4 ms·

On the face of it, this phrase seems dissonant to me: > However, in the long term it's detrimental to the stability of global civilisation when we hold and pro

On the face of it, this phrase seems dissonant to me: > However, in the long term it's detrimental to the stability of global civilisation when we hold and promote different and conflicting subjective truths. If it's referring to "subjective truths" as identity beliefs, then yes, it could be an accurate statement. But if "subjective truths" is referring to more malleable beliefs decoupled from identity, then I'd say it's overstating things. Conflict that can be resolved with a positive outcome for all involved is better than no conflict, as a lack of conflict can lead to stagnation.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago
I think the point is that there are some opinions that must be based on objective truth (whatever that is), for civilisation to remain stable. For instance- accepting the fact that our activities are causing climate change is something that has the ability to affect our chance of survival as a species -etc. I don't think the author means that _every_ belief held by any person must ultimately become "objective" (and, therefore, aligned with that of all the rest of humanity). For instance, I don't see how it is bad for human civilisation if I think I look ravishing in red, whereas everyone else thinks I look like a pillock.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  They can appear to be objective, they cant ever be actually objective in any universal way. There cannot be a correct interpretation of reality in any logical system as all premises are fundamentally impossible to validate. Luckily we dont need to know whether something is objectively true for it to be useful. And useful is really all you need.
matt4077 9y ago
To give a specific example from recent history: Are the unemployment numbers (and related statistics) accurate or not? And were they accurate or not 18 months ago? The reason many people get scared when you answer these questions with "no" is that it would mean the complete decoupling of politics from reality. Debates about policy have a long history, and they're not harmful. But when one side starts also making up their own facts, it becomes impossible to reason, and a Venezuela-style decline might follow. Logical reasoning with transitive trust networks could obviously be useful to re-establish a common reality. But while it might convince those that answered the two questions above with 'no' that the statistics are really compiled in good faith, no amount of reasoning will help with those answering "yes" to the first, and "no" to the second.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  Problem is that even withbthe facts on your side you can still be wrong about a great many things
Panoramic 9y ago
I could see a lack of any conflict being a bad thing, but you must admit the politics in the US in recent years cannot possibly be a good thing. We're looking more and more fractured every month.

YeGoblynQueenne 9y ago

I think the point is that there are some opinions that must be based on objective truth (whatever that is), for civilisation to remain stable. For instance- accepting the fact that our activities are causing climate change is something that has the ability to affect our chance of survival as a species -etc. I don't think the author means that _every_ belief held by any person must ultimately become "objective" (and, therefore, aligned with that of all the rest of humanity). For instance, I don't see how it is bad for human civilisation if I think I look ravishing in red, whereas everyone else thinks I look like a pillock.

ThomPete 9y ago
They can appear to be objective, they cant ever be actually objective in any universal way. There cannot be a correct interpretation of reality in any logical system as all premises are fundamentally impossible to validate. Luckily we dont need to know whether something is objectively true for it to be useful. And useful is really all you need.

matt4077 9y ago

To give a specific example from recent history: Are the unemployment numbers (and related statistics) accurate or not? And were they accurate or not 18 months ago? The reason many people get scared when you answer these questions with "no" is that it would mean the complete decoupling of politics from reality. Debates about policy have a long history, and they're not harmful. But when one side starts also making up their own facts, it becomes impossible to reason, and a Venezuela-style decline might follow. Logical reasoning with transitive trust networks could obviously be useful to re-establish a common reality. But while it might convince those that answered the two questions above with 'no' that the statistics are really compiled in good faith, no amount of reasoning will help with those answering "yes" to the first, and "no" to the second.

ThomPete 9y ago
Problem is that even withbthe facts on your side you can still be wrong about a great many things

Panoramic 9y ago

I could see a lack of any conflict being a bad thing, but you must admit the politics in the US in recent years cannot possibly be a good thing. We're looking more and more fractured every month.