Demanding Evidence

[Touchstone]

TS, I gather that this is your view:

“concepts are STEM; but not all concepts refer to (have relationship of isomorphism with) STEM, some refer to (have relationship of isomorphism with) other concepts… but concepts *are *STEM…”

Have I got this right?

I think that’s right – “have relationship of isomorphism” doesn’t grok for me, but yes, I think a clean way to put it is:

The only basis known for extant concepts is STEM, and we are not aware of any coherent basis for concepts outside of STEM.

We might have a concept of “unicorn named Tom”, for example, and the concept is STEM-based, but the referent is imaginary, the referent doesn’t exist as an actuality. The maps that exist are real by virtue of being STEM-based (brain-states), but often enough, the “territory” being mapped is completely imaginary.

No STEM, no basis for concepts, though, so far as can be seen right now.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

ah, so I missed your double entendre(?) - so really you’re saying: “don’t trust me (I am myself and myself is the easiest person to fool) - trust Reality (as I have just explained it to you)”…?

Yes, Feynman’s words are good to keep in mind. I think “trust reality” is superfluous – we cannot do otherwise at a basic level (cf. the hand over open flame experiment). It’s how we judge reality - the mode of trust and depth – that is tricksy.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

Yes, Feynman’s words are good to keep in mind. I think “trust reality” is superfluous – we cannot do otherwise at a basic level (cf. the hand over open flame experiment).

I can ride a bicycle and I could prove it to you. That’s ‘reality’! But you wouldn’t be impressed if I told you that I can bicycle around the world - you’d probably say, “wait a minute, what about the oceans that cover 70% of the earth? - your bicycle isn’t going to work there!” I could insist, “don’t trust me, trust reality - actually, that’s superfluous, just watch me”…and I’d ride off down the street yelling over my shoulder, “Q.E.D.!”

You’d probably be confused… know what I’m sayin?

It’s how we judge reality - the mode of trust and depth – that is tricksy.

Huh? Non capisco. Please explain.

 

[Betterave]

I think that’s right – “have relationship of isomorphism” doesn’t grok for me, but yes, I think a clean way to put it is:

The only basis known for extant concepts is STEM, and we are not aware of any coherent basis for concepts outside of STEM.

We might have a concept of “unicorn named Tom”, for example, and the concept is STEM-based, but the referent is imaginary, the referent doesn’t exist as an actuality. The maps that exist are real by virtue of being STEM-based (brain-states), but often enough, the “territory” being mapped is completely imaginary.

No STEM, no basis for concepts, though, so far as can be seen right now.

-TS

So let’s refine:

“concepts are STEM-based; but not all concepts refer to that which is STEM-based, some refer to other concepts… but concepts are STEM-based…”

Is that better? (It’s not better in the sense that we no longer have an analysis of ‘refer to’ - but of course that isomorphism thing wasn’t going to work anyway… so maybe you can supply a new analysis?)

 

[Leela]

I think that’s right – “have relationship of isomorphism” doesn’t grok for me, but yes, I think a clean way to put it is:

The only basis known for extant concepts is STEM, and we are not aware of any coherent basis for concepts outside of STEM.

We might have a concept of “unicorn named Tom”, for example, and the concept is STEM-based, but the referent is imaginary, the referent doesn’t exist as an actuality. The maps that exist are real by virtue of being STEM-based (brain-states), but often enough, the “territory” being mapped is completely imaginary.

No STEM, no basis for concepts, though, so far as can be seen right now.

-TS

Hi TS,

This is where I tried before to get you to make an important distinction in your materialism, and you seemed to go with it. I think it is a tenable position to assert that everything can be described in terms of STEM, but problematic to say that everything should only be described in terms of STEM or that everything is always best described in terms of STEM. That is scientism. The perspective of a physicist may be better than other perspectives for certain purposes while the perspective of a carpenter may be more useful for other purposes. We don’t have to decide whether the carpenter, or moving man, or the interior decorator, or the particle physicist has given us the one true description of a given table. All sorts of descriptions can be good for all sorts of purposes, and no particular description needs to be privileged as the essence of the table.

Best,
Leela

 

[Touchstone]

Hi TS,

This is where I tried before to get you to make an important distinction in your materialism, and you seemed to go with it. I think it is a tenable position to assert that everything can be described in terms of STEM, but problematic to say that everything should only be described in terms of STEM or that everything is always best described in terms of STEM. That is scientism.

Yes, understand. And when we talked about this last, I pointed out that the frame of reference matters, here. If we are talking about claims about what exists, or does not, or claims about properties and processes we claim to obtain objectively, then STEM-based answers are the only ones available that acquit themselves on those grounds.

But by no means do I recognize that as the only meaningful frame of reference for asking such questions, or discussing and pursuing interesting topics in life. I’m just as happy as the next person arguing about the superiority of this or that on a subjective basis. I love Pink Floyd music, for example, and prefer Bach over Mozart, topics of long-running and interesting “debates”, and I have a deep appreciation of the Tao a Buddhist friend expounds, as an organizing conceptual principle for him and his life. I don’t process it on an objective, STEM-based level, and neither does he, and that’s good. It works.

Catholics, and other Christians, though, regularly get themselves wrapped around the reality-axle, and suppose they must make STEM-based claims, claims which don’t work in light of models and paradigms that perform in understanding and predicting STEM dynamics.

So, I’m good with getting out of and beyond science-bound frames of reference for discussions. My criticism on this forum largely stems from the intrusion of subjective, fantastic claims into the arena of objective thinking about STEM-based reality. “Jesus was resurrected on the third day” is a STEM-based claim, and one that fails on that plane. As a bit of inspiring myth, fine, and it may be quite useful or beneficial for some, as the Tao appears to be as a belief for my Buddhist friend (who doesn’t posit those beliefs in STEM terms!).

The perspective of a physicist may be better than other perspectives for certain purposes while the perspective of a carpenter may be more useful for other purposes.

Yes, agree, and reiterate my appreciation and commitment to what the physicist/carpenter distinction in assessing would represents, more generally. See my eariler post on this if you don’t remember.

We don’t have to decide whether the carpenter, or moving man, or the interior decorator, or the particle physicist has given us the one true description of a given table.

Right. “One true description” is an undefined term for me. We can look at things on a number of levels of description, and from any number of angles. That’s not a problem. But claiming “wood has magical powers” by the carpenter, expressed in STEM-terms, that’s a problem. Saying “maple and mahogany are wonderfully musical woods for luthiers” is probably defensible in terms of science, but that would miss the point. Even if it were not, it’s still “true” from the speaking luthier’s perspective, according to his ear, his picture of 'musicality".

All sorts of descriptions can be good for all sorts of purposes, and no particular description needs to be privileged as the essence of the table.

Best,
Leela

Yes, totally agree. That’s not a problem, or even a bit of friction for me, as you’ve got it. What’s a problem is the subjective and “true on a personal private level” getting way ahead of itself and thinking it obtains on an objective, STEM level.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I can ride a bicycle and I could prove it to you. That’s ‘reality’! But you wouldn’t be impressed if I told you that I can bicycle around the world - you’d probably say, “wait a minute, what about the oceans that cover 70% of the earth? - your bicycle isn’t going to work there!” I could insist, “don’t trust me, trust reality - actually, that’s superfluous, just watch me”…and I’d ride off down the street yelling over my shoulder, “Q.E.D.!”

You’d probably be confused… know what I’m sayin?

I guess so, because I am confused, now. The “don’t trust me” wasn’t an inviation to watch me, or to advance claims of my own in particular, but just to say that an objective, thorough analysis will bear out what I’ve claimed on its own merits – you can back me and my words right out of the picture, and the answer will remain the same.

Huh? Non capisco. Please explain.

We all trust reality at the most fundamental level. We have to, lest we die. Beyond that minimum committment, though, we have a whole spectrum of reality we can embrace or deny, given the evidence available.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

So let’s refine:

“concepts are STEM-based; but not all concepts refer to that which is STEM-based, some refer to other concepts… but concepts are STEM-based…”

Is that better? (It’s not better in the sense that we no longer have an analysis of ‘refer to’ - but of course that isomorphism thing wasn’t going to work anyway… so maybe you can supply a new analysis?)

I think my previous formulation is still an improvement on what you have here, both in terms of clarity and precision, but I don’t object to the quote you’ve provided, except for possibly the liability that one could say this implicitly makes exclusive claims (“all concepts, period”) which would be a perversion of my version, which asserts, as always that this is the provisional finding according to the best of our knowledge.

Insofar as one might sneak metaphysical constraints in there like that, I think your version is problematic. But on a charitable reading, it’s just fine.

-TS

 

[Tybourne]

All sorts of descriptions can be good for all sorts of purposes, and no particular description needs to be privileged as the essence of the table.

Here your Rortian pragmatist (utilitarian) roots show in your argument, pointing back to a paradox in your OP. The scepticism of Rorty implies that any description is irrelevant as an actual depiction of reality. More specifically, any given discourse is only ever valid (or invalid), in so far as it leads to beneficial behaviour. This renders the project of mutual understanding that you laid out in your OP an impossibility, a priori. All that remains is a parallel series of discourses vying for recognition as useful in the public sphere. In contrast, Gadamer suggests that we can reach mutual understanding (e.g. recognizing and accepting differing forms of evidence) only if we identify that we are divided by different understandings and attempt to think from the horizon of the other party, rather than requiring them to leave their horizon and take our initial position (as proponents of scientism demand of believers). Those situated in and working from the STEM horizon would need to adopt a hermeneutic of trust in regard to theistic traditions, just as the Catholic Church does towards science, in recognizing the autonomy of secular traditions in inquiry. Would that be too much to ask? To examine the Church’s truth claims on Her own terms?

 

[Betterave]

I think my previous formulation is still an improvement on what you have here, both in terms of clarity and precision, but I don’t object to the quote you’ve provided, except for possibly the liability that one could say this implicitly makes exclusive claims (“all concepts, period”) which would be a perversion of my version, which asserts, as always that this is the provisional finding according to the best of our knowledge. (TS, noting that the claim is a ‘provisional finding’ is irrelevant to an evaluation of the content of the claim. We could examine it just the same whether it was labeled ‘provisional’ or not - try not to get distracted.)

Insofar as one might sneak metaphysical constraints in there like that, I think your version is problematic. But on a charitable reading, it’s just fine.

-TS

TS,

I think you are not very good at recognizing the conceptual structure of arguments. But I’d be happy to see you prove me wrong… If you have offered an alternate formulation for my statement, please explain how the elements of your formulation match the elements of mine - if what you offered was a reformulation of what I wrote, there should be an isomorphic mapping between the elements of your statement and mine. (Alternately you could say that you just don’t know how to deal with the issues I have raised - but then we’ll have to go back and re-think some of the other claims you have made about the coherence of your position and its alleged status as ‘best explanation.’)

“concepts are STEM-based; but not all concepts refer to that which is STEM-based, some refer to other concepts… but concepts are STEM-based…”

TS’s (re)formulation(?):

The only basis known for extant concepts is STEM, and we are not aware of any coherent basis for concepts outside of STEM.

 

[Betterave]

Here your Rortian pragmatist (utilitarian) roots show in your argument, pointing back to a paradox in your OP. The scepticism of Rorty implies that any description is irrelevant as an actual depiction of reality. More specifically, any given discourse is only ever valid (or invalid), in so far as it leads to beneficial behaviour. This renders the project of mutual understanding that you laid out in your OP an impossibility, a priori. All that remains is a parallel series of discourses vying for recognition as useful in the public sphere. In contrast, Gadamer suggests that we can reach mutual understanding (e.g. recognizing and accepting differing forms of evidence) only if we identify that we are divided by different understandings and attempt to think from the horizon of the other party, rather than requiring them to leave their horizon and take our initial position (as proponents of scientism demand of believers). Those situated in and working from the STEM horizon would need to adopt a hermeneutic of trust in regard to theistic traditions, just as the Catholic Church does towards science, in recognizing the autonomy of secular traditions in inquiry. Would that be too much to ask? To examine the Church’s truth claims on Her own terms?

Nice!

 

[Betterave]

I guess so, because I am confused, now. The “don’t trust me” wasn’t an inviation to watch me, or to advance claims of my own in particular, but just to say that an objective, thorough analysis will bear out what I’ve claimed on its own merits – you can back me and my words right out of the picture, and the answer will remain the same.

We all trust reality at the most fundamental level. We have to, lest we die. Beyond that minimum committment, though, we have a whole spectrum of reality we can embrace or deny, given the evidence available.

-TS

“lest we die”? - so you have gone from a very ambitious criterion for circumscribing what an intellectually rigorous person can trust (trust the kind of stuff that allows us to have breakfast in NY and lunch in SF - and we know what you mean by that!) to a very unambitious criterion (trust whatever doesn’t threaten your immediate survival). Which position do you want to advance? My point is that they are not the same - do you see that??? (Re-read the bicycle thing and think about it from this perspective.)

 

[Touchstone]

TS,

I think you are not very good at recognizing the conceptual structure of arguments. But I’d be happy to see you prove me wrong… If you have offered an alternate formulation for my statement, please explain how the elements of your formulation match the elements of mine - if what you offered was a reformulation of what I wrote, there should be an isomorphic mapping between the elements of your statement and mine. (Alternately you could say that you just don’t know how to deal with the issues I have raised - but then we’ll have to go back and re-think some of the other claims you have made about the coherence of your position and its alleged status as ‘best explanation.’)

“concepts are STEM-based; but not all concepts refer to that which is STEM-based, some refer to other concepts… but concepts are STEM-based…”

TS’s (re)formulation(?):

The only basis known for extant concepts is STEM, and we are not aware of any coherent basis for concepts outside of STEM.

I said previously:

I think my previous formulation is still an improvement on what you have here, both in terms of clarity and precision, but I don’t object to the quote you’ve provided…

That’s a nice way of saying I think my statements are a more correct representation of my views. I was not trying to translate your statement, or “re-formulate” yours, but rather to say it should be replaced, in my view, with what I’ve said, if you want to understand my views. I also said I don’t disagree with your statement per se (see caveats I offered, though), but I don’t see your statement and mine as the same. I prefer mine as a replacement, not a translation or reformulation of yours.

Sorry if that wasn’t more clear.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

I guess so, because I am confused, now. The “don’t trust me” wasn’t an inviation to watch me [the first-person element of the analogy is irrelevant to the point of the analogy], or to advance claims of my own in particular [are you sure about that? whose claims are they, then? this kind of hedging really comes off as disingenuous], but just to say that an objective, thorough analysis will bear out what I’ve claimed on its own merits [trust me] – you can back me and my words right out of the picture, and the answer will remain the same [trust me].

Will the answer remain the same? How do you know this? Why should I believe this? You have given no reason for thinking this is true. But you think it is true. You do trust yourself. And you are implicitly inviting me to trust you too - what other reason could you have for saying what you say? But do you really think I’m going to hold my hand over a candle and say “gee, TS was right - I do have to trust reality, that really hurt! - and reality is just what TS says it is - it all makes sense now!”

We all trust reality at the most fundamental level. We have to, lest we die. Beyond that minimum committment, though, we have a whole spectrum of reality we can embrace or deny, given the evidence available.

“lest we die”? - so you have gone from a very ambitious criterion for circumscribing what an intellectually rigorous person can trust, can apprehend as reality (trust the kind of stuff that allows us to have breakfast in NY and lunch in SF - and we know what you mean by that!) to a very unambitious criterion (trust whatever doesn’t threaten your immediate survival - this tells us nothing about how to resolve the issues we have been discussing). Which position do you want to advance? My point is that they are not the same - do you see that??? (Re-read the bicycle thing and think about it from this perspective.)

 

[Betterave]

I said previously:

That’s a nice way of saying I think my statements are a more correct representation of my views. I was not trying to translate your statement, or “re-formulate” yours, but rather to say it should be replaced, in my view, with what I’ve said, if you want to understand my views. I also said I don’t disagree with your statement per se (see caveats I offered, though), but I don’t see your statement and mine as the same. I prefer mine as a replacement, not a translation or reformulation of yours.

Sorry if that wasn’t more clear.

-TS

I already pointed out why your caveats are irrelevant - why do you ignore that??

Anyway, what makes your statement more correct as a representation of your views?? Why do you keep refusing to say anything with any substance here? My statement addresses a different issue than yours - do you want to replace my statement because you don’t understand your own position well enough to reliably evaluate my statement (in which case, etc… - as I have already pointed out)? …or what?

 

[Touchstone]

Will the answer remain the same? How do you know this? Why should I believe this? You have given no reason for thinking this is true. But you think it is true.

I know this the same way I know anything else - through observation, experience, and reasoning about it. I understand through experience that my claims do not depend on me or my authority at all, and can be (and regularly are) tested and validated by investigations that have nothing to do with me. I observe people checking and inquiring for themselves, and finding the same evidence and knowledge base I rely upon in the record.

You do trust yourself. And you are implicitly inviting me to trust you too - what other reason could you have for saying what you say?

Sure I trust myself - my senses and my faculties. I’m not at liberty to do otherwise. I understand that I am the easiest person for me to fool, but that insight is also part of the trust, the understanding that I have faculties that can be used to apply some level of skepticism and critical thinking as a means of mitigating my own tendencies toward
caprice and confirmation bias.

And I have no problem recommending honest, objective analysis of the world around you, and it doesn’t require any trust in me to validate or support your investigation.

But do you really think I’m going to hold my hand over a candle and say “gee, TS was right - I do have to trust reality, that really hurt! - and reality is just what TS says it is - it all makes sense now!”

No, it’s just a useful way of pointing out the disingenuous nature of theistic faux-skepticism, the idea that we need some kind of justification for the idea that reality is real and that our senses and experiences reflect (if imperfectly) an extramental world around us. It comes up all the time, and the objectors apparently suppose this is a clever philosophical gambit, but it’s facile, and is shown thus, trivially. With a cigarette lighter and one’s hand for example.

That commitment doesn’t settle all the questions, not hardly. But it is a hardwired commitment, and one that needs no justification at all – we are empiricists on a fundamental level, and cannot be otherwise, even those of use who are also supernaturalists.

“lest we die”? - so you have gone from a very ambitious criterion for circumscribing what an intellectually rigorous person can trust, can apprehend as reality (trust the kind of stuff that allows us to have breakfast in NY and lunch in SF - and we know what you mean by that!) to a very unambitious criterion (trust whatever doesn’t threaten your immediate survival - this tells us nothing about how to resolve the issues we have been discussing).

Well, it depends on how much remedial discussion is needed, here. I regularly have to point out and defend the reality of reality as a non-optional, fundamental epistemic commitment here on this forum. It is not very ambitious, and frankly, it’s pretty embarrassing for the collective community that this needs to be pointed out, and by unbelievers (usually), for a bunch that suppose they have been or are being “guided into all truth” or some such. This is very basic stuff, but that is where the thinking fails very often on this forum, right out of the blocks, on the most unambitious and basic stances about knowledge and epistemology.

Which position do you want to advance? My point is that they are not the same - do you see that??? (Re-read the bicycle thing and think about it from this perspective.)

Sure. I’d be happy to keep the discourse at the higher level – it’s really a bore and a drag to have to keep going back to defending the reality of reality and primacy of our senses in interacting with the extramental world. But this is regularly disputed – I think we’ve had to get bogged down in this right here in our exchange, unfortunately. But if that’s what we need to do to go forward, that’s what we need to do, fine.

Once that basic understanding is in place, we can leverage that epistemic foundation as a means to inquiring towards and acquiring real knowledge, and flying coast to coast on a jet is just a handy example of the practical demonstration of real knowledge. I could just as handily have used examples from medicine, computing, or any number of disciplines where real knowledge is efficacious.

But that’s all pointless if we don’t have the (unambitious) claims about the reality of reality and the role of our senses vis the extramental world agreed upon.

-TS

 

[Betterave]

Wow, you are one undisciplined thinker!

I know this the same way I know anything else - through observation, experience, and reasoning about it. I understand through experience that my claims do not depend on me or my authority at all, and can be (and regularly are) tested and validated by investigations that have nothing to do with me. I observe people checking and inquiring for themselves, and finding the same evidence and knowledge base I rely upon in the record.

Your claims do not depend on you at all? So you’re just channeling the voice of the universe itself (Reality) speaking to us in all its pristine purity of realness? And that’s why we don’t need to trust you? Yikes!

You observe other voices-of-reality like yourself and that confirms that you are the voice-of-reality? People who claim to have reasoned their way to different conclusions from you on grounds that are more reliable than yours are obviously not “checking” things out properly, like you and your ilk? Does the fact that you prefer to answer questions about your own point of view with evasive, irrelevant caveats and mindless undefended assertions tell you nothing about your own intellectual honesty? DUDE, you’re killing me here! I’m sorry, TS, but I really think you can do better than this.

Sure I trust myself - my senses and my faculties. I’m not at liberty to do otherwise. I understand that I am the easiest person for me to fool, but that insight is also part of the trust, the understanding that I have faculties that can be used to apply some level of skepticism and critical thinking as a means of mitigating my own tendencies toward caprice and confirmation bias.

That’s very nice: “mitigating” - that’s a reasonable way to talk. But your means of mitigating these tendencies needs to include an ability to not just insist that your point-of-view is true because it’s what reality (and the people that YOU judge to have a grip on reality) dictates that you say. When you claim that your claims do not depend on you, this mitigation talk is rendered entirely meaningless. If you really understood that you were the easiest person for yourself to fool, you would understand that your ‘mitigation’ rhetoric could just be another way of you fooling yourself. Do you understand that?

And I have no problem recommending honest, objective analysis of the world around you, and it doesn’t require any trust in me to validate or support your investigation.

It’s not about what you recommend - talk is cheap.

If knowledge is a team sport, you need to be able to trust that your team mates are not idiots - right?

No, it’s just a useful way of pointing out the disingenuous nature of theistic faux-skepticism, the idea that we need some kind of justification for the idea that reality is real and that our senses and experiences reflect (if imperfectly) an extramental world around us. It comes up all the time, and the objectors apparently suppose this is a clever philosophical gambit, but it’s facile, and is shown thus, trivially. With a cigarette lighter and one’s hand for example.

That commitment doesn’t settle all the questions, not hardly [ya think!? - so maybe stop bringing it up?!]. But it is a hardwired commitment, and one that needs no justification at all – we are empiricists on a fundamental level, and cannot be otherwise, = a meaningless bald assertion, abuse of the term empiricist] even those of use who are also supernaturalists.

So now you’re just complaining about some other discussions you’ve had? Evidently you’ve had some bad experiences (that would be understandable/inevitable given your own lack of conceptual rigor), but try to have a little discipline and stay on subject. The fact that you keep choosing to try to reduce this discussion to such a mindless level suggests to me that that’s the only level you’re capable of operating at - I hope that’s not the case.

Well, it depends on how much remedial discussion is needed, here. I regularly have to point out and defend the reality of reality as a non-optional, fundamental epistemic commitment here on this forum. It is not very ambitious, and frankly, it’s pretty embarrassing for the collective community that this needs to be pointed out, and by unbelievers (usually), for a bunch that suppose they have been or are being “guided into all truth” or some such. This is very basic stuff, but that is where the thinking fails very often on this forum, right out of the blocks, on the most unambitious and basic stances about knowledge and epistemology.

You think you have to do this - but that’s because you’re fooling yourself (it’s so easy to do, right?) and you don’t understand the absurdity of your own claim. You don’t understand that it is an idiotic assertion to make because it tells us nothing about the content/constitution of reality. It is a useless diversion.

 

[Betterave]

Sure. I’d be happy to keep the discourse at the higher level – it’s really a bore and a drag to have to keep going back to defending the reality of reality and primacy of our senses in interacting with the extramental world. But this is regularly disputed – I think we’ve had to get bogged down in this right here in our exchange, unfortunately. But if that’s what we need to do to go forward, that’s what we need to do, fine.

Once that basic understanding is in place, we can leverage that epistemic foundation as a means to inquiring towards and acquiring real knowledge, and flying coast to coast on a jet is just a handy example of the practical demonstration of real knowledge. I could just as handily have used examples from medicine, computing, or any number of disciplines where real knowledge is efficacious.

But that’s all pointless if we don’t have the (unambitious) claims about the reality of reality and the role of our senses vis the extramental world agreed upon.

Your defense of “the reality of reality” does not express a basic understanding of anything! It is a mindless mantra that you invoke to avoid having an honest discussion of what “the reality of reality” is. I’d love to have a productive discussion with you, TS. I really wish you’d drop this kind of nonsense.

 

[Touchstone]

Your claims do not depend on you at all? So you’re just channeling the voice of the universe itself (Reality) speaking to us in all its pristine purity of realness? And that’s why we don’t need to trust you? Yikes!

What’s true about the real world doesn’t depend on me. You don’t need to “take my word for it” or “trust me” to find it, test it, and accept it. I don’t need to evangelize you with me “witness”, or convince you to listen to a ‘still, small voice’. Reality is what is without me saying anything, or being in the picture at all.

You observe other voices-of-reality like yourself and that confirms that you are the voice-of-reality? People who claim to have reasoned their way to different conclusions from you on grounds that are more reliable than yours are obviously not “checking” things out properly, like you and your ilk?

If thee grounds are more reliable, then they would have necessarily “checked things out” more properly than I, though, no? By definition, I think. But the question begged there is what makes your “reliable”… reliable. I commend a method that actually supports that term – “reliable” – and which can demonstrate reliability in a great number of areas.

I really don’t know what these alternative grounds are that would be more reliable. That’s a good place to start. What are they?

Does the fact that you prefer to answer questions about your own point of view with evasive, irrelevant caveats and mindless undefended assertions tell you nothing about your own intellectual honesty?

I’ve put in good effort here in defending and explaining the basis for my epistemology, just in this thread. I think if we stacked up what you’ve contributed in terms of depending and expounding on your beliefs vs. me, it would be quite lopsided in my favor. That’s OK, I expect to do more and do better – I’m the “opposition” here. But note well that you’re again just playing offense, asking, and I’m answering. I’m doing the work you conspicuously aren’t doing here. I’m OK with that, but let’s not pretend that’s not the case.

If you dispute this, tell me what these “reliable grounds” are you speak of, above.

DUDE, you’re killing me here! I’m sorry, TS, but I really think you can do better than this.

I invite you to set a good example! I’ll be watching.

That’s very nice: “mitigating” - that’s a reasonable way to talk. But your means of mitigating these tendencies needs to include an ability to not just insist that your point-of-view is true because it’s what reality (and the people that YOU judge to have a grip on reality) dictates that you say.

If reality insists, who am I to say otherwise? Or you, for that matter?

When you claim that your claims do not depend on you, this mitigation talk is rendered entirely meaningless.

It’s very important. Being mindful that the self is the easiest one to fool is crucial to being vigilant and disciplined in how we approach these questions. It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s basic responsibility for serious inquiry. Without that understanding, one is at greater risk for self-deception. It’s a practical commitment, much of that – being accountable in one’s reasoning and findings to other observers and skeptics, for example. It’s one of the reasons its good to exercise things here – to the extent I can’t defend the model and the method in rational terms, supported by real world evidence and observation, I have reason to question them and work to fix whatever problems that may uncover.

If you really understood that you were the easiest person for yourself to fool, you would understand that your ‘mitigation’ rhetoric could just be another way of you fooling yourself. Do you understand that?

Yeah, you’re pointing at solipsism. Got it. That’s way over the top on Feynman’s caution. The commitment to the reality of reality and the primacy of our senses as our viewport onto the extramental world remains. The cool thing about your caution is that it is itself a good example of self-deception, and demonstrably so. If you are correct that this caution should be applied this way, it yields problematic results – solipsism, a worst case outcome for producing reliable knowledge and performative models of the world.

That’s precisely what the ‘reality is real’ grounding can and should prevent and work against.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Betterave:

It’s not about what you recommend - talk is cheap.

I think you’re making my point for me, here. I’m the one suggesting that my words can be discounted entirely, and the conclusions remain there for the finding, testing and validation totally apart from ‘cheap talk’. That goes for this very paragraph, too.

If knowledge is a team sport, you need to be able to trust that your team mates are not idiots - right?

The epistemology, the method is such that individual foibles errors and biases can be identified and addressed by the group – each ‘player’ is accountable to the critique and review of the others. But if the team has no one capable of thinking critically, or checking details, and proceeding in a methodical careful way, the prospects for the team are not good. Happily, there appears to be a large number of players out there who demonstrate good skills and competence in these areas, and as I’m wont to point out, the products of their work (flying coast to coast in 6 hours, for example) speak for themselves.

Contrast with the teams of priests and theologians who can demonstrate… nothing, by comparison. It’s a pretty lopsided comparison of teamwork and team-oriented results.

So now you’re just complaining about some other discussions you’ve had? Evidently you’ve had some bad experiences (that would be understandable/inevitable given your own lack of conceptual rigor), but try to have a little discipline and stay on subject.

I think that once things have degraded to intransigence on the reality of reality, there really aren’t any other issues to discuss. That’s a basic commitment that must be in place before the discussion can get beyond the first grade level.

The fact that you keep choosing to try to reduce this discussion to such a mindless level suggests to me that that’s the only level you’re capable of operating at - I hope that’s not the case.

I think that’s easily discredited by reading an assortment of my posts. I really do not relish having to back way up like this, but it’s pointless to proceed when the reality of reality is in dispute. Disagreeing is fine, but talking in different universe is just an embarrassing waste of time. It’s not hard on this forum to find many threads where I and my interlocutors get right pass this and proceed to interesting and higher level subjects of discussion.

You think you have to do this - but that’s because you’re fooling yourself (it’s so easy to do, right?) and you don’t understand the absurdity of your own claim.
Well, if I am fooling myself, I stand to be corrected. Please tell me what your case is for the ‘unreality of reality’, or however you want to frame things, or cast your metaphysics. Then I (and all) can see and judge the merits and strength of your correction. When I am fooling myself, others do me a kindness to show me directly where my error was, and how I can know that was an error, and how to avoid it. If you are able, please do so.

I think it may take more than asking questions, though.

You don’t understand that it is an idiotic assertion to make because it tells us nothing about the content/constitution of reality. It is a useless diversion.

It does tell us something fundamental. Really, put your hand in a flame for a few seconds – long enough to get my point, but not long enough to do any real damage! That’s as basic as it gets as a starting point. We are biological entities, hardwired for epistemic commitments such as the ‘reality’ of an open flame’s heat. It doesn’t get more basic than that, that I am aware of. And that is our grounding. That is where we start from.

It’s great to move on and to higher levels, but if there’s confusion and incredulity about that, it’s a full stop – nothing productive can proceed without that understanding. To call that a diversion is to signal a complete and utter inability to communicate meaningfully any further, here.

-TS