5 ms·

Unfortunately, there are questions that cannot be empirically answered. Some of those questions are important.

by mcguire 2y ago

lisper 2y ago
Like what?
- mistermann 2y ago
  Here's one: what causes even smart people to hallucinate when practising epistemology, non-binary logic, and set theory (or not, as the case may be), as well demonstrated throughout this thread? Here's my guess: the same thing that causes them to not be able to juggle: a lack of practice (and in the case of philosophy: a teacher who isn't also hallucinating). As for why I consider such things important: I believe they are intimately related to why humans are continuously involved in wars and various other sub-optimal activities, which are easily[1] explained away with stories. As for teachers, Graham Priest seems to be quite sharp: https://youtu.be/ZGOMmGK4eeY?si=t0fmGJ3sA3iGN47T https://youtu.be/ZGOMmGK4eeY?si=t0fmGJ3sA3iGN47T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest [1] Like taking candy from babies.
  - lisper 2y ago
    You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. Science practices a watered down version of epistemology (which is fine for the domain they are in as far as I'm concerned: speed matters, and errors can usually be corrected later), the dangerous part is that people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc. Just read the thread. And the fan base seems often unable to even wonder what is true, let alone discern it.
      - lisper 2y ago
        > It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that too.
        mistermann 2y ago
        If you were able to wonder if it was true it would be advantageous.
        lisper 2y ago
        Sorry. Life is short, and there are certain ideas that are simply not worthy of serious consideration, like whether the earth might be flat. All you have to do to see that you are wrong is to do a web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility". If you're not willing to put in even that minimal effort you are not worth engaging with.
        mistermann 2y ago
        What is it that I am wrong about precisely?
        lisper 2y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40094986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40094986
        mistermann 2y ago
        If you are so smart, why do you engage in evasive actions like this? I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment. And while you're at it: pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked. Is it not rather perfect for the situation we are in? Oh I would love to get into the mind of one of you people, even for 5 minutes just to see what it is like...would it be something like psychedelics, or would it be even weirder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%...
- mcguire 2y ago
  Ethics. Is there a difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'? Why does the universe exist? (This is, I think, the core of 'why is there something rather than nothing?')
  - lisper 2y ago
    > Ethics. That's not a question. > Is there a difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'? Yes. Knowledge cannot be wrong, beliefs can. A consequence of this is that true knowledge doesn't actually exist, but beliefs can become sufficiently reliable that calling them knowledge is a pretty reasonable approximation. > Why does the universe exist? We don't know. > why is there something rather than nothing That is a different question. We actually do know the answer to that: it's because "nothing" is unstable.

Unfortunately, there are questions that cannot be empirically answered. Some of those questions are important.

lisper 2y ago

Like what?

mistermann 2y ago
Here's one: what causes even smart people to hallucinate when practising epistemology, non-binary logic, and set theory (or not, as the case may be), as well demonstrated throughout this thread? Here's my guess: the same thing that causes them to not be able to juggle: a lack of practice (and in the case of philosophy: a teacher who isn't also hallucinating). As for why I consider such things important: I believe they are intimately related to why humans are continuously involved in wars and various other sub-optimal activities, which are easily[1] explained away with stories. As for teachers, Graham Priest seems to be quite sharp: https://youtu.be/ZGOMmGK4eeY?si=t0fmGJ3sA3iGN47T https://youtu.be/ZGOMmGK4eeY?si=t0fmGJ3sA3iGN47T https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Priest [1] Like taking candy from babies.
- lisper 2y ago
  You really believe that the question of human fallibility is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. Science practices a watered down version of epistemology (which is fine for the domain they are in as far as I'm concerned: speed matters, and errors can usually be corrected later), the dangerous part is that people think science is the gold standard of reasoning, truth discovery, etc. Just read the thread. And the fan base seems often unable to even wonder what is true, let alone discern it.
    - lisper 2y ago
      > It isn't that science cannot, it is that they do not. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about that too.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        If you were able to wonder if it was true it would be advantageous.
        lisper 2y ago
        Sorry. Life is short, and there are certain ideas that are simply not worthy of serious consideration, like whether the earth might be flat. All you have to do to see that you are wrong is to do a web search for "scientific inquiry into human fallibility". If you're not willing to put in even that minimal effort you are not worth engaging with.
        mistermann 2y ago
        What is it that I am wrong about precisely?
        lisper 2y ago
        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40094986 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40094986
        mistermann 2y ago
        If you are so smart, why do you engage in evasive actions like this? I am calling you out, you fast talking egomaniac coward, bring that big brain out of hiding and show off its real power: state clearly and explicitly, precisely what is incorrect in that comment. And while you're at it: pay special attention to the final sentence in the comment you linked. Is it not rather perfect for the situation we are in? Oh I would love to get into the mind of one of you people, even for 5 minutes just to see what it is like...would it be something like psychedelics, or would it be even weirder? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%...
mcguire 2y ago
Ethics. Is there a difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'? Why does the universe exist? (This is, I think, the core of 'why is there something rather than nothing?')
- lisper 2y ago
  > Ethics. That's not a question. > Is there a difference between 'belief' and 'knowledge'? Yes. Knowledge cannot be wrong, beliefs can. A consequence of this is that true knowledge doesn't actually exist, but beliefs can become sufficiently reliable that calling them knowledge is a pretty reasonable approximation. > Why does the universe exist? We don't know. > why is there something rather than nothing That is a different question. We actually do know the answer to that: it's because "nothing" is unstable.