His criticism of the Sophists is that their concern is with persuasion rather than an attempt to determine the truth. — Fooloso4

I think that his criticism is what I have in mind when I mention sophistry.

I think sophistry is a skillful argument put forward that looks convincing but is actually false. — Tom Storm

I think what we’re basically discussing is whether or not sophistry is misinformation, disinformation, or both. I think that it is probably both.

How do we determine when it is unethical? Is advertising in general ok? — Tom Storm

It would depend on the product. If you’re advertising a product that will destroy someone’s life and you either don’t care or aren’t aware then I would say that it is unethical. But the way I measure morality is based on its actual relationship to results that are desirable and necessary. If you’re selling snake oil or are engaging in other forms of medical malpractice knowingly or unknowingly then I would say that it is unethical because your actions aren’t actually going to produce results. I hope that I haven’t gone on a tangent.

A lot of marketing and lying today is not presenting a skillful argument, it is much cruder and less rhetorical. It's often down to the use of images. E.g., 'Buy this product and you'll get laid.' — Tom Storm

LoL

True. But who's blaming the victims? — Xtrix

I’m apologize if I misinterpreted your words. It just seems like the problem is that people are being divided and not that they are divided. When you emphasize that fact that they are divided instead of the fact that they are being divided it seems like you’re criticizing the victims for their inability to unite.

You mentioned that it is a 'big problem in the modern world' - I still don't feel I understand how you mean. — Tom Storm

Maybe the example of some unscrupulous politicians and their political campaigns might illustrate my notion better.

But is the problem there sophistry or religion? — Tom Storm

I don’t think that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive.

When someone is taken in by 'sophistry' is this a hallmark of a skilled persuader or is it a product of unsophisticated credulity? — Tom Storm

I don’t think that these things are necessarily mutually exclusive.

I think sophistry generally refers to a clever argument designed to win a point by rhetorical deception. — Tom Storm

Could you give me an example?

Perhaps, since you initiated the OP, you can define sophistry — Tom Storm

I’ll do my best Tom. I’d like to start off with what I said at the beginning when I characterized sophistry As an art of persuasion which is separated and disconnected from the truth. Some of the original sophists didn’t even seem to think that the truth existed and advocated relativism. So I guess I would say that sophistry is a lot like a skilled lawyer who will defend his client even if he is guilty. So a sophist might defend a position even if it is false or teach others how to do the same thing. Essentially it is unethical persuasion.

Is sophistry the issue? Or are you really talking about choreographed lies and propaganda used to convince people of things which are untrue? Maybe I'm wrong but I consider sophistry is a bit more subtle and nuanced. — Tom Storm

You have my undivided attention if you’d like to delineate sophistry from choreographed lies and propaganda used to convince people of things which are untrue. I’d love to read your argument in favor of that position.

He also said:

Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, for everyone can see and few can feel. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are.

I think I’m more sympathetic to the Machiavellian position on the question of incredulity. He said:

Men are so simple, and governed so absolutely by their present needs, that he who wishes to deceive will never fail in finding willing dupes.

most people seem to be apathetic and skeptical rather then credulous. They don't believe anyone any more. — Tom Storm

Lol

Care to explain? Can you provide examples? — Tom Storm

I tried to give the example of the nazis but if I’m being honest the multi billion dollar industries you mentioned are good examples in my opinion. Edward bernays kind of turned sophistry into a science. But I’ll try to think of some good examples. Off the top my head I think that televangelists and mega churches might fall into this category. But there is also the question of psychological warfare and psychological operations to contend with.

lol yup

I was very disheartened when the vile Maggie Thatcher called Tony Blair her greatest achievement. That was a very bitter truth for me. — universeness

The truth is never bitter my friend. It is the sweetest thing there is.

If the goal is evil, then solidarity becomes a means to achieving evil ends. See the Nazis. — Theorem

What metric or criterion do you use to detect evil? I’m just curious. I personally think that words like evil can be used by people to refer to whatever they happen to dislike for whatever reasons they find convenient at the moment.

I think what he said is at least part of the reason “solidarity” is not only difficult but is also sometimes undesirable.

I thought you might have something like what Machiavelli had in mind. He said:

For this can be said of men in general: that they are ungrateful, fickle, hypocrites and dissemblers, avoiders of dangers, greedy for gain; and while you benefit them, they are entirely yours, offering you their blood, their goods, their life, their children, when need is far away, but when you actually become needy, they turn away.

So then isn’t another way of looking at things to say: the “real” problem to overcome is our own unwillingness to get together? — Xtrix

I think that division is part of the whole divide and conquer strategy. Blaming the victims doesn’t seem like the right decision.

I think while the majority is divided and isolated, the ruling minorities are very much in solidarity. — Xtrix

What reason is there to suspect that this might be the case?

If we're looking to blame something, I propose that 'human nature' is the only viable candidate. — Theorem

What do you have in mind when you mention human nature? I’m not trying to score intellectual points, I’m just curious.

Well calculated, totally irrational decisions. — Xtrix

What metric or criterion are you using to measure rationality?

When can we be said to know something, and how should we reliably construct and justify beliefs? — Cidat

We can be said to know something when we have irrefutable proof that it is correct. A belief can be justified if it is necessarily the case.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RWZZNfFP8bk

I enjoyed the listen.

I’m just having fun. No malicious intent. I thought you wanted an example of what I meant by “obtaining from other men”.

Then what can one mean by "only be obtained from other men?" — Garrett Travers

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DA0WJkysRmM

Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of distributed cognition. Would you mind giving me a short summary?

Distributed cognition, then? — Garrett Travers

I don’t think that the ideas of Edwin Hutchins are what I have in mind.

Maybe you’re right.

“Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.”

“Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men.”

What part is unclear? I’m happy to provide clarification but first I need to know what needs to be clarified.

The only problem is I’m not sure that you’re answering the question. My answer to the question of how can we reliably get knowledge would be through the use of spies or Espionage. LoL

A mixture of Correspondence and Coherence — Garrett Travers

Interesting

Those who are in power, in government and in business, are making stupid decisions that is destroying the planet and relegating billions of people to lives of unnecessary misery. — Xtrix

I don’t agree with this. I think that they carefully calculate the consequences of their actions.

I'm trying to say, idea of perfect is different to yours so there will never be an objective perfect which is necessary to have perfect. — DAC

Just because we have different ideas doesn’t mean that there are no correct ideas. Someone could be right and someone could be wrong.

although you may believe you are making the best choice in each scenario, you may have a lack of knowledge etc to take other factors into account which may have given the scenario a more preferable outcome — DAC

The only message I can take away from this portion of your message is that knowledge is necessary for perfection.