5 ms·

Yep this was making sense until they started to get all philosophical. I mean can you prove anyone exists or anything?

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Well, I mean, no? The point is that there's a sliding scale of certainty. I've seen my mother with my own eyes, but not the Eiffel tower, only been told about it and been shown pictures. I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. I could of course probably go to Paris and check if for some reason I wanted to be certain, bringing them up to parity, but until I have, they're not, and I have at least some reason to be doubtful about its existence. I could check is not the same as I have checked.
- catchnear4321 4y ago
  Getting deeply philosophical on the nature of reality when dealing with a situation of uncertainty is at best an accidental diversion. Unfortunately at worst it is a tool of control, as it makes discussing any original points nigh impossible. Once conversation has been sufficiently inundated with terminology and theory, where were we again? Given just how verbose you have been, I must say I don’t know which it would be, but either seems quite possible. Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. This slippery slope feels like a water slide.
  - marginalia_nu 4y ago
    Well the entire point is that there is a great deal of things we will never know for certain. We can ignore this fact, and only apply the tool of skepticism toward the things that don't align with our preexisting assumptions and world view, as seems very popular. If we do that, we'll consequently find a reason to doubt everything except what we think is true, which is very convenient but also just an engine for fooling yourself. I'll argue this is a misapplication of skepticism. Where it needs to most urgently be applied is toward the things we think are definitely true. It will eat away at your assumptions and reveal they're actually mostly things that seem true. > Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. Given the minds of others are unknowable, you will never know. I will also never know your intent with regard to any action. But I also don't think intent matters. The true nature of things doesn't require faith or believers. The sun is still shining even when a cloud obscures it.
    - catchnear4321 4y ago
      Thank you for confirming. You aren’t interested in the main topic, but you do appear to be interested in avoiding it.
      - marginalia_nu 4y ago
        I'm interested in the topic of what distinguishes a conspiracy theorist from a skeptic, which is what the comment I replied to brought up. That is this prompt: > Why is anyone who challenges incomplete information labeled as a conspiracy theorist?
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        You forgot your context. > The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all.
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        The issue is how to deal with incomplete information. I don't think the actual circumstances matter. The same standard should apply.
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        You say the issue is incomplete information and you say the circumstances do not matter. Do you want less information?
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Information about a particular instance of a problem is not very informative with regards to the problem as a class of problems.
- blatant303 4y ago
  > I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. Only if you put a lot more trust in your sense than in your social cognitive abilities. You're only making this point from inside this argument's steam cloud, and if you were to distrust your social context as much as you claim here, you'd be as incapacitated in your daily life as you would if you were blind.

Well, I mean, no? The point is that there's a sliding scale of certainty. I've seen my mother with my own eyes, but not the Eiffel tower, only been told about it and been shown pictures. I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. I could of course probably go to Paris and check if for some reason I wanted to be certain, bringing them up to parity, but until I have, they're not, and I have at least some reason to be doubtful about its existence. I could check is not the same as I have checked.

catchnear4321 4y ago
Getting deeply philosophical on the nature of reality when dealing with a situation of uncertainty is at best an accidental diversion. Unfortunately at worst it is a tool of control, as it makes discussing any original points nigh impossible. Once conversation has been sufficiently inundated with terminology and theory, where were we again? Given just how verbose you have been, I must say I don’t know which it would be, but either seems quite possible. Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. This slippery slope feels like a water slide.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Well the entire point is that there is a great deal of things we will never know for certain. We can ignore this fact, and only apply the tool of skepticism toward the things that don't align with our preexisting assumptions and world view, as seems very popular. If we do that, we'll consequently find a reason to doubt everything except what we think is true, which is very convenient but also just an engine for fooling yourself. I'll argue this is a misapplication of skepticism. Where it needs to most urgently be applied is toward the things we think are definitely true. It will eat away at your assumptions and reveal they're actually mostly things that seem true. > Perhaps you could say I am skeptical of your intent. Based upon your own words, I struggle to see how you could possibly prove, without a doubt, that you had positive intent. Given the minds of others are unknowable, you will never know. I will also never know your intent with regard to any action. But I also don't think intent matters. The true nature of things doesn't require faith or believers. The sun is still shining even when a cloud obscures it.
  - catchnear4321 4y ago
    Thank you for confirming. You aren’t interested in the main topic, but you do appear to be interested in avoiding it.
    - marginalia_nu 4y ago
      I'm interested in the topic of what distinguishes a conspiracy theorist from a skeptic, which is what the comment I replied to brought up. That is this prompt: > Why is anyone who challenges incomplete information labeled as a conspiracy theorist?
      - catchnear4321 4y ago
        You forgot your context. > The circumstances of Epstein's death are highly suspect and make no sense at all.
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        The issue is how to deal with incomplete information. I don't think the actual circumstances matter. The same standard should apply.
        catchnear4321 4y ago
        You say the issue is incomplete information and you say the circumstances do not matter. Do you want less information?
        marginalia_nu 4y ago
        Information about a particular instance of a problem is not very informative with regards to the problem as a class of problems.
blatant303 4y ago
> I have far more reason to believe the former exists than the latter. Only if you put a lot more trust in your sense than in your social cognitive abilities. You're only making this point from inside this argument's steam cloud, and if you were to distrust your social context as much as you claim here, you'd be as incapacitated in your daily life as you would if you were blind.