Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[misko27]

Hey thanks, that means a lot to me, I guess? Someone feel like starting a thread for the derail?

Go dig up philosothread. Conservation of threads.

Also I'm resisting the urge to hunt you down and force you to read Beyond Good and Evil until I break you of your faith in opposite values, or I just break you, period (Nietzsche is purposely obtuse, so it's not impossible).

[Max™]

My beard can take you by itself sweetheart. Save the reading threats for someone with a smaller backlog. Though it is rather odd that this comes across as such an abhorrent idea, everywhere someone insists "belief" must be used, you'll find "think" or "suspect" works surprisingly well. It apparently bothers some to think others don't hold beliefs, but it doesn't bother me if others have them. Suppose it's seen as some sort of attack maybe, or as me trying to act superior (judging by dude up there) I guess? Dunno, just annoying having someone talk about things as though I hold them to be true without knowledge that they are true, making it an imprecise use of language at best.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

Max, you're the one inventing new ways to misuse the English language.

[MrRoboto75]

Wouldn't the belief that you don't have beliefs constitute as having a belief?

[hector13]

Max's definition of belief does sound more like faith.

[Max™]

Max's definition of belief does sound more like faith.

Belief: something held to be true whether or not there is evidence it is true.

It sounds like folks are using something akin to the "justified true belief" definition of knowledge?

I'm a big fan of the philosophical approach of Popper, and much like him, of Peirce, though he is less commonly associated with philosophy than mathematics and science. A definition of knowledge built on falsifiability and fallibility need not overlap with belief. That which would be true if certain assumptions held, or that which can be treated as being useful-if-true, can be applied accordingly without actually going so far as to believe it is true.

One can use a definition of knowledge like this along with beliefs, but it bothers me personally to do so, so I don't. Not knowing is fine, and various degrees of confidence from certainty to doubt as my information improves or is found in error works well enough for all of the things which I can't define or prove to be true.

I did the whole process of going through to question and prune any beliefs after I learned who Robert Anton Wilson was, and hey, just found a quote I was looking for!

"Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities.
The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and
the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High
Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you
stop thinking about it." ~Robert Anton Wilson

Faith would be belief in something, I'm not even talking about that, spent years pondering it already, no need to rehash it any further as I am completely uninvolved in and thus outside of that discussion*.

I'm talking of belief about something: that it operates in a certain way or possesses certain properties and so forth. Many believe that people require beliefs to operate, but obtaining the knowledge to confirm this would involve what? Peering into every brain everywhere? This is something which isn't even testable, and depends on a rather poor argument: "I believe things, therefore others must." Like R.A.W. and various others I am also a counterexample, your hypothesis should be adjusted, it is faulty.

No point digging up the philosophy thread now, I hope, as those insisting they know my brain better than I do were already here, and perhaps this explanation will sate those who sought more than just an argument?

[misko27]

No point digging up the philosophy thread now, I hope, as those insisting they know my brain better than I do were already here, and perhaps this explanation will sate those who sought more than just an argument?

By contrast, I'm steadfastly refusing to comment on your, views, until you leave this thread (and believe me I am sorely tempted to tease you for your niaiserie allemande). Do you think another statement is going to end the discussion? That's rather naive given what we've already seen. If you respond here again you must commit to derailing the thread in favor of a discussion on your views on belief and accept that as the consequence.

[hector13]

I think the misunderstanding comes from perspective. I can't speak for others, so I can just clarify my comment was an observation (as opposed to a challenge) that your definition of belief is the same as what I think (or believe, hoho) faith means. They are synonyms, after all.

It probably doesn't help that another synonym you mentioned is fairly central to the human condition: think. Perhaps others are of the opinion that your posited lack of belief is impossible due to that? Or perhaps I'm just too far into the fog between sleep and consciousness that I'm merely hallucinating these connections...

... and should thus stop, given the growing distance between the train and the tracks.

[Max™]

If you respond here again you must commit to derailing the thread

On the contrary, after thinking some more about the actual topic of discussion that came up earlier it struck me that even if they weren't used for decisive purposes--as those of residents presumably would--having a tally of actual international views as expressed by how they would vote, when speaking of a nation as busily involved on the global scale as the US, would be very informative, but only nowadays with the spread of internet access trending towards pervasive would such a thing ever become realistically feasible.

Naturally there are numerous problems with sifting out troll votes, bot votes (but not the self aware ones I guess?), and whatnot. Not to mention how it would be presented, and what it would accomplish in any case.

Still struck me as an interesting idea.

[Azzuro]

Petition for OP to rename this thread Philosophy Thread 2017: Disbelief in Belief.

[scriver]

I assent to this change.

[Lord_lemonpie]

I for one, do not support universal sufferage.
General sufferage too, tbh.

I don't feel like people should have a say in things they know nothing about.
Climate change denying hillbillies should have no say in environmental policy: climate scientists should decide.
Anti-vaxxers shouldn't decide medical policy, doctors should.
The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Of course, all should be equal and a general ininfringeable constitution should be in place, but in my opinion a country should be led by a panel of experts representing facts, not slick politicians representing feelings.

[wierd]

Belief: something held to be true whether or not there is evidence it is true.

Which dictionary are you getting that definition from?

His view is NOT new Covenant...  It has been an open question for as long as there have been philosophers. See the wikipedia page on Epistemology.

The core difference between truth and belief, is that truth is independent of any observer, at least according to the school of thought that Max subscribes to. EG, the light scattering properties of oxygen atoms will remain the same, even if nobody is there to see the scattered light. Compare this with "They sky is blue".  This is how it sidesteps things like qualia. (How do you know that what I see as blue, is what you see as blue?, et al) "The sky is blue" is a belief, but a well reasoned one. "The scattering properties of oxygen" is a truth (or real knowledge).

The notion that a truth can be a well reasoned belief comes from antiquity, and is deeply rooted in precepts from that age. It does not really work when held against the notion that there is an objective reality outside of any observer that will continue to persist as it is without observation by any observer, however.  This makes this kind of definition pretty much incompatible with a scientific worldview-- The scientific worldview discards any notion of solipsism, while the "well reasoned beliefs are truths" school from antiquity embraces that as a valid option.

Outside of very rigid intellectual circles, Max's views on knowledge are not commonplace, which is why you are confused by them, and insist he is redefining the terms he uses.  Then again, outside of rigid intellectual circles, the belief in the supernatural being real is commonplace.

So, which dictionary did he get his definitions from? He already told you-- He subscribes to a specific mindset, concerning epistemology. He even named names.

------

Back on topic, RE: lemonpie.

That is exactly what I have been meaning, when I say that imposing limits on suffrage's *FEATURE*, is the removal of voices. That is the "benefit.", the thing one seeks.

However, intrinsically, this process denies a group representation by being implemented, and is thus officious and authoritarian in nature, not democratic.  Democracies are less concerned with objective truths, and more concerned with popular will, which is where the demo- in democracy is operative.

When you combine this with historic tendencies of authoritarianism, you end up with a government that does not stick to objective truths (because truths can become whatever the prevailing power base SAYS they are, end of discussion, actual objectivity be damned-- you have no voice to challenge it with!), and does not permit any questioning of its conclusions. If your goal is a balanced and empowering society, limits on suffrage are not a feature, no matter how enticing the notion of shutting people up might be.

Even in academic circles, the slavish adherence to authority (which is what you are proposing would ACTUALLY be) is not optimal. If we did that, we would never have given ear to Einstein, and would still be trying to reconcile the Ptolemaic universe with reality. A dissenting voice needs to offer proof before being taken seriously, but the authority is reality itself, not an "in-crowd"-- though often haughty humans forget this, and you end up with "not science" as a result.

Being assailed on all sides, all the times, and always challenged is how science stays on the straight and narrow. Dont fall victim to ascribing to an "appeal to authority" type logical fallacy, by asserting that "experts" always know or do the best things. When they stop being questioned, and held against objectivity through that questioning, there is considerable utility (many perks) in inventing an official narrative, objective reality be damned-- which is why it has, without exception, devolved into that mess every time it has been attempted.

Those most likely to "just love" limits on suffrage are those that do not like being questioned, or subjected to questioning. They are the most vulnerable to getting trapped in circles of biased thinking, and official narrative, and are the most likely to cease being objective thinkers or operators.  Embracing that endless exposure to chaotic challenges, no matter how naive the challenges may be, is how you remain rigorous mentally, and stay objective. The objective person will realize this, and reject the siren song of silencing those dissenting voices.

[Neonivek]

I for one, do not support universal sufferage.
General sufferage too, tbh.

I don't feel like people should have a say in things they know nothing about.
Climate change denying hillbillies should have no say in environmental policy: climate scientists should decide.
Anti-vaxxers shouldn't decide medical policy, doctors should.
The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Of course, all should be equal and a general ininfringeable constitution should be in place, but in my opinion a country should be led by a panel of experts representing facts, not slick politicians representing feelings.

I find your post interesting in that you both state why we should limit suffrage while at the same time perfectly demonstrating why it isn't a good idea. A sort of irony in that in the attempt to prove your point, you do the exact opposite.

Who are the villains here? Ohh right "Climate Change Denying Hillbillies" and "Anti-Vaxxers".

With neither of these groups having particular sway anyway bringing in a question of why the limitation is even nessisary (No, Climate Change Denying hippies are NOT the primary group. That would be business owners who want more money)... yet just as importantly they are people who hold a direct opposition to your ideals and thus they should, by merit of being "wrong", not be allowed a voice.

Yet the BEST one?

The rich should have no say in what concerns the poor, but vice versa too. Economists should.

Now this, if you understand economics, economic theory, politics, and history... You would know as the single most unusual part of the entire post.

In fact a lot of attempts to "economize" the poor has made their lives even worse (Typically this is because it drives up the land value and forces poorer communities to become homeless or go to worse locations)... Because "Economics" isn't the science on "What is the best for someone". Not to mention that Economics has a serious issue quantifying the qualitative aspects of our lives that is often MORE important.

Or rather to quote an economist non-verbatum: "The most productive outcome for an oil tanker is rupture and sink"

YET it is even better because the poor don't say what concerns them... The Rich don't... Economists do... Who are in the pockets of the Rich.

Notice how there is a BIT of an issue with only allowing the top elite to have an opinion just on that basis? I am not even getting into the fact that people are a lot smarter than you give credit for, especially as a group... OR that a lot of experts are idiots... There is a reason I have a term: "PHD Morons"

Heck some degrees I wouldn't trust period. Yet these would be the experts.

[ChairmanPoo]

No, it should be a left.
)

I've been pondering the matter and I think voting should be a wrong, instead