I can assure you that it is possible. It is commonly called "critical thinking".
Some people practice it ( I am among them) and some are even good at it. — Matias

So under critical thinking, there are no perceptions or beliefs?

Well, with the entire field of mathematics not being correspondence-theory "true", the "T" in JTB is simply too much of a problem. If math is knowledge, then JTB is wrong. It must be JB instead. — alcontali

Couldn't you say that mathematical statements correspond to relations/the way relations work, at least within the system that we've set up?

That's not at all the way that I use the term "objective/objectivity." One reason that I don't use it that way is that this idea is absurd: "stand back from our perceptions, our beliefs and opinions, to reflect on them, and subject them to a particular kind of scrutiny and judgement. Above all, it requires a degree of indifference in judging that may conflict with our needs and desires."

It's impossible to "stand back" from perceptions, beliefs and opinions. It's impossible to judge anything in a way that conflicts with all of your needs and desires.

And the notion that we can and should stand back from perceptions, beliefs and opinions, that we can and should judge things in ways that conflict with all of our needs and desires are themselves beliefs/opinions/desires that rely on perceptions and other beliefs.

It is immoral to break the law. — tim wood

If the law is immoral, I have no problem with people breaking it, and ideally, I'd like the law to be nullified via tons of people breaking it, or refusing to enforce it as juries, etc.

That's understandable. The issue, though, is why should other people be able to legally prohibit you from choosing to take those risks? Why would you want to give other people that sort of dominion over your life?

Just on this one as it's so very far off point. Cultures and particularly historically imperialistic cultures can deliberately destroy the languages of other cultures by forcing them to speak their own. — Baden

No disagreement on that. Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that no one speaks their first languages by choice, especially as "It's clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice" can give the impression that most do.

Or another way to put it is that when I read "It's clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice," I think "Language by choice? Well, who does?" . .. the answer to which is, "People who choose to pick up another language later, via a school elective, self-study, etc."

She paints a picture of someone at a party being accused of cultural appropriation, And then she says, "And you think that’s a ridiculous accusation. You? Doing something racist?"

You're thinking of "fact" as something like "true statement." (Otherwise saying "facts about" would make no sense.)

If we use "fact" in the "state of affairs" sense, there can be subjective facts, in that its an ontological property of the fact that it's subjective.

I reject propositions in lieu of thought/belief statements. Belief cannot be reduced to propositions. Statements can. Thought/belief is long before statements. — creativesoul

"Proposition" and "statement" are usually treated as synonymous.

Gettier concludes that JTB (Justified True Belief) must be JB (Justified Belief). — alcontali

?

That's not what he's saying. The typical approach to the Gettier problems, by the way, is not that JTB is wrong, but that it needs to be better qualified. So, for example, it requires that the justification doesn't turn out to be only accidentally supportive.

If "true" means that a proposition appears in the real, physical world, — alcontali

While we're at it, what would it "mean" for a proposition to "appear in the real, physical world"?

(Ah, you cleared that up a post or two later: With "appearing in the real world", I meant structurally isomorphic with the real world, in line with Bertrand Russell's considerations on the matter. )

Would you say that it doesn't make sense to use "true" and "false" in logic?

For once we completely agree. I've pointed out this very issue before (and I think I might have posted either here or on the old board about it).

As you say, this one critique can't cover all Gettier examples, as there are so many different types of Gettier examples, but many of them proceed via assuming that logical conventions are applicable where they don't really work.

Mankind advances, but unevenly. Some cultures put men on the moon, others remain in the stone age.
The people in both cultures believe that the stone age culture is inferior to the man-on-the-moon culture. — Doug1943

I've slipped into a world where everyone suddenly has the same opinions?

Man-on-the-moon cultures generally develop a higher ethical standard, — Doug1943

Oy vey.

Try this one:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/ — Baden

Some of the many things wrong with that article:

* Cultural appropriation isn't the same thing as racism

* Racism doesn't make any sense as something unintentional.

* It's not categorically, morally wrong to do something that might result in someone getting upset.

* Cultures do not "own" customs, traditions, mores, etc.

* Cultures are not isolated units that remain intact as isolated units; cultures obtain via interaction of individuals and necessarily evolve as individuals and interaction changes. People who think they're from different cultures, who are interacting, by doing so, are necessarily evolving their cultures into a different one based on those interactions. That's how culture works.

* So as people interact, they create a different culture, and that culture is their own.

* "Power dynamic" talk is typically a mess. Among the many problems with it is that it tends to cherry-pick particular facts, interactions, etc. to fit the narrative the author wants to create. If we're going to make claims about dominance, oppression, etc., then we need to set out what those terms are going to refer to in a manner that can't be seen as cherry-picked from the totality of data available, and then we need to show the empirical data to support claims about it.

* Saying that wearing clothing, say, is "taking" something from another culture employs the same nonsensical rhetoric that has been used in intellectual property discussions. That rhetoric is ad hoc, created by companies, under a capitalist system, who'd rather be able to legally threaten than have to be creative and figure out other ways to make money (where unfortunately that's necessary because of the capitalist system they're operating within).

* "But marginalized groups don’t have the power to decide if they’d prefer to stick with their customs or try on the dominant culture’s traditions just for fun." --Ridiculous as stated. There have been instances where some culture has been forced to not do certain things (clothing, language, etc.), but that has nothing to do with cultural appropriation. And it being morally wrong to force or pressure people to not do what they want to do re things like clothing and language certainly doesn't justify pressuring people to not do what they want to do re things like clothing and language, which is what "cultural appropriation" shaming is about.

* "it’s clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice."--Obviously. I didn't speak English by choice. I speak English because I was raised in an environment where only English was spoken. That's how language works. You only speak languages by choice when you take up other languages later.

* "It’s a complicated issue that includes our histories, our current state of affairs, and our future" -- to whom? An issue only includes those things if an individual thinks about it that way.

* "as we act to eliminate oppression," -- If one sees "cultural appropriation" as oppression in any way, shape or form, one has much more serious issues to deal with than eliminating oppression.

. . . I didn't even get to the numbered points yet, but I'll leave it at that for now, since the above is already pretty long and I'm probably more or less wasting my time posting it here.

I'm still wondering what you're thinking it would be difficult to be informed about when it comes to drugs.

Okay, but there isn't anyone who doesn't come up with their own ideas. Even simply by focusing on someone else's work, you'll come up with unique interpretational ideas, for example.

So then there is something else other than that which informs potential action.

The greater risk for potentially uninformed and unprepared fatality comes to mind. — THX1138

What do you believe it's at all difficult to be informed about here?

Also, in your view it's morally wrong to do something to yourself that you're uninformed and unprepared for because?

I had a neighbor who beat his wife. When I objected, he told me to mind my own business. How do you suppose I knew he beat his wife? The deeper point is that we're mostly all mostly closely connected. If it could truly be the case that your behaviours would be no business of mine at all, likely I'd go my way. But it isn't. — tim wood

Inflicting nonconsensual violence on another person isn't at all the same thing as people engaging in consensual activities. It certainly is your business if someone is inflicting nonconsensual violence on someone else. It's not your (moral) business what people consensually choose to do.

a remarkable statement that takes you beyond the boundary of reasonable, rational discussion. — tim wood

It's not "beyond the boundary of reasonable, rational discussion" just because you say it is.

All I can imagine is that you're so ingrained into the current status quo that you can't parse something that would be that different from it.

There isn't really any other way he can present empirical evidence for his theory that the brain is just a big parallel processing machine with the right kind of information being copied from place to place. — Forgottenticket

Okay, but again, in the "what does that have to do with" department, what does that have to do with saying that consciousness is an illusion, with denying qualia, with denying the incorrigibility of subjective experience qua subjective experience, etc.?

A theory that brains work like "big parallel processing machines" is fine. It's just that it has nothing to do with the claims Dennett wants to make about subjective experience.

Are the irrelevancies something other than that which informs potential action?

You said mental things are done by the brain. What if the atoms we were referring to make up the neurons in your brain? — Harry Hindu

If you're talking about brains functioning in mental ways, sure. But contextually you didn't seem to be talking about that.

A philosopher can be someone who has studied the works of others and they need not really have their own ideas - they are essentially scholars if philosophy who regurgitate the words and thoughts of others in various ways (some more uniquely than others). — I like sushi

I don't believe that really describes anyone.

It's all in the language and the concreteness of the examples. Philosophy most broadly is thinking about thinking. First step is to think, to learn to think. (And If anyone knows any place this was taught, please describe it here.) And as well that there's good evidence that children's brains may not be up to aspects of the various tasks that thinking about thinking may require.

I do not have it in hand, but I am pretty sure that Aristotle remarked that philosophy isn't for children. — tim wood

I first became seriously interested in philosophy when I was 11 years old. Diving into the field at that age had many benefits for me, both at the time and later on in my life.

There is no thing else, other than that which informs potential action. — fresco

If that were the case, then why would we point out that that's the only important thing? What are you making a distinction with respect to re the word "only"?

Aside from that, the question remains: if there is only x, what makes it the case that x is important or matters?

You're supposing that there somehow are proper names that no one has said or thought?

I don't see that you have provided any supporting claims, hence "naysaying". — Izat So

What I'm asking you for is supporting claims. Why do I have to supply them when you don't, when you're the one initiating claims?

I just did ! — fresco

No, you didn't.

What I'm looking for is something like this:

"What makes it the case that only facilitating the choice of future action, including the next bunch of words is important or matters, contra anything else being important or mattering is . . . . " and then you fill in the blank.

You didn't supply that, so you didn't supply what I'm asking for.

Estimated deaths due to drug overdoses in the US in 2017, 70,000+. About 200 dead people per day every day!
(https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates)
According to Terrapin, there is nothing wrong there. — tim wood

Correct. Why on Earth you'd think that anyone would have some moral obligation to do everything they can to live as long as possible, I don't know.

All of those thing, then, are someone else's business somehow some way. — tim wood

There's no way these things are anyone else's business so that there's a moral problem with them. The moral problem would be prohibiting people from doing things that are risky, that can threaten their own health, even their own life.

And where the community is concerned, the community has an implied right to exercise some control. — tim wood

Implied . . .via people who want to control others making it up?

IMO, there is something "wrong" (immoral) with going full laissez faire in the case of drugs. — THX1138

You don't seem to mention what you think is wrong with it.

What would you say makes it the case that something is important or that something matters?

For example, what would make it the case that only facilitating the choice of future action, including the next bunch of words is important or matters, versus something else being important or mattering?

is there anything wrong with taking illegal drugs? Yes? No? — tim wood

No. That's simple enough. ;-)

How are your imaginings, dreams and inner dialog subjective if I can refer to them with language and use them as explanations for your behavior that I percieve? — Harry Hindu

They're mental things done by the brain. If we use the term "subjective" to refer to mental phenomena, then they're subjective by definition. The definition just suggested in no way hinges on reference, whether any reference is possible, whether we have explanations for anything, whether you can perceive something, etc.

How is that any different than talking about atoms as an explanation for the behavior of matter that I perceive? — Harry Hindu

The difference is that those atoms aren't part of a material system that amounts to mental phenomena.

What makes us think that there is a what it is like for a bat, but not ask the same question of a computer robot with sensory systems? — Harry Hindu

We know that consciousness arises given certain sorts of materials in certain sorts of relationships/structures, when it undergoes certain sorts of processes. We don't know if it's possible for consciousness to arise in other sorts of materials, structures, etc. So it's better to start with fewer unknowns.

It fits more into a behavioral, functionalist epistemology. — Forgottenticket

Which seems to be starting from an assumption that there aren't qualia, or at least that there aren't subjective experiences qua subjective experiences that are worth talking about. But that approach isn't going to do anything but preach to the choir. It's not addressing the objections that it's "posing" itself as if it's addressing.

If one assumes there is an objective reality in which there are constraints, how could one believe in anything else than deterministic or indeterministic laws to describe these constraints? — leo

I want to try to keep this relatively simple (with an emphasis on "relatively"), but as I mentioned, I'm not a realist on laws. I'm not a realist on any abstracts, actually. That's one facet of my nominalism.

I see what is usually parsed as laws as something similar to trope nominalism. Particulars are neither "completely random" nor subject to laws per se, but instead simply have ways they at least tend to "behave." This means that not just any arbitrary thing is going to (be able to) occur--so there are constraints in that sense, but it also means that things don't work akin to strong determinism, they don't literally "follow laws" in any sense. There are similarities of "behavior" tendencies akin to other property similarities, and particularly that fact is what leads to interpreting things in terms of laws.

If anyone reading this is unfamiliar with nominalism in general or with trope nominalism, it's worth reading at least the Wikipedia entry on those topics (the basics of trope nominalism will be described in the overall nominalism article) to get the gist of it.

But I'd argue that if morality starts with an individual then we need an account of what makes him or her be moral. — tim wood

Morality is preferences about interpersonal behavior. It's not any particular preferences. Many people have many preferences in common, and that's both due to biological similarities and cultural influences, but morality isn't cultural primarily, because cultures can't literally make judgments. Only individuals can.

Sure, but if your mind is physical and follows indeterministic laws, — leo

Aside from "indeterministic laws" being a questionable idea in general, why would one have to believe in indeterminstic laws?

In any event, it could work that you're able to bias probabilities.

One doesn't have to believe that physical things are deterministic.

The free will I care about is the ability to choose between a tuna and a turkey sandwich, or between which of a handful of movies to watch, etc.

No, you’re merely naysaying and as I’ve said in the OP I’m not interested in disputing the science ( neuro paleontology and other areas of research), just in exploring the implications. — Izat So

I'm going to naysay something if I believe it's incorrect. And if you're going to interact with people in a philosophical context, you need to expect that, and you need to be able to support, against objections, claims you make or endorse. That's how the whole philosophy game works.

Your assertions are thoroughly missing the perspective I’m sharing. — Izat So

I'm disagreeing with the perspective, because I believe it gets things wrong.