6 ms·

do tell?

by lwhalen 2y ago

do tell?

mistermann 2y ago
[flagged]
- lwhalen 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - throw10920 2y ago
    > Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say? Oh, what sky-daddy will do to me if I DON'T love, honor, obey, and tithe him, etc. You need to take a look at the HN guidelines because you have very clearly not read them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mistermann 2y ago
      I am perfectly fine with it. The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.
      - throw10920 2y ago
        > The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem. I would argue that, as far as "intellectual online spaces" go (e.g. LessWrong, less memey subreddits), HN has one of the best sets of rules that are the most consistently enforced. But you probably have something specific that you mean by The Problem that I'm not anticipating. Could you elaborate?
        mistermann 2y ago
        That on certain topics, logic trumps rhetoric. That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic. And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :) (To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differing degrees, but at least LessWrong as a platform at least aspires to take such things seriously*.)
        throw10920 2y ago
        Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? If it's the latter, I absolutely agree with you - tons of posters have double-standards and switch from logic mode to rhetoric (or even emotion) mode when there's something they don't agree with (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). But, at least aspirationally, the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil, while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic and what's not (although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines).
        mistermann 2y ago
        > Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? Both. > (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's otherwise fairly smart (I am speculating though, perhaps I will go through his history to get a better read). That ~no one finds this sort of thing interesting, is interesting. That ~everyone has a strong aversion to studying this phenomenon deeply is even more interesting, and it makes me wonder where that aversion comes from (mainly cultural evolution and conditioning is my guess). > But, at least aspirationally There's talking the talk, and then there is walking it. All ideologues have problems with the latter, and are rarely enthusiastic about discussing it, to put it nicely. > the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil I'm suspicious, considering how rhetorically weaponized they are. But then, maybe it's just luck or random error. > while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic My very point!! :) I'd have put "logic" in quotes though. > although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines The enforcers of the guidelines also regularly ignore them, though not "just" and "completely", which I suspect is a big part of why no one notices.
    - anon291 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > The vast majority of my belief system is or can trivially be peer-reviewed and reproduced. Not possible for you to know (more Faith...watch out for misdirection though). > but it's far less egregious than "sky-daddy says I should love, honor, and obey him - and most crucially give him MONEY as the almighty is somehow perpetually short on cash - so I can be saved". I will resist the urge to make up something about Your Kind and represent it as True. > Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say? How about: yourselves?
    - lwhalen 2y ago
      You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        > You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not. You on the other hand, did make an assertion (several, actually). Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me? And also: I did make an assertion, and asked some pointed questions, but you (shrewdly?) decided to give those a pass, instead opting for much more convenient simulated events. A question: did you do this with conscious knowledge and intent? > "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Interestingly, this is basically the opposite of the kind of thinking I recommend. This is substantially ironic. > Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Can you (in fact, and physically, as opposed to simply claiming that you have the ability) please translate the figure of speech "can be dismissed" into an explicit epistemic status? EDIT: thought I'd pat myself on the back for my earlier prescience: "Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes." Gosh, how could I have possibly done that? Am I a wizard??
        2y ago
  - anon291 2y ago
    There are many critiques
- lproven 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Two can play at that game: "I declare myself the victor!" Wow that is very easy, maybe that's why it's so popular.
    - lproven 2y ago
      No, not at all. You claim: > all metaphysical frameworks are faith-based First, define what a "metaphysical framework" is. But my strong suspicion is that to do so you will end up with a philosophical argument that amounts to "we can know nothing" and ends up with solipsism. Which is largely why I disdain philosophy. Instead, here is a simple set of statements to counter your position that all belief systems are equivalent: * There is such a thing as objective reality, independent of belief. * It is possible to probe and determine the nature of reality by experiment. * By doing this, we can obtain objectively verifiable, reproducible results, ands they are consistent for all, regardless of belief. * No such test is possible for any kind of supernatural belief. Gods, afterlife, any of it. * Therefore there is no way to demonstrate these. Belief in that which cannot be tested and demonstrated is faith based. Lack of such belief is not a belief, although it is typically asserted to be so by faith-holders. It is is equivalent to saying that "off" is a TV station. "I watch channel X, you watch channel Y. We are the same!" No: I turned off my TV. It has no aerial. I do not watch any station or channel. This is not the same. Person A: "I have hair, you don't. We both have hairstyles. You chose that hairstyle." Person B: "I am bald." Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief. It is not equivalent. It is not a metaphysical framework, if I understand what you meant. I have encountered many evangelists who maintain that all atheists are lying and everyone believes in their god. This is a simple failure of imagination. It is not a stronger argument. "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." -- Philip K Dick. I stopped believing at age 11 and have never since seen any evidence to make me reconsider. All gods are lies. All religions are simple superstition with no basis in reality or truth. I welcome any objectively verifiable, reproducible evidence to the contrary.

do tell?

mistermann 2y ago

[flagged]

lwhalen 2y ago
[flagged]
- throw10920 2y ago
  > Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say? Oh, what sky-daddy will do to me if I DON'T love, honor, obey, and tithe him, etc. You need to take a look at the HN guidelines because you have very clearly not read them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mistermann 2y ago
    I am perfectly fine with it. The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem.
    - throw10920 2y ago
      > The HN (and other "intellectual" online spaces) guidelines are a big part of The Problem. I would argue that, as far as "intellectual online spaces" go (e.g. LessWrong, less memey subreddits), HN has one of the best sets of rules that are the most consistently enforced. But you probably have something specific that you mean by The Problem that I'm not anticipating. Could you elaborate?
      - mistermann 2y ago
        That on certain topics, logic trumps rhetoric. That on certain other topics, rhetoric trumps logic. And if one should point this out, guess which one is used in response? :) (To be fair to HN: this is true of all such communities to differing degrees, but at least LessWrong as a platform at least aspires to take such things seriously*.)
        throw10920 2y ago
        Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? If it's the latter, I absolutely agree with you - tons of posters have double-standards and switch from logic mode to rhetoric (or even emotion) mode when there's something they don't agree with (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). But, at least aspirationally, the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil, while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic and what's not (although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines).
        mistermann 2y ago
        > Are you talking about the platform rules, or merely what the community thinks? Both. > (e.g. lwhalen, who is engaging in blatant emotional manipulation and logical fallacies). Is it not absolutely amazing! And I bet he's otherwise fairly smart (I am speculating though, perhaps I will go through his history to get a better read). That ~no one finds this sort of thing interesting, is interesting. That ~everyone has a strong aversion to studying this phenomenon deeply is even more interesting, and it makes me wonder where that aversion comes from (mainly cultural evolution and conditioning is my guess). > But, at least aspirationally There's talking the talk, and then there is walking it. All ideologues have problems with the latter, and are rarely enthusiastic about discussing it, to put it nicely. > the HN rules are designed to constrain rhetoric to keep the discourse civil I'm suspicious, considering how rhetorically weaponized they are. But then, maybe it's just luck or random error. > while allowing users to set the standards for what's acceptable logic My very point!! :) I'd have put "logic" in quotes though. > although in practice, users like lwhalen and lproven just completely ignore the guidelines The enforcers of the guidelines also regularly ignore them, though not "just" and "completely", which I suspect is a big part of why no one notices.
  - anon291 2y ago
    [flagged]
- mistermann 2y ago
  > The vast majority of my belief system is or can trivially be peer-reviewed and reproduced. Not possible for you to know (more Faith...watch out for misdirection though). > but it's far less egregious than "sky-daddy says I should love, honor, and obey him - and most crucially give him MONEY as the almighty is somehow perpetually short on cash - so I can be saved". I will resist the urge to make up something about Your Kind and represent it as True. > Wait, what am I going to be saved from, you say? How about: yourselves?
  - lwhalen 2y ago
    You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > You are backing into a very common fallacy, Pascal's Wager. Had I made an assertion (about the object level point of contention) or even offered relevant advice (I didn't), you would have a fine point. But I did not. You on the other hand, did make an assertion (several, actually). Have you some more Normative Memetic Rhetoric (framed as Good Faith Critical Thinking) for me? And also: I did make an assertion, and asked some pointed questions, but you (shrewdly?) decided to give those a pass, instead opting for much more convenient simulated events. A question: did you do this with conscious knowledge and intent? > "If not the christian god, why not the flying spaghetti monster" is what this usually boils down to. Interestingly, this is basically the opposite of the kind of thinking I recommend. This is substantially ironic. > Anything that is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Can you (in fact, and physically, as opposed to simply claiming that you have the ability) please translate the figure of speech "can be dismissed" into an explicit epistemic status? EDIT: thought I'd pat myself on the back for my earlier prescience: "Luckily, this can be easily dismissed with some pre-existing memes." Gosh, how could I have possibly done that? Am I a wizard??
      - 2y ago
- anon291 2y ago
  There are many critiques
lproven 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 2y ago
  Two can play at that game: "I declare myself the victor!" Wow that is very easy, maybe that's why it's so popular.
  - lproven 2y ago
    No, not at all. You claim: > all metaphysical frameworks are faith-based First, define what a "metaphysical framework" is. But my strong suspicion is that to do so you will end up with a philosophical argument that amounts to "we can know nothing" and ends up with solipsism. Which is largely why I disdain philosophy. Instead, here is a simple set of statements to counter your position that all belief systems are equivalent: * There is such a thing as objective reality, independent of belief. * It is possible to probe and determine the nature of reality by experiment. * By doing this, we can obtain objectively verifiable, reproducible results, ands they are consistent for all, regardless of belief. * No such test is possible for any kind of supernatural belief. Gods, afterlife, any of it. * Therefore there is no way to demonstrate these. Belief in that which cannot be tested and demonstrated is faith based. Lack of such belief is not a belief, although it is typically asserted to be so by faith-holders. It is is equivalent to saying that "off" is a TV station. "I watch channel X, you watch channel Y. We are the same!" No: I turned off my TV. It has no aerial. I do not watch any station or channel. This is not the same. Person A: "I have hair, you don't. We both have hairstyles. You chose that hairstyle." Person B: "I am bald." Atheism is not a faith. Atheism is not a belief. It is the absence of belief. It is not equivalent. It is not a metaphysical framework, if I understand what you meant. I have encountered many evangelists who maintain that all atheists are lying and everyone believes in their god. This is a simple failure of imagination. It is not a stronger argument. "Reality is what doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." -- Philip K Dick. I stopped believing at age 11 and have never since seen any evidence to make me reconsider. All gods are lies. All religions are simple superstition with no basis in reality or truth. I welcome any objectively verifiable, reproducible evidence to the contrary.