stupid", or "a degree in Philosophy is useless."

How would you respond? — anonymous66

How would I respond? I would be honest.

Look at what the author says here about majoring in Anthropology:


"It’s official. As of 2012, Kiplinger declared the anthropology major as the worst major for your career. Forbes follows suit: Anthropology is the worst major.

We’re #1!

From Florida Governor Scott’s we don’t need anthropologists to Frank Bruni singling out anthropology in the New York Times, I’m tired of playing defense. We’ve worked hard to get to #1.

Anthropology is the worst major for being a corporate tool. If going to college is only measured by the job you will take immediately after college, then please choose one of Kiplinger’s 10 best college majors for a lucrative career or one of Forbes 15 Most Valuable College Majors. Please don’t become an anthropology major!..." (emphasis mine).


Do you see that first part I put in bold? Anthropology has worked hard to become the worst major for getting you a good-paying job and making you a pawn in the capitalist game, darn it! We're proud to be number one!

Every time I read that I laugh.

Be honest. Say, "You are right. A degree in Philosophy will not make me very useful to this capitalist system that does things like destroy the biosphere, destroy indigenous cultures and employ in sweatshops people forced to move to cities, exploit women and children, etc."

As for philosophy's content itself being stupid, again, be honest. Tell them, yes, speculating about being a brain in a vat won't get anybody anywhere in the economic world like, say, working on an AIDS vaccine. Then remind them that that economic world is poised to replace as many as 50% of us workers with artificial intelligence. But AI can't do things like speculate about being a brain in a vat. The latter ability is part of what makes us human. Tell, them, therefore, that if they think that what makes us human is stupid, and they consider themselves to be human, then they are saying that they are stupid.

But the rules of your game preclude any such possibility. We must speak/write of things but the moment we do, the things we speak/write about exist. It's like inventing a game where you, the inventor, can't lose. The commendable creativity aside, you won't find people who'll play this game. Even if they do, they'll spend most of the time commenting on your rules (as you can see)... — TheMadFool

So beings come into existence; exist in only one way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.; and then, while in that same way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc., lose their existence and cease to exist?

A is a small puddle of water. We place A in an ice cube tray and freeze it. A ceases to exist? Or A exists in a different form: an ice cube?

If A ceased to exist then the ice cube must be a completely different being, B. How did B come into existence?

One minute B did not exist. The next minute B existed. Therefore, one minute B categorically did not exist.

But I don't think that that is how anything works. A changed form. Nothing more, nothing less.

I also don't understand how if categorical nonexistence is possible, everything has to be random. Please explain... — TheMadFool

If B did not exist and then suddenly came into existence, what non-random thing explains the latter?

What I can see from your posts is you're drifting, purposely(?), into some kind of determinism. Can you elaborate on that? — TheMadFool

I thought I was being a philosopher and going wherever reason takes me, not purposefully following some script.

And the more I wrote the more I thought, "I am starting to sound like Ken Wilber". I have never heard of Ken Wilber being a determinist.

I want to know how we don't know that Harry Potter has always existed, has been evolving since the beginning of space and time, at this stage in the evolution of the universe is in the form of mental images in certain people's minds, and later will be in the form of an autonomous physical person like Vladimir Putin.

Maybe at some point everybody here was like Harry Potter is now?

So there is an "easy" answer to your question: Fregean concepts are predicated of objects but are not themselves objects and are not predicated of. They're never on the left-hand side of the copula, always on the right... — Srap Tasmaner

And concepts exist.

What about the possibility of categorically not existing?

And the other easy answer is, everything that doesn't exist. I don't have a sister. The phrase "my sister" when spoken by me is a vacuous singular term. You can choose between saying all statements of the form "My sister is (not) ..." are false or not well-formed, as you like, but none of them will be true.

There is so much stuff that categorically doesn't exist, you couldn't begin to count it. — Srap Tasmaner

And I don't own a planet made of crumbled feta cheese with moons made of grape tomatoes.

But a planet made of crumbled feta cheese with moons made of grape tomatoes does exist--as an idea. Therefore, it is not categorically non-existent.

Somebody once said to me (I am not saying he is right) that the Catholic church invented the idea of people spending eternity in a place (Hell) and that the Bible really says that people will be "blotted out of existence". That is the closest thing to the possibility of categorical non-existence that I have heard.

Does it bother you that people often report the exact moment when an idea occurred to them? — Srap Tasmaner

That tells us at what point A occurred to somebody, not at what point A came into existence.

You use existence in a very broad sense - in fact I think your meaning of existence involves ALL domains of human experience - be it mental or physical (have I left anything out?).

If this is your definition, a few things happen:

1. It voids the naturally accepted meaning of existence as something that is physical. Many posters have clarified this point.

2. It leads to the weird(?) conclusion that everything exists. This may seem profound but is practically useless and dangerous. Losing the distinction between existence and nonexistence is usually a sign of madness or stupidity (like me). Maybe I'm missing something. Please clarify

Your idea of categorical nonexistence is empty of meaning because you won't allow us to speak of anything - the moment we do, it, according to you, exists (in some way, shape, form, constitution, state).

It's an interesting thought and if I can think of anything new I'll let you know (if you're interested). — TheMadFool

I get what you're talking about it here; I just don't think it's the best approach... — Srap Tasmaner

It seems to me that if categorical non-existence is possible then everything about the world is random. That seems to go against the naturalist worldview that has dominated the past several centuries and says that the world is predictable.

Let's assume that there was a point at which the Empire State Building came into existence. What was that point? Judging by the majority of the responses here, people will probably say that the Empire State Building did not exist until it took on a tangible, external form. But one could argue that the Empire State Building existed before it took on any tangible form--that it existed in the minds of the capitalists who conceived it, the minds of the architects who designed it, the blueprints that the design was represented through, the minds of the engineers who had to turn those blueprints into a building, etc. Even if it did not exist before it took on any tangible form, at what point then did it come into existence? When ground was officially broken? When the first square inch of the foundation was dug out? When materials used in its construction were first purchased?

Again, a case could be made that in some way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc. the Empire State Building has a long existence--the beginning of which cannot be demarcated.
Somebody might say that the thing in the minds of business people, architects, etc. was the idea of the Empire State Building or the design of the Empire State Building, not the Empire State Building itself. At what point did that idea or design come into existence? I think that any attempt to answer that question is going to end up like the original question (at what point did the Empire State Building come into existence?). We get an infinite regression with no demarcation ever emerging, it seems.

Maybe the Empire State Building has always existed--as a potential idea, then an idea, then a design, then a contractor's plan, then a square inch of foundation, etc.--and the only variable is way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc. Maybe everything is teleological and the existence of the Empire State Building started unfolding at the beginning of space and time.

Or maybe everything is random.

I think that saying that the Empire State Building did not exist until some external physical structure took shape is absurd. If I could travel back in time before that physical structure took shape I would probably hear people talking about the Empire State Building even though there was nothing "out there" to touch, taste, see, etc. that corresponded with the Empire State Building. And I would argue that to say that Harry Potter is not a physical being like Vladimir Putin and therefore does not exist is extremely narrow-minded, near-sighted, narcissistic, or whatever better adjective you can think of. It could be that Harry Potter is just passing through our minds as a concept, image, idea, etc. at this stage in the evolution of the universe and, like the Empire State Building, will at some point take the shape of a physical being.

If categorical non-existence is possible then that seems to mean that things randomly, spontaneously come into existence and are not in any way connected to anything that preceded them.

I have answered the question. Not just in this post, but throughout this discussion.

There are several lengthy responses here, but it is not clear what their answer to the question is.

Is it possible to categorically not exist? Yes or no?

I gave a clear illustration of what categorical non-existence would be like: Every modification of "A does not exist" is true. "A does not exist as an idea" is true. "A does not exist as a potential idea" is true. "A does not exist as a symbol representing something else" is true. And so on.

The statement "A does not exist, period" is contradictory. A must exist in some way, because a person is making a statement about it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
The issue you're raising right here is known as the problem of "vacuous singular terms," that is, expressions that look like they refer to a real object, that are constructed just like expressions that do refer to real objects, but do not. Your interpretation, that they exist in some special way, is not the only interpretation available. I see the whole thing as a quirk of our language. Okay, maybe more than a quirk, but at any rate I do not feel compelled at all to say that whatever I talk about exists... — Srap Tasmaner

Straw man.

I never said that if we talk about something it "exists".

I said that if we are able to talk about something then it must exist in some form.

If you want to refute the latter, show something that absolutely; unconditionally; no ifs, ands or buts; categorically does not exist--in no way, shape, form, constitution or state does it exist.

Of course, if you are able to show it to us then it must exist. And if you show us a something then it exists at least as a something.

The question is if it is possible for something to in no way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc. exist. — WISDOMfromPO-MO
I took this to mean, is there something that not only does not but cannot exist, and of course the answer for me will be, sure.

But for you, if anything you talk about or imagine, or whatever, exists in some fashion, then your question is more like this: could there be anything that cannot even be talked about or imagined? And that is a conundrum. If you know that to be true of something, you'd have thought of it, and there you are, it now exists. On the other hand, if there is something no one can imagine, then no one will. That seems to mean that if there is such a thing, you cannot possibly know that there is such a thing.

EDIT: Hmmm. The phrase "thing I cannot possibly know no one can think of" looks like it refers to something. — Srap Tasmaner

If A categorically does not exist, every modification of the statement "A does not exist" will be true. "A does not exist as a mental image" will be true. "A does not exist as an object that can be held" will be true. "A does not exist as a symbol representing something else" will be true. And so on.

Is such categorical non-existence possible?

I think the error you are making is that you are confusing the possibility of the existence of Harry Potter, with the existence of a possible Harry Potter. — geospiza

You used Harry Potter twice in a sentence, so Harry Potter must exist in some way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc.--even if it is only as symbols on a piece of paper, computer screen, etc.

"If A does not exist, how are you able to talk about A?" — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Here is a hypothesis:

(1) If something does not exist, then we cannot talk about it.

It has a contrapositive:

(2) If you can talk about something, then it exists.

I believe (2) can easily be shown to be false, and I believe I have done so in this thread. Therefore (1) is false as well... — Srap Tasmaner

No, that does not address the question of the possibility of something categorically not existing, which is the context that my words you quote came from.

If something categorically does not exist, how are we able to talk about it? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Here is a different hypothesis:

(3) if something is impossible, then we cannot talk about it.

Its contrapositive would be:

(4) If we can talk about something, then it is possible.

It may very well be that the current consensus among philosophers is that (4) is true, because possible world semantics. I'm not in love with PWS, and lean toward (4) being false. "There's no ball of ice at the center of the Sun," feels to me like a statement that cannot possibly be false. Does anything turn on whether that statement is about the non-existent ball of ice?

EDIT: This is silly. Obviously people who make regular use of PWS talk about impossibility too. It just annoys me for some reason. Unnecessary aspersions on the character of PWS hereby retracted. — Srap Tasmaner

No.

I have been repeatedly talking about something that may be impossible: categorical non-existence. So that is not the issue.

The question is if it is possible for something to in no way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc. exist.

The statement "A does not exist, period" is contradictory. A must exist in some way, because a person is making a statement about it.

Statements like "A does not exist outside of people's imaginations" or "A exists only as an arrangement of neurons in certain people's brains" make sense. But "A does not exist, period" does not make sense. It does not exist, but you are able to put in in a sentence?

The problem is not being addressed by the responses here.

Everything exists. It is a question of what form it exists in (only in people's imaginations; as an autonomous physical being; etc.).

Or is there something that absolutely--in no way, shape or form--does not exist? Is it possible to categorically not exist? If it is possible to categorically not exist, how do we know? If something categorically does not exist, how are we able to talk about it?

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO the block universe. very fascinating idea, and i think that the wave function of particles may actually suggest it to be true. we know that the particles are actually waves that just collapse, or peak into a particle when observed. we can only observe the wave function indirectly by experiements such as double-slit, while every time we try to observe it it appears indeed as a particle. the problem this causes is that when the universe is said to began, there was no observer - just the space-time and the fundamental particles. as the wave-particle dualism suggests the whole mass of particles must have been in a propability wave form, meaning only a potentially physical matter. how could this propability state of the universe ever have evolved into an actual physical world we see now, if there was no observer in the beginning? the widely accepted idea amongst the physicists is the quantum decoherence, but as far as i know it hasn't been ever proven - just accepted as a tool to overcome the otherwise decisive problem of the fundamental form of the matter. if we abandon the decoherence, doesn't it indeed suggest that the universe is a 4-dimensional block, where the causality we observe doesn't indicate the arrow of time, but rather just the order of the matter in the block?

block universe, meaning either a physical block where every possible moment, or possible form of the universe, exists (like a movie), or a potential block, where every possible outcome exists potentially (like a video game).

it opens another problem: if the universe is a block, it must be stagnant, meaning that there can be no evolution, no life, or any ongoing process. obivously the idea of eternal, stagnant matter spontaneoysly awakening into life, starting to experience the universe in 3+1 dimensions instead of the natural stagnant 4D wouldn't make any sense. and yet we are here in the internet discussing about the nature of the universe. so if we accept the block universe, wouldn't this then suggest that the consciousness must be something not created by the universe; that the universe acts as a receptor to the consciousness; that the universe exists to be experienced from somewhere beyond it?

just a thought, but the concept of us being spiritual beigns experiencing the universe for some purpose is the basis of every single known religion in the world, with thousands of years of written history. the same concept being strikingly common theme in near death experiences, regardless of if the person is religious or atheist. — Skiessa

That is very interesting and illuminating, especially the part that I put in bold.

Thank you for taking the time to share all of that.

In an article in The Sun Magazine, Gary Greenberg says that, if I recall correctly, as part of writing The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry he participated in a clinical trial, faked having depression, and in that trial met the diagnostic criteria for depression. You should not be able to fake having a disease, he says.

That's the thing with dreams, they are apprehended as real, when they are going on, — Metaphysician Undercover

While I am still asleep, long before I wake up, part of my mind says "It's just a dream".

Some dreams are horrible. Maybe they are manifestations of my worst subconscious fears, anxieties, etc., and my conscious self, though in a body that is asleep, works overtime on coping.

It's like the child in me, confronted with overwhelming trauma, telling himself that it is going to be okay--that it's just a dream and I'll get through it.

Then I wake up, process all of it, and say "Dreams are cruel!"

What about the idea, proposed by some physicists, that we live in a static universe and, therefore, time is an illusion?

And all these arguments about things causing other things--I have read at least one philosopher say that causality has been rejected. I believe it goes like this: reality is a seamless whole, not a chain/collection of causes and effects.

Psychiatrists exist, but I am not at all sure that psychiatry does in any significantly different way to psychology though! — Jake Tarragon

Psychiatrists prescribe medications. Non-psychiatrists don't.

It seems to be that the way psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose mental illness is through conversation with the patient. The patient tells them what bothers them, what they feel, their thoughts, etc. So, if you have lost enjoyment in life, and experience constant sadness, you are diagnosed with depression (based on the things that you said to the mental health professional.) The way in which we diagnose depression seems to be way less reliable than the way that for example you would find a tumor on someones body, or a life weakening viral infection. The latter seems to have more epistemological validity than the former. What are your thoughts on this? And given this problem, can psychology really be called a science? — rickyk95

Read the work of David Smail. See his arguments about how psychological distress is the result of one's position in society, not something that originates internally. See his arguments about how clinical psychologists fail to help clients see the real source of their distress.

His internet publication Power, Responsibility and Freedom is a great place to start.

It doesn't take a psychiatrist or a rocket scientist to tell me or anyone else that a lot of people out there are seriously mentally screwed up... — Heister Eggcart

Every individual "out there" has, at all times, some condition/state that is not considered normal. But if we see a person walking with a limp, struggling to hear a sound, violently coughing, etc. we don't say that he/she is in any way "screwed up". We have compassion for him/her.

We recognize that some part of him/her is not functioning normally and we show compassion.

We must not really believe that mental illnesses are abnormalities, because a lot of people refer to them with words like "screwed up". Those words imply that, rather than suffering from symptoms of something that has gone wrong, a person is inherently defective, flawed, etc.

And "screwed up" is not a fact that can be confirmed by science. It is an attitude--an uncharitable attitude that sees people as less than human rather than as humans experiencing a variation of what all humans experience: suffering. If psychology is science, "screwed up" has no place in a discussion of psychology.

It said Platonism for me.

I tend to have a postmodern worldview.

I wonder how Plato would feel about modernity / the Enlightenment.

The biggest problem with modernity / the Enlightenment is its belief in progress. I don't believe in progress.

Nah. I still think it's you. Why pick on science teachers rather than, say, math teachers? It would be just as inappropriate to be all philosophical and judgemental in a math class as it would be in a science class. — Sapientia

Now that I think about it, I wish I really had been the "annoying pupil" who was "constantly causing distractions" like you insinuate I was. It would have been fun in math or science class to say, "But, teacher, Derrida said that there is nothing outside the text!"

I can see the frustration on the face of a teacher who has been conditioned to believe that it is his/her job to turn these automatons he/she is babysitting into machines complex enough to perform enough particular tasks to keep the U.S. competitive with China.

But then someone in China might publish the definitive work on Foucault and Congress and the President might decide we don't have enough postmodern scholars to keep up. It might be Sputnik 1 all over again!

We need to get a grip.

Science and math could be nurturing, fascinating intellectual journeys for everybody if we would let them be.

The problem is simple:

Person 1: "A does not exist".

Person 2: "If A does not exist, how are you able to talk about A?"

I think you're being uncharitable towards science teachers, and I suspect that the problem has more to do with your expectations rather than the way that they teach. They're there to teach science, not to foster an environment to discuss the philosophy of science. We've only been presented with one side of the story here. I bet you were an annoying pupil, constantly rolling your eyes and causing distractions. — Sapientia

Nah.

In college, outside of the natural sciences, I experienced something for the first time: instructors self-conscious about the nature of their discipline and not taking it too seriously. An economics professor joking about how economists and accountants don't see eye to eye. The anthropology undergraduate handbook being filled with comic strips, political cartoons, etc. making fun of anthropologists. Etc.

In other words, people acknowledging that academicians are human and that their work is the thoughts of humans.

But in natural sciences education there seems to be no such humility. Everybody involved--students, parents, teachers, administrators, legislators--acts with a puritanical attitude and acts like "science" is something greater than any person and that we should be grateful for the opportunity to partake in it.

And there are not many things funnier than hearing scientists express dismay over postmodern theorists over in the humanities departments having the audacity to, gasp, question science. The Sokal hoax is supposedly an indictment of postmodernism. I don't know. I find it to be more comedy than the triumph of reason. And it's the scientists who it makes look like fools.

Science is human just like anything else in the sphere of human thought and activity, no matter how much anybody argues that it is the "best", "most reliable", etc. Anybody who doesn't acknowledge that is guilty of the most irrational scientism. But instead of merely acknowledging it, why not show a little humility, lighten up, and laugh about it? The only things we've got to lose are stress, anxiety and unrealistic expectations that make learning difficult.

What about Bhutan?... — Wayfarer

I am not familiar with them.

What makes them peaceful?

How does a $15.11 an hour guy pay a $375.24 an hour guy? Let alone the teams of professionals required to treat serious accidents or injury?... — Wayfarer

With cash.

Cash from a high-interest health savings account.

Cash that he/she is depositing into that account rather than using to pay premiums to a middle man.

Eliminate the middle man.

As BC says, the aim of insurance is to spread risk. I'm inclined to agee that 'the insurance industry' has itself become parasitic. But it seems some form of insurance, in that sense, is absolutely unavoidable... — Wayfarer

1.) Eliminate risks. The risk of polio has been eliminated in most places. The risk of lead poisoning has been virtually eliminated where lead-based paint is no longer used. Etc.

2.) Minimize the risks that insurance is spreading. Pay for physical exams, vaccinations, x-rays, etc. out of your own pocket. Buy insurance only to cover the most expensive care for the most catastrophic illnesses, such as when someone needs a kidney transplant.

3.) The price per month for insurance coverage should, therefore, be significantly less and significantly more affordable for significantly more people.

At the end of the day, there are the kinds of issues that what tax and social welfare policies are aimed at addressing. But there's an ideological core in the GOP that doesn't believe in either tax or social welfare, and tacitly if not explicitly believes that if you can't afford treatment, then you ought not to receive any. It's just that they can't spell it out. — Wayfarer

And I would argue that there's an even bigger ideological core in the Democratic party with even narrower tunnel vision than the GOP ideolgues. They can't see, I would argue, outside of income and wealth inequality. They can't see, I would argue, any solution other than universal insurance coverage. They seem to be oblivious to administrative costs and other costs and waste that inflate the price of health care. They seem oblivious to the fact that the middle man that they are obsessed with universalizing the use of and involving in every health care transaction may be the biggest source of those excess costs and that waste. They seem averse to market innovations that would lower prices and give consumers, regardless of wealth and income level, more buying power.

It has been said that Republicans don't really want abortion criminalized. If it was criminalized the culture war that they use to get votes and maintain power would be diminished, the thinking goes. Similarly, maybe Democrats don't really want quality health care to be affordable for everybody--they use what is probably an unrealistic policy, universal health care coverage through an inefficient system dominated by an extremely economically draining middle man, to keep votes coming and maintain their power.

Eliminate the middle man.

Patients should pay providers directly.

Have high-interest health savings accounts for everybody. The interest rate could go up every time a withdrawal is made for preventive health care (a physical exam, a vaccination, etc.). Employers could be contribute by matching purchases of fresh produce--every dollar you spend on fresh produce they deposit 1¢ in your health savings account.

Households could purchase, or employers could offer, affordable insurance for only the most catastrophic illnesses. The policyholder would make the claim, not the provider.

There are plenty of ways to incentivize healthy lifestyles, reduce costs by eliminating paperwork, etc. But we are too obsessed with insurance to consider other possibilities.

Peaceful = not willingly/voluntarily condoning, starting, celebrating, glorifying or supporting; nor willingly/voluntarily, knowingly indirectly contributing to or directly engaging in violent conflict or the use of the threat of violence.

I fear that I'm incapable of determining what "anybody" may say or may have said on this point. As to Kuhn, though I doubt he ever used so few words in describing what he thought, how else characterize, briefly, what he said? I don't think he'd claim that my statement is incorrect, though he would I'm sure have thought it far too simple. The role of consensus, value, personality traits, history in paradigm shifts or perpetuation of a paradigm (and rejection of a new one) seem to tie them unavoidably to subjective (human) factors and characteristics. And his claims that science is not or does not result in a progress towards determining what is true seems, to me at least, to indicate that science is more properly understood as something different, something which has a different end or purpose, something nebulous and resistant of determination that necessarily, I believe, is subject to our own desires... — Ciceronianus the White

I didn't think that Kuhn went that far out on a structuralist limb. But I have only read commentary from other people about his work rather than his actual work, so I don't really know.

I thought that the main, original observation he makes is that rather than seamlessly, cumulatively building on the knowledge it yields science is conducted within incommensurable paradigms each with their own language, problems, methods, theories, etc. and undergoes shifts in what paradigms are being worked within. Therefore, for example, quantum physics was not a continuation of Newtonian physics but a complete rupture from it.

None of this strikes me as particularly surprising, or daunting or concerning... — Ciceronianus the White

But most of the population, including educators, is oblivious to it.

But I understand that to his credit he rejected the position taken by others that only factors external to science are determinative of what science is or does. It seems he thought they misunderstood him... — Ciceronianus the White

Maybe that is what was meant when he would say "I am not a Kuhnian!".

By the way, I've always been puzzled by the reference to literary criticism in this context. When I think of literary criticism, I think of people like Edgar Allan Poe, William Dean Howells, Ezra Pound, Henry Hazlitt, Graham Greene; in short, those who critiqued the artistic merit of literature. I suppose that one could accept a very broad definition of "literature" so as to include in it any written work, and then claim that by analyzing it one is engaged in "literary criticism" but I have no idea if that is what's intended, nor am I certain why it would be thought appropriate or useful to do so. — Ciceronianus the White

It is my understanding that postmodern theorists have asserted that scientific texts are no different from other texts.

Yes, sorry, it does... — Bitter Crank

No, it doesn't

The reason why people heed... — Bitter Crank

I did not ask about why people "heed" anything.

I observed that people--in the culture I am part of at least--submit to science like it is royalty or divinity.

Furthermore, I observed that the people promulgating science do nothing to stop such irrational worship of science.

the results of science is that the results of science (and scientific thinking)... — Bitter Crank

I did not say anything about "results".

Most people only pay any attention to actual scientific work if it is their livelihood, it supports their agenda, or it threatens their agenda.

Nonetheless, science has a status--mostly unearned, probably--that makes nearly all people submissive in its presence.

are more reliable than anything else we have. Not perfect, just better than anything else. POMO demonstrates why the alternative to reliable and rational results are worth less than a crock full of bullshit... — Bitter Crank

On the contrary, the existence of a postmodern movement, postmodern theories, etc. demonstrates that Enlightenment rationality and its crowning achievement known as modern science have failed to live up to the lofty ideals that they supposedly embody.

You were complaining about young people... — Bitter Crank

I have not "complained" about anything.

Get a grip.

My comments about young people addressed your condescending view that they were too stupid, or too passive to question science. Not too stupid or too passive: Too unprepared... — Bitter Crank

I NEVER said that anybody was "too" anything, let alone young people in particular.

And I never said anything about "stupid". That is your word, not mine.

I said that in my experience in formal education science has never been presented as what it is: what some people think / have thought. And I said that never in my experience in formal science education was it conveyed that it is my responsibility to decide for myself what to think. I said that I had to develop that perspective on my own and that I accomplished it by silently seeing red flags and rolling my eyes in secondary school classrooms and by reading about Kuhn, postmodern theory and scientism.

Again, get a grip.

and by the way, you should be grateful they are so inept, since they aren't prepared to call out POMOism for being the bullshit it is. — Bitter Crank

If postmodernism really is what you call it then I think that the scientific community can be blamed for it. If people within science don't acknowledge and convey the limitations and shortcomings of science then they can't complain about the way that somebody else provides that much-needed reality check.

Ah, Thomas "Paradigm" Kuhn. How well I remember being forced to read his Structure of Scientific Revolutions along with Plato's insufferable Republic and other gems I can't remember as part of something called Freshman Orientation when I transcended to college so long ago. Perhaps back then there were people who really thought that science or the work done by scientists or both to be completely unaffected by our humanity or history or society or culture and so were shocked to find someone thought differently. I confess to nostalgia... — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think that that does justice to what Kuhn really said.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I would summarize Kuhn this way: science, contrary to received wisdom, is not a seamless, linear, cumulative process.

Whoa! That may not be a damning indictment to science, but if it is true then the science that so many people unquestioningly bow before may not be the awesome, empowering, revolutionizing, liberating tool that we imagine it to be.

But it seems a fairly trivial observation that what humans do in science will be impacted by what they do and are otherwise, nonetheless... — Ciceronianus the White

Again, does Kuhn--or anybody--really say that?

Nor, I think, does it really matter that's the case, provided science--or perhaps more properly the scientific method--serves us well, and I think it does and is more likely to do good service than other methods in resolving certain significant problems we encounter. — Ciceronianus the White

I suppose you mean technology. Specifically, technology derived from modern science (not the technology developed by, say, prehistoric hunter-gatherers).

Well, Ronald Wright, in A Short History of Progress points out that technology always creates more problems than it solves. If that is true then reason dictates that the technology that we consider to be the most advanced, technology derived from modern science, has and will continue to do unprecedented damage--and may lead to the extinction of our species.

I am glad that we have some people who do not bow before science and who can provide a reality check, even if they are trained in "other methods" like literary theory.

I'm in my 70s. When and where I was in college in the '60s, post-modernism had not made a significant appearance. Most of the teachers were, of course, interested in a two-way conversation. But... let's face it: 20 year olds normally don't have a lot to offer in 17th century literature--especially if their background was rural and semi-rural. Small town high schools. I was an English major from one of those small town high schools, as were many of my classmates. Most (many, at least) of our parents had not attended college. 17th century literature -- and much else -- just wasn't familiar stuff. We were empty vessels, happy to have a steward of intellectual tradition pour it in.

Maybe it is the case that highly sophisticated adolescents from well-funded suburban schools then and now were/are vastly more sophisticated. Later experience leads me to think they are, at least in some ways. But intellectual maturity doesn't develop a lot faster now than it did then.

Content has changed somewhat in the last few decades. "Eroticism and Family Life in Ancient Greece and Rome" wasn't offered in the 1960s. A juicy topic like that -- or "Magic and Religion in Ancient Greece" intrigues young (and older) students more than the history of the Peloponnesian War. It's easier to engage. And these topics aren't a dumbing down -- there are still only a limited number of ancient texts to go on.
... — Bitter Crank

None of that addresses the way that everybody bows before science.

The problems I see in POMOism are these:

It is heavily over-focussed on power or sexuality, and over reliant on the idea that reality is "constructed". The language style which POMOism promotes is often obscurantist. POMOism itself is "received wisdom" of a sort--not entirely open to dialog, especially opposition. Primary assumptions of POMOism may be in error.

It is one thing to talk about gender and power relationships in literature. It is something else altogether to talk about physics or biology a la POMOism (and, in fact, most scientists don't). Yes, many things in the cultural environment are constructions of the culture itself. But the physical universe isn't one of them. That is the key to the Sokol Hoax (and a few others like it). Altogether fallacious nonsense was strung together with the proper terminology and opaque style, and to many POMO practitioners, it sounded just great. If a type of thinking can't tell shit from shinola, it's time to give it up... — Bitter Crank

I appreciate your well-developed perspective on postmodernism, but it has nothing to do with this discussion.

The only point here about postmodernism is that postmodern theorists are the only people on the intellectual landscape who do not bow before science and who spare no possible criticism of science.

For contrast, look at much of academic philosophy today. Postmodern theorists within its ranks notwithstanding, academic philosophy is living in fear of becoming obsolete and is trying to save itself by being more like science. Science is king!

Now that Gay Pride month is here -- sorry--Lesbian, bisexual, Queer, transvestites, hag-drag, transgender, regendered, degendered, multi-sexual, questioning, a-sexual, friends, and regrettably, male gay pride -- it's a good time to talk about the limits of biology (LBQTHSTRDMQAF and GM, regrettably, Pride)

It will offend, but I maintain that biology determines sexuality. Culture gets to determine the style of pride march wear, it doesn't get to construct new sexuality. Transgendered folk -- whether just a change of clothing or vaginal or penile constructions with breast and hormone augmentation -- are still the males and females they were born as. They might very well be happier looking like the sex they wish they were and are not, and that's good for them. But their wishes in the matter do not redefine biology.

Nature bats last (which means, if you haven't heard that expression, a human proposes, nature disposes). — Bitter Crank

What does any of that have to do with the topic of this discussion?

Yes, most teachers are confident when they lecture, and "authoritative and supreme" springs from many non-scientific wells... — Bitter Crank

I juxtaposed that with encouraging students to think for themselves and form their own conclusions. You are ignoring that context.

I think the best educators see themselves as stewards of intellectual traditions and facilitators of a two-way process where they can (and are happy to) learn from students as much as students learn from them, not as authorities talking down to their intellectual inferiors.

Come on. The truth is, many 16-22 year old students are unprepared to mount a skeptical assault on the content of the curriculum. They simply don't have enough practical real-world experience to feel the need to question their teachers. Skepticism takes maturity and the accumulation of more knowledge capital, and all that takes time... — Bitter Crank

I saw red flags, rolled my eyes, and thought to myself "If you say so, teacher".

You seem to be expecting students to have far more maturity than they actually do. So you walk into Medieval History 101, or Intro to Geology, or an English Literature survey class and you think the average freshman is going to challenge the professor? With what? — Bitter Crank

It is really simple. Present material as what it really is: what people think.

And if somebody in the room thinks something else, yes, make it known! Ideas are generated and refined through discourse among many, not monologues from a tiny percentage of the population.

"What good does it do to adjust and integrate the self in a culture that is itself sick? What does it mean to be a well-adjusted Nazi? Is that mental health? Or is a maladjusted person in a Nazi society the only one who is sane?" -- Ken Wilber, A Brief History of Everything

What sort of school did you go to? Public/private? In what country? — Terrapin Station

Kindergarten at a church notwithstanding, I attended public schools in the suburbs in the U.S.

I think that the flaw at the heart of any controversy over the curriculum in formal education is the premise that students will, and should, unquestioningly accept whatever their instructors present. If it was made clear to everybody involved--students, parents, teachers and administrators--that teachers are simply presenting ideas, concepts, techniques, etc. and that it is the student's responsibility to decide what to do with them (believe them to represent reality; believe them to not represent reality; apply them to real-world problems etc.) then there wouldn't be any controversy. Evolution, creation science, etc. are only problematic if students do not think for themselves and instead believe everything they hear from teachers.

It sounds like you had some poor teachers, unfortunately.

I was taught from the beginning--well, or at least since Jr. High School, that (a) empirical claims are not provable, and (b) a hallmark of science is that all claims must be open to revision in the face of new empirical evidence or new interpretations of old empirical evidence. And we were taught science partially from a historical perspective that emphasized controversies, different views, etc. and the way that experimentation led to some views being discarded, where fallibilism was stressed.

And this was at public schools in the middle of ghettos (pro-integration busing) in South Florida — Terrapin Station

Kudos to those teachers.

In what way do you think people "submit" to science: in other words, what is the nature of that submission? What would be an alternative to the so-called scientific method, when it comes to understanding the empirical world as it is observed? — John

I remember sitting in science and math classes quietly skeptical of what was being presented to me and accepted by everybody else involved as airtight thinking. If it was airtight, why was I seeing red flags?

It is not just science and math. All material presented in formal education is unquestioningly taken as authoritative and supreme. "This is what other people have thought. This is what other people have concluded. But it is up to you--it is your responsibility--to decide for yourself what is true/real" is never part of the process, especially with respect to "science". Science is king!

You would do well to study philosophy of science, particularly Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend. It's actually quite a difficult subject to get a grip on so is one of those subjects better studied through a course if at all possible. I did several undergraduate units on it and although I didn't understand its significance at the time, it was in incredibly helpful and useful discipline in my opinion... — Wayfarer

I already said that I have studied all of that on my own. Did you not read my post?

As regards postmodernism - there really is no such thing. It's not a school of thought or philosophy as such. There is a lot of crap spoken by it and about it, but there are also some very valuable insights to be gleaned from various post-modernist perspectives. An older anthology but useful one is http://a.co/gQUipBf — Wayfarer

Again, I said that I have already studied postmodern theory on my own. I don't need a link.

Postmodern theorists are the only source that I know of that in no way uncritically accept anything about science. Everything about science--its role in repressing people; the possibility that it could just be another one of many alternative metanarratives; its role in destroying the environment; etc.--is fair game in postmodern theory.

But there are other perspectives. Studying scientism reveals a lot about the true nature of science compared to the popular narrative about science that 99.9% of people seem to blindly submit to.

The freedom to choose who you want to marry within consensual boundaries is the point of the case... — TimeLine

Everybody already had that freedom.

and everyone has the right to medical care is to ensure that all people - refugees, homeless, drug-addicts - are provided with medical care; there have been incidents here in Australia where indigenous persons have been refused medical attention in certain clinics... — TimeLine

But that is not what people mean when they say medical care is a right.

I agree that the lack of clarity could cause potential issues, for instance there has been a lot of discussion with what the right to leisure, play, and participation in cultural and artistic activities means in the UN Declaration on Children's Rights. But once more, where there is any lack of clarity, one needs to consider the purpose of the law itself, of justice to ascertain the purpose. — TimeLine

Everybody talks about the "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence like it means the freedom to try to obtain some desired psychological state. But according to Marilynne Robinson in this essay, Jefferson's happiness means not some psychological state that social scientists measure but "a level of life above subsistence".