4 ms·

Be careful in bringing up "open mindedness". If the most compelling thing you can say about your position is that "it is so weird and obtuse that only true open

by kalenx 6y ago

Be careful in bringing up "open mindedness". If the most compelling thing you can say about your position is that "it is so weird and obtuse that only true open minds will not reject it", I'm not sure you're making a point here... > But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. Sure. But you can't. You literally can't. And since you can't, it means, given this sentence, that you consider all science to be in the realm of belief. This is really sad. > Whenever you don't do that, you are accepting a story - without testing you cannot know anything, it is all in the realm of belief.

feralimal 6y ago
Surely it is possible, and costs nothing, to listen to another point of view. Surely testing what you know against a contrary opinion can only be a positive experience. > > But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. > Sure. But you can't. You literally can't. And since you can't, it means, given this sentence, that you consider all science to be in the realm of belief. This is really sad. Yes, but when you haven't verified, you can't say you know. You literally can't. You believe.
- kalenx 6y ago
  > Surely testing what you know against a contrary opinion can only be a positive experience. Trivial counterexample: if I repeat "you are an [insert your favorite insult here], what you say is false" again and again, which can be considered a "contrary opinion", you will not have a positive experience. > Yes, but when you haven't verified, you can't say you know. You literally can't. You believe. How are you sure that your senses provide you with an accurate representation of the world? You can't. So you believe they do. And you thus know nothing at all. See how easy it is to come up with these broad judgments which, while interesting from a philosophical point of view, are totally useless in practice? That's my point: I have no issue discussing cartesian doubt, for example. But this does not imply at all the science to be invalid, wrong, or the same as a religion: that's the pitfall you're in.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    > How are you sure that your senses provide you with an accurate representation of the world? I agree - you don't even know that your senses are providing you with an accurate representation of the world. But, if I say 'this is a table' you can come and check the truth of it. In the objective world, I can confirm a thing and say 'I know'. I can tell you how I found out, and you can check the veracity of my statement. If, say, I have a box, and I say 'inside the box is a potato', in the context of what we are talking about you have a couple of options. You can check (verify) whether that's true. Or you can accept it as true without checking. I'm saying, everyone - EVERYONE - is accepting claims all day long, without any proof. No one is checking. And this has become the basis of people's reality. A consensus group think determined by what is presented on a screen.
    - kalenx 6y ago
      > I'm saying, everyone - EVERYONE - is accepting claims all day long, without any proof. You included. But saying "no one is checking" is false. For every claim, there are people who do, actually, check. But you ask for _everyone_ to check _every claim_, which, I repeat myself, is, plainly put, impossible. So either you still do not accept that this is impossible, and going further in the discussion without this axiom is just useless, or you accept that this is impossible yet you still hypocritically ask for it. In either case, I do not have much to add.
      - feralimal 6y ago
        You are mis-representing what I'm saying. I'm saying people are relaying information as if it was true and that they had verified it, when they haven't. Its hearsay, gossip. Or even, lying. I don't say check every case. That's impossible. I'm saying be a bit clearer about what you know and what you believe. Don't say 'I know' when you haven't verified whatever it is. To say you do, is in fact, a type of lie. You are simply re-stating what you have been told was true. The effect is that you may deceive others. Why should they be deceived because your threshold is to trust whatever is being presented to you as true? You don't know, but you say you do. If you like, I can deconstruct this a little more. It hinges on the verb 'to be', 'is'. Contrast these statements: "The earth is a sphere". "The evidence that I have seen indicates that the earth is a sphere". The first statement is not verifiable personally. It is parroting a line, and is a very common linguistic shortcut. The effect is a form of lie, where you are overstating the case of what you know. The second statement far more accurately reflects what I at least know.

by kalenx 6y ago

feralimal 6y ago

Surely it is possible, and costs nothing, to listen to another point of view. Surely testing what you know against a contrary opinion can only be a positive experience. > > But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. > Sure. But you can't. You literally can't. And since you can't, it means, given this sentence, that you consider all science to be in the realm of belief. This is really sad. Yes, but when you haven't verified, you can't say you know. You literally can't. You believe.

kalenx 6y ago
> Surely testing what you know against a contrary opinion can only be a positive experience. Trivial counterexample: if I repeat "you are an [insert your favorite insult here], what you say is false" again and again, which can be considered a "contrary opinion", you will not have a positive experience. > Yes, but when you haven't verified, you can't say you know. You literally can't. You believe. How are you sure that your senses provide you with an accurate representation of the world? You can't. So you believe they do. And you thus know nothing at all. See how easy it is to come up with these broad judgments which, while interesting from a philosophical point of view, are totally useless in practice? That's my point: I have no issue discussing cartesian doubt, for example. But this does not imply at all the science to be invalid, wrong, or the same as a religion: that's the pitfall you're in.
- feralimal 6y ago
  > How are you sure that your senses provide you with an accurate representation of the world? I agree - you don't even know that your senses are providing you with an accurate representation of the world. But, if I say 'this is a table' you can come and check the truth of it. In the objective world, I can confirm a thing and say 'I know'. I can tell you how I found out, and you can check the veracity of my statement. If, say, I have a box, and I say 'inside the box is a potato', in the context of what we are talking about you have a couple of options. You can check (verify) whether that's true. Or you can accept it as true without checking. I'm saying, everyone - EVERYONE - is accepting claims all day long, without any proof. No one is checking. And this has become the basis of people's reality. A consensus group think determined by what is presented on a screen.
  - kalenx 6y ago
    > I'm saying, everyone - EVERYONE - is accepting claims all day long, without any proof. You included. But saying "no one is checking" is false. For every claim, there are people who do, actually, check. But you ask for _everyone_ to check _every claim_, which, I repeat myself, is, plainly put, impossible. So either you still do not accept that this is impossible, and going further in the discussion without this axiom is just useless, or you accept that this is impossible yet you still hypocritically ask for it. In either case, I do not have much to add.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      You are mis-representing what I'm saying. I'm saying people are relaying information as if it was true and that they had verified it, when they haven't. Its hearsay, gossip. Or even, lying. I don't say check every case. That's impossible. I'm saying be a bit clearer about what you know and what you believe. Don't say 'I know' when you haven't verified whatever it is. To say you do, is in fact, a type of lie. You are simply re-stating what you have been told was true. The effect is that you may deceive others. Why should they be deceived because your threshold is to trust whatever is being presented to you as true? You don't know, but you say you do. If you like, I can deconstruct this a little more. It hinges on the verb 'to be', 'is'. Contrast these statements: "The earth is a sphere". "The evidence that I have seen indicates that the earth is a sphere". The first statement is not verifiable personally. It is parroting a line, and is a very common linguistic shortcut. The effect is a form of lie, where you are overstating the case of what you know. The second statement far more accurately reflects what I at least know.