I don't know that he was stockpiling ammo. His previous conviction was for possession of 13 firearms. Perhaps the ammo was left over - and he just failed to get rid of it. An offence, under the terms of his bail, but not in itself material to this issue. I'll tell you what is odd though - how suddenly, you've come over all law and order, when only last month you were echoing calls to defund the police!!

Even if this was a scientific journal, any breakthrough requires taking accepted thought and jumping up and down on it until it is no longer recognized as truth.
— synthesis

No. No breakthrough requires that. Breakthroughs require careful and diligent hard work researching and checking, peer-reviewing, checking again, correcting mistakes, more checking... and then, finally maybe publishing. It pisses me off intently that after all that hard work someone claiming to be interested in the subject (whatever it is) can't even be bothered to type the question into a search engine to find out if anyone has done such painstaking work. — Isaac

You are missing my point.

There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama.

You also missed my point about breakthroughs, as well. As you may or may not know, science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward. History is replete with examples.

I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict.

There are two types of conversations you can have. One a friendly chat over a couple of beers type of chat and another where you are attempting to prove a point (for some academic or professional reason). I kind of approach this forum as a friendly chat. No need for the drama. — synthesis

Firstly, it's not about the nature of the conversation, it's about the nature of the beliefs. Why would anyone have such beliefs unless they had some evidence for them? Surely you don't just adopt your beliefs at random? The point is, that even for a 'down the pub' type of conversation, you should have the reason for your belief ready to hand. If you don't have a reason, then why tell everyone about it?

Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knwing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause.

science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward. — synthesis

I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence.

I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict. — counterpunch

Again, if you can't tell the difference between an opinion which is relevant to the framing of beliefs and a statement of fact then there's little hope for you. That we should support our empirical claims is an opinion of mine, it requires no evidential support. That BLM fabricated the mobile phone footage is a statement of fact (and an pernicious one at that) it requires evidence.

Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. We're not friends, I' not interested in your opinion for it's own sake - why on earth would I be? I'm interested in the stuff other people know, and the way they might frame it, but I can't see the interest in just knowing what version of events some random people have pinned their flag to without cause. — Isaac

Well, Issac, I would imagine if you spoke with every participant in this forum, you would get many different reasons why they are here. You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views.

science is quite political and therefore subject to all the nonsense that goes on in that sphere. Many times when researchers discover better ways/problematic issues that do not serve the primary interests of TPTB, it becomes difficult to move forward.
— synthesis

I fail to see what that's got to do with failing to present any evidence. There's been not a single scientific revolution which was not accompanied by, motivated by, evidence. Scientists do not just randomly decide the status quo has got it wrong, they do so on the basis of evidence. — Isaac

There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven? Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).

Now, Issac, if you are going to rant and rave at me, no need (as I already have a wife :). Let's just have a nice conversation and my POV might begin to make sense to you as the ideas unfold (or maybe not).

I suppose, if you two are arguing, and don't feel that listing academic sources is any way to resolve the issue - you could each put your cases to a neutral third party and agree to accept the verdict. — counterpunch

Although I am sure you could probably find some academic sources to support just about any claim, my point was to keep this casual. I am interested in how my conversant partner thinks, not how some academic that might have their head up their ass (and is publishing for all the wrong reasons) thinks.

Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that). — synthesis

Oh? Now I am interested. Is there a less primitive tool out there?

There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven? — synthesis

I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?

I think quantum physics is philosophically mistaken in assuming the idea of fundamental building blocks. Rather, I think quantum physics is a science of the frayed edge of reality where something bleeds into nothing; that quantum effects can be explained as the lack - and gaining of existential properties, location velocity, mass - etc, by things that don't quite exist, and that the central focus of reality is the causal, deterministic, macroscopic reality we inhabit, where all the forces intersect.

I also think that BLM created a false narrative with carefully edited phonecam footage - for example, footage edited to exclude George Floyd fighting four police officers while handcuffed, yelling "I can't breathe" when clearly he could, and preventing them from putting him in a vehicle. All that was omitted. All we saw until police bodycam footage was leaked, was Floyd pinned down - not the urgent need for him to be pinned down.

Since the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc!

Secondly, this is not a 'chat down the pub'. — Isaac

You are very serious about these conversations, me, not so much. I am here to relax and enjoy other people's views. — synthesis

What on earth is the matter with chatting over a beer that should be disparaged? Samuel Johnson's discussion group met at a bar/restaurant and included luminaries like Edmund Burke, Joshua Reynolds, Oliver Goldsmith, Adam Smith, James Boswell, Edward Gibbon, et al. They ate and drank and talked.

Granted, other than present company we don't quite measure up to the reputations of Johnson's group, but we do what we can. I'd be quite happy to move this whole thing to a nice place with good food and an assortment of good drink.

I think quantum physics is philosophically mistaken in assuming the idea of fundamental building blocks. Rather, I think quantum physics is a science of the frayed edge of reality where something bleeds into nothing; that quantum effects can be explained as the lack - and gaining of existential properties, location velocity, mass - etc, by things that don't quite exist, and that the central focus of reality is the causal, deterministic, macroscopic reality we inhabit, where all the forces intersect. — counterpunch

Fair enough, as far as a metaphysical explanation goes. Though I think it's important to not mix physical and metaphysical perspectives on this. On a physical level, what matter is to have the best (most powerful in terms of predictions) model that can account for all the observations. That's the "shut up and calculate" approach. Interpretations are only relevant insofar as they allow new models that allow for more predictions.

The metaphysical perspective is to ask what all of this means. That'd be something like we're reaching the frayed edge of reality, or we have basically reached the limits of our power to perceive and comprehend so the weird behaviour we're seeing isn't actually ontological, but rather is the result of us actually charting the border of our epistemological capabilities.

It's not my metaphysical assumption that there are fundamental building blocks. That's the assumption carried forth by quantum physics. I didn't introduce a metaphysical perspective. I pointed out its existence, and wondered if it's true. I see no reason to believe it is - and, trying to explain the weird behaviour of sub, sub atomic particles - I'm thinking double slit experiment, EPR, quantum tunnelling and the like, points rather, to a lack of existential properties that define matter on the macroscopic level i.e. location, velocity, spatial dimension, mass, etc. I suspect the behaviour is ontological, insofar as that's an appropriate term for something that doesn't have qualities like location and mass for causality to act upon, but has velocity and spatial dimension, like a photon.

Redacted.

Although I am scientifically trained, I only see it as a tool (and a rather primitive one at that).
— synthesis

Oh? Now I am interested. Is there a less primitive tool out there? — Echarmion

Temporally, absolutely, but, practically speaking, I think not.

There are many different directions we can take that so let me go in this one. Science (like all knowledge) changes constantly, correct? Why should I take anything postulated out there seriously if it is only going to be dis-proven?
— synthesis

I am not quite sure what you're saying here. Do you not believe that, say, atoms are made out of protons, neutrons and electrons, which are made out of quarks, because tomorrow someone might figure out more fundamental building blocks to reality? Do you not use Newtons laws in common cases because they have been superseded by Einstein?[/quote]

Yes, that's part of it. The rest of it concerns keeping the first part in mind. Let me give you an example...

A patient presents in your office with the complaint of chronic headache. Don't worry about not being in healthcare (if you're not). You take thorough medical, family, and social health history, do a full physical exam and order comprehensive blood work. You are able to rule out the most common headache etiologies and are left sitting on your exam stool wondering what to say tell this patient (other than, "I have no idea," but these are the steps we advise our patients to take in these cases, blah, blah, blah...").

If I was a (wo)man of science (as most health care providers are), the above would be the general way you would go about handling the above patient (give or take). Let's consider an alternative. Let's substitute our man of science for a man of someone who sees science only as a primitive tool.

The same patient with the same chronic headache symptoms presents. How might our skeptic approach this same patient? Number one, Dr. Skeptic understands that medical science (in many cases) will not only not get you to the correct diagnosis, but it will only serve to confuse the matter. So what he is going to do (before he does anything) is talk with his patient. There's a very old saying in medicine that you might have heard before, "If you listen closely enough to the patient, s/he will tell you EXACTLY what is wrong."

Now, I could go on about this but I'll stop here to see if you are with me.

What you've got there is either a brain tumour or a junkie trying to score pain meds!

Since the invention of the computer, science has really come together. The ability to process large amounts of data, and communicate ideas, was a game changer. Science does now constitute a highly valid and coherent understanding of the middle ground reality we inhabit, and should be taken seriously - as an understanding of reality. The earth does orbit the sun, human beings did evolve, heat does migrate from warmer to cooler bodies, etc! — counterpunch

I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct.

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.

And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access. — synthesis

Is that the Reality?

Looks self-refuting to me.

I had a good friend who used to say that, "Things have never been any better or worse then they have ever been," and over time I believe I have come to the conclusion that he may be correct. — synthesis

I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!)

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access. — synthesis

Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists.

Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms.

And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything? — synthesis

It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible.

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
— synthesis

Is that the Reality?

Looks self-refuting to me. — Banno

Absolutely.

I don't understand the saying. It doesn't seem to make sense. Either it's a truism - meaning, "things are what they have been in every moment" - or it implies an eternal unchanging state, in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. (Yes, dis-improves is a word - I looked it up!) — counterpunch

The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).

As far as Reality (or reality) is concerned, the human mind is simply incapable of gaining access.
— synthesis

Untrue. Or rather, dependent on defining reality in inaccessible terms. Most basically, the sensory organs evolve in relation to reality, and are tested insofar as they allow for the survival of the organism. If a monkey, swinging through the trees saw branches further away, or nearer than they actually were - physics would ensure his extinction. The reality we experience is accurate to the objective reality that exists. — counterpunch

Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).

Perception may be limited to tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, but that doesn't mean what we see is not real. If you would define reality in terms of the entirety of the magnetic spectrum, or the fact atoms never touch each other, and so forth, then you can define reality beyond reach, but to my mind, science begins at our fingertips - not at the far end of the universe, and has discovered the range of the electromagnetic spectrum, and the space between atoms. — counterpunch

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?

And although it may seem reasonable to assume that the earth orbits the sun, etc., that's doing a great deal of assuming where I would contend that it is impossible to understand even the simplest of things (if for no other reason than each event is preceded by an infinite number of events determining such. How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis

It is not necessary to know the location and velocity of every sub-atomic particle in the universe in every moment to experience the real. I can close my eyes and run my finger across the keyboard and experience the reality of it. Truth isn't absolute truth. Reality isn't inaccessible. — counterpunch

There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth (of course, there is really neither but these are the game we must play to communicate among our own species).

Absolute Truth exist outside of the intellect whereas relative truth your personal reality (created by your experience).

If Reality was accessible, do you believe people would be wasting their time doing things like this? :)

in that nothing ever improves or dis-improves. — counterpunch

I think he was referring to meliorism. Certainly conditions change, but looking at the hole, are we in a progression or a procession.

The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally). — synthesis

I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind.

Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative). — synthesis

I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it?

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing? — synthesis

Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am.

Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!

Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved.

Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality?

There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth — synthesis

No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.

there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth — counterpunch

Completely unlike the right wing populist respect for truth?

Completely unlike the right wing populist respect for truth? — Pfhorrest

Yes, I think it is different. For the right, it's lying. For the left, it's post modernism.

The "post modernists" aren't against truth. Indeed, the favourite targets of the right are all about the truth: the various objective states the world and society takes. They just recognise the objective states are a contingent formation: a truth put there by moment of existence, rather than something put there by a transcendent force or derived from a concept or principle.

In truly postmodern fashion, “postmodernism” isn’t even a really well-defined idea to begin with, so I think you’ll need to be a little more specific if you want to critique it.

Maybe the extremes of social constructivism that claim things like “reality is a social construct”?

NB that that view is very unpopular with some parts of the left... like Marxists, who are hardcore materialists.

The idea is that as some things improve, others dis-improve, by definition (and proportionally).
— synthesis

I see. I guess, but I don't see things that way myself. It implies futility - like all we're doing is re-arranging the deck chairs. I think science is a path, and it leads somewhere; at the very least, a long term, prosperous and sustainable future for humankind. — counterpunch

Think of it this way...things are as good as they can be each and every moment.

Simply the fact that we cannot access the present (time-lag between event and perception thereof) certainly suggests that we are not experiencing reality (Absolute or relative).
— synthesis

I once watched a man driving in a stake. He was some distance away, across a railway line. I was on the other side. I watched him strike with the hammer, and heard the sound of him striking the stake after, out of sync with his movements. So, here are my questions: Was there a man? Was he driving in a stake? Did his blows make a sound? Did I hear the sound? If you answered yes to all these questions, what was not real about it? — counterpunch

Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters).

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. As a matter of fact (whatever that may be), nobody has a clue what vision is. So, what are you seeing?
— synthesis

Yes, it is. It could not be otherwise. The idea that the reality we experience is subjectively constructed is false. It's largely a product of western philosophy written in the wake of Galileo's trial for the heresy for proving the earth orbits the sun. His contemporary, Descartes - wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in terror of the Church, in which he doubted all that could be doubted, and found the only thing he knew for certain was cogito ergo sum - I think therefore I am. — counterpunch

How about if Reality is actually discrete moments, but somehow connected. Each moment, just as it should be, perfect in every way.

Subjectivism, and ultimately, post modernism follow from this root - and currently, there's a left wing academic interest in undermining the possibility of truth. But it's a falsehood. Descartes' doubt was skeptical doubt, not rational doubt. If he'd stuck his hand in front of the fire, rather than a ball of wax, he would soon have discovered the undeniable existence of an objective reality - prior to cogito!

Further, as I've already told you, the senses are evolved in creatures that had to make accurate life and death decisions about reality, generation after generation. If the senses were not accurate to reality, human being could not have evolved. — counterpunch

Consider the following...what we know, we know before our intellect kicks-in. For example, you are walking down the street and you see a young boy about to dash into the street chasing after his errant ball at the same time a car is approaching at a high speed. Without thinking (before thinking), you grab the youngster's arm and save his life.

Out thinking takes what we perceive (before thinking and therefore before our filters can engage) and creates our own reality based on a lifetime of experience. It becomes easy to conclude that we all see the same stimuli differently based on this reasoning (and that can apply to everything we perceive).

Perhaps this is why our first judgement (impression) seems to be the best in many cases?

Furthermore, if reality is subjectively constructed, how can there be art, or traffic lights. Try going into traffic court and saying, you may say the light was red, but subjectively, it was green! Go to an art gallery and listen to people speaking about the brushstrokes, and the lines and the colours. They are clearly seeing the same thing. Or do you suggest they are subjectively constructing the same unreality? — counterpunch

Who's to say that everybody doesn't see everything differently despite the fact that they recognize it by the same name? Differences in eye anatomy (clarity of the cornea, aqueous, lens, and vitreous) alone would insure that any wavelength would appear differently to each observer. And that's just optical clarity. How about the neurological/electrical complexity of the retina as well as the optic pathway all the way back to the occipital cortex? There are literally an infinite number of modifications that could take place to make our perceptions unique. And that's just scratching the surface. You really believe we see things the same?

And you know what, everything is just that way.

There is Absolute Truth and there is relative truth
— synthesis

No. These are thought experiment concepts of truth. With absolute truth - you place yourself outside reality, looking in at some imagined entirety of it - and condescend to the man trying to make sense of the world around him with his limited vision. By relative truth you mean subjective truth - and the post modernist implication from subjectivism, that all truths are relative. But subjectivism is false. Truth is in correspondence to an objective reality.[/quote]

Again, Absolute Truth exists outside of the intellect. It is permanent and unchanging. Relative truth is impermanent (in constant flux). Although all knowledge is indeed relative, the left got it wrong (imagine that!) by refusing to acknowledge that although truth is relative, human beings still agree to live by it (a moral code) just the same.

Think of it this way...things are as good as they can be each and every moment. — synthesis

Or as Voltaire had it - "all's for the best in the best of all possible worlds." A perspective, known derisively as Panglossianism.

Since Reality is something you experience outside of the intellect, there are no answers to your questions. OTOH, your (personal) reality was whatever your experience was, but keep in mind that it was considerably different than what was taking place (due to all kinds of filters). — synthesis

There was a man. There was a stake. He was driving in the stake. The fact there was a delay between perception - in terms of the sight and the sound, doesn't mean it wasn't real. It just means that light travels faster than sound, and that is also an explicable and predictable physical reality.

You don't seem able to follow the argument, and engage in actual debate. Everything you say is mere contradiction. So, believe whatever you like. It doesn't matter anymore. Humankind is surely doomed - because, like you, they're wrong, and what is wrong cannot survive. It's cause and effect.

You say that I have not answered your questions. I am not sure what they were exactly because it is hard to find them in this long thread. — Jack Cummins

*sigh*
If only the forum wouldn't have that nifty link feature that makes it super easy to track back who said what, where, when.

What adds insult to injury is telling someone born without your advantages that their failures are because they are not your equal.
/.../
People who benefit from systematic inequality point the finger at the disadvantaged and insist they are intrinsically lesser than the advantaged. It's unfortunately a quirk of psychology that being born privileged turns you into a jerk. — Kenosha Kid

IOW, standard examples of the self-serving bias and the fundamental attribution error.

I want to figure out how to best guard against them when they are used against me.