4 ms·

>First, the naïve realist believes that their perceptions are realistic and “objective.” Accordingly, other people (at least, reasonable other people) should sh

>First, the naïve realist believes that their perceptions are realistic and “objective.” Accordingly, other people (at least, reasonable other people) should share their beliefs, preferences, and convictions. Second, the naïve realist expects that any reasonable, open-minded person will be persuaded to agree with the naïve realist if there is disagreement between parties. If there is disagreement, and if the disagreeing party is a reasonable person, presenting the “real facts” should restore harmony. Third, anyone who disagrees with the naïve realist after the presentation of real facts is unreasonable, biased, or irrational. Well, apart from the choice in naming, you can count me in as a "naive realist" then. I'd prefer "rationalism" or "ideologue" or "fundamentalism" (the quest to seek the least amount of assumptions to explain our observations). The beautiful thing about logic and mathematics is that derivations / proofs can be verified mechanically: if even a dumb computer can follow and verify the reasoning, so can indeed a reasonable person. So next there's disputes on observation, say in science, measurements for example. In theory standard measurement equipment and even cables could be produced in controlled conditions such that each cable end cryptographically signs its connection to some device port only after verifying a timely signed timestamped response to a challenge, a response by some external entity (centralized or decentralized). The device say an oscilloscope could similarly sign the measurements it made, when the circuit was in what topology etc... and all of these could have custom security envelopes with PUF's ... All the tools and assembly lines where those cables, oscilloscopes, etc are produced would have similar security controls in a way that the group can audit (at least statistically) that the expected intrusion rate is marginally low... A popular saying or adage goes like "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is." I disagree not with the figurative meaning but with the literal one: There really is no difference between theory and practice. But there is a big difference between theory and malpractice. These psychologists and philosophers really seem to think they harbor very rare insights. But even a toddler knows different people have different opinions, views, ... nihil nove sub sole... It's a very sad world when people are stigmatized into nihilism in order to maintain the status quo. Oh how I yearn to live in a publically verifiable society, with verifiable desiderata.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
> The beautiful thing about logic and mathematics is that derivations / proofs can be verified mechanically: if even a dumb computer can follow and verify the reasoning, so can indeed a reasonable person. Even in mathematics and logic you have axioms which cannot be formally proven by mathematics and logic. You do try to minimize the axioms, but they will always be there. So even in the most pure of disciplines, you cannot be 100% "objective". Most real life issues are much messier than logic and mathematics.
- Jensson 4y ago
  You misunderstand math, the argument in math isn't "these axioms are true", but instead every paper goes "given these axioms, the following result can be derived". Mathematicians can all agree about the second, and then they agree to disagree about the axioms, and therefore reach maximal levels of consensus. If politics was like that instead of the current "try to make the other side seem as different as possible to sway voters" then the world would be a much nicer place. People are too stupid to do that though, when they try they still fall for the fallacies mentioned in the article. Instead of just looking at how the different sides starts with different moral axioms they instead focus on how the derivative results differ and call the other side morally corrupt based on their derivative results being so far from what this side sees as optimal.
  - DoctorOetker 4y ago
    I am not sure if you merely wish politics could be like that or if you actually consider a move towards formal verification in society to be actually possible but probably daunting. If the latter you are one of the very few people I have communicated with who can also see the myriad advantages of formal verification in democracy, daily life, or perhaps even courts. Consider things like due process, it may seem like a pedantic thing and overly paranoid to demand we have formally verifiable due process, so that anyone verify due process at home. But its much more than that. Institutional buildings are heavily protected assets, which cost a lot of money to protect. When a fraction of the populace storms such an asset, it costs lives and limbs, it costs a lot of money to permanently guard it, it will cost a lot of money and attention in processing the consequences etc... If the capitol was entirely virtual there would be nothing to storm and all these costs in life, limb, taxpayer dollars and time and attention of both the legal system and the population as audience would have avoided.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago

> The beautiful thing about logic and mathematics is that derivations / proofs can be verified mechanically: if even a dumb computer can follow and verify the reasoning, so can indeed a reasonable person. Even in mathematics and logic you have axioms which cannot be formally proven by mathematics and logic. You do try to minimize the axioms, but they will always be there. So even in the most pure of disciplines, you cannot be 100% "objective". Most real life issues are much messier than logic and mathematics.

Jensson 4y ago
You misunderstand math, the argument in math isn't "these axioms are true", but instead every paper goes "given these axioms, the following result can be derived". Mathematicians can all agree about the second, and then they agree to disagree about the axioms, and therefore reach maximal levels of consensus. If politics was like that instead of the current "try to make the other side seem as different as possible to sway voters" then the world would be a much nicer place. People are too stupid to do that though, when they try they still fall for the fallacies mentioned in the article. Instead of just looking at how the different sides starts with different moral axioms they instead focus on how the derivative results differ and call the other side morally corrupt based on their derivative results being so far from what this side sees as optimal.
- DoctorOetker 4y ago
  I am not sure if you merely wish politics could be like that or if you actually consider a move towards formal verification in society to be actually possible but probably daunting. If the latter you are one of the very few people I have communicated with who can also see the myriad advantages of formal verification in democracy, daily life, or perhaps even courts. Consider things like due process, it may seem like a pedantic thing and overly paranoid to demand we have formally verifiable due process, so that anyone verify due process at home. But its much more than that. Institutional buildings are heavily protected assets, which cost a lot of money to protect. When a fraction of the populace storms such an asset, it costs lives and limbs, it costs a lot of money to permanently guard it, it will cost a lot of money and attention in processing the consequences etc... If the capitol was entirely virtual there would be nothing to storm and all these costs in life, limb, taxpayer dollars and time and attention of both the legal system and the population as audience would have avoided.