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

Again, seriousness has little to do with it. Even if I considered these conversations to be the most trivial matters in the world, the opinions I express in them would still have causes, and where empirical, would relate to evidence from experience.

I can't see what is so 'friendly' about claiming that BLM doctored the mobile phone footage of an arrest to make it look like murder, which then suddenly becomes fusty and academic when the actual source of that claim is added.

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

Really? You're seriously asking that question?

What on earth is the matter with chatting over a beer that should be disparaged? — Bitter Crank

Did I disparage it in some way? So far as I can tell I only said that this [the forum] was not such a thing.

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

Do you mean temporarily? Otherwise not sure what you mean.

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. — synthesis

How does Dr. Skeptic know that? What methods does he have access to that medical science does not?

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." — synthesis

But isn't that also what "standard" medicine does? Only that they do not just listen to you talk, but also "listen" to various other bodily functions?

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. — synthesis

So, if you want to boil a pot of water, do you randomly do things to it until it boils? Pray to the gods to boil the water? Or do you use your understanding of physics to predict what course of events will make the water boil?

How you possibly understand the true nature of anything? — synthesis

How did the "true nature" of anything get into this discussion? What's a "true nature"? Why does it matter?

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey. — synthesis

How do you know? If you don't think we have access to reality, you cannot make claims about it.

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. — synthesis

How is this epistemological position either left or right?

26 pages in and I'm still not sure what "leftist" means. I like the following extremes to develop a spectrum on which we can move, since the left-right distinction has become fudged:

socially conservative vs. socially progressive
collectivist vs. individualist
negative freedom vs. positive freedom
economic marxism vs. laissez-faire corporatist capitalism
redisitributive justice (eg. fairness) vs. formal justice (eg. if rules are followed outcomes are always just)
minarchism vs. authoritarianism

The funny thing is extremes of "social construction" are the genuine materialists. They recognise that the finite construction of things applies not only of our social relations, but also of physics relations too. Gravity, for example, doesn't just always occur. It is a manifestation of specific objects on relation to each other, a thing coupled with other things (it's environment), which happen as they do on account of how those things exist. At any moment, we might have a thing with a different relation, an object which behaves differently. The pull of gravity is soemthing which has to be made true, over not, by the existence of the things at the time.

You're right about some Marxists being upset with this kind of material account, but that is because they are in some respect idealist: they have notions or concepts of how society will necessarily work, that there is a set of outcomes which will occur, secured beyond the action of finite material states in a counterfactual relation.

This is a treatment that a professional psychologist devised — baker

... for someone wanting to be more rational. Do you think, say, the NRA want to be more rational, the KKK, the Proud Boys? (Give up? Answer is: No, they don't.)

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

Even better, you could figure out how best to recognise them when you use them against others. Maybe using that professional psychologist's treatment, or by thinking really hard.

I think most biases are revealed to us by trusting others' contrary experience. It's difficult to do this when your schema for handling the testimony of others is to separate it into that which supports your position and that which is part of a conspiracy involving the Clintons, the Jews, Hunter Biden and the reanimated corpses of South American de facto dictators.

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. — TheWillowOfDarkness

:up:

Post-truth is incompatible with post-modernism. It's sort of to deconstruction what intelligent design is to evolution.

Both sides are the problem, said the guy who paints people he disagrees with as pawns and pretending he isn't one himself. So we have non-pawns and pawns, and within pawns there's whatever you're alluding to on two opposing sides as well. Yawn. — Benkei

The world isn't black and white. Thinking that it is is only limiting your options and your freedoms. I'm not the one seeing the world in black and white. You are. Pathetic.

Your tactic seems be, "if I can't make a good arguement against what Harry said, then I'll just accuse him if being what he is accusing me of being."

Does thinking for yourself still mean that you are a pawn? If so then all you've done is relegate the word, "pawn" into meaninglessness.

It does seem like I'm the only one here advocating for the abolishment of political parties. So who am I a pawn of in saying such things? I really want to see you back this up.

EDIT: Now that I've thought about it a bit more, Benkei is taking a tactic out of the theists handbook in asserting that even atheism is a religion. Benkei is trying to assert being a-political is still being political.

Politics IS a religion - a means of controlling individuals.

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. — counterpunch

What I enjoy about these conversations is other interesting people sharing their points of view. It is not my intention to convince you of anything. I am simply providing another perspective, one that works really well for me because it is my reality (the sum total of my experience in intellectual form).

I have been going back and forth a bit between the intellectual and the non-intellectual and perhaps that's what has you a bit confused. I thought you would understand. Let's get back to your example of the man who is pounding the stake. Yes, the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound and you receive the visual image before the auditory signal but you contend that this doesn't change the reality of the situation. OK.

Now what happens if the same dynamic takes place infinitely? What is the effect then?

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

Again, seriousness has little to do with it. Even if I considered these conversations to be the most trivial matters in the world, the opinions I express in them would still have causes, and where empirical, would relate to evidence from experience.

I can't see what is so 'friendly' about claiming that BLM doctored the mobile phone footage of an arrest to make it look like murder, which then suddenly becomes fusty and academic when the actual source of that claim is added. — Isaac

What I am saying might make more sense to you in ten or fifteen years. Maybe not. I know I come from a very different place, but isn't that good? Many people have a problem with those whose thinking is non-traditional.

Perhaps you can take solace in the idea that one of these days my thinking will be old hat, replaced by new ways to link letters and words and numbers to create realities much more interesting.

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

Really? You're seriously asking that question?[/quote]

Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world. And try to relax. It's Sunday :).

What I am saying might make more sense to you in ten or fifteen years. — synthesis

Why on earth would it?

I know I come from a very different place, but isn't that good? — synthesis

I don't see how on the face of it. Some differences are good, others bad.

Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world. — synthesis

That you'll not simply float away. Gravity

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.
— synthesis

How does Dr. Skeptic know that? What methods does he have access to that medical science does not?

He knows through his experience, i.e., he has followed the SOC (standard of care) many, many times which has left him wanting.
— Echarmion

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."
— synthesis

But isn't that also what "standard" medicine does? Only that they do not just listen to you talk, but also "listen" to various other bodily functions?

Well, that's the theory (just like the theory is that politicians act in their constituency's best interests). But you have to really listen and this takes time and, as well, being able to tap into what the person is saying.

Most providers do not have the time nor are they particularly interested in tapping into anything other then getting what needs to be done in order to satisfy TPTB which exert draconian control over the process.
— Echarmion

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.
— synthesis

So, if you want to boil a pot of water, do you randomly do things to it until it boils? Pray to the gods to boil the water? Or do you use your understanding of physics to predict what course of events will make the water boil?

Boiling water has as much to do with understanding as does a dung beetle's need to understand in order to perform its vital duty.
— Echarmion

How you possibly understand the true nature of anything?
— synthesis

How did the "true nature" of anything get into this discussion? What's a "true nature"? Why does it matter?

True nature is sort of a non-intellectual idea (I know). I've always kind of thought of understand as follows...it's not what you can understand that's important, but what you cannot understand that means everything.
— Echarmion

Reality is not like the movie our brains convey.
— synthesis

How do you know? If you don't think we have access to reality, you cannot make claims about it.

I don't. I prefer to think of life as discrete moments (outside of time), albeit connected.

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.
— synthesis

How is this epistemological position either left or right? — Echarmion

It's not. It's wisdom passed down over the millennia.

Even better, you could figure out how best to recognise them when you use them against others. — Kenosha Kid

Why? What good would that do me?

I think most biases are revealed to us by trusting others' contrary experience.

Actually, I'm undecided on most things.:p It's both a blessing and a curse.

Why? What good would that do me? — baker

Good does not always mean good for me. We're a social species whose instinctive ideas of what is good are honed on the basis that what's good for me and what's good for others all comes out in the wash. They're good instincts to trust (good for you). :)

Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage.

Since I don't hold any position of power, it's irrelevant what biases I may hold in regard to others, as long as those biases aren't to my disadvantage. — baker

Everyone's in a position of power all the time. In the aforementioned context of right wing extremists peddling their uninvestigated biases, those biases have the power to compel others toward biased, hateful beliefs. How do we know? Because said peddlers themselves acquired those beliefs through exposure to others.

Likewise, we can help people we love better if we are unbiased against the particular challenges they face.

I remember my (now ex-) girlfriend telling me about guys beeping her, yelling at her, slowing their cars down, winding down their windows, laughing, when she was out jogging. I found that difficult to process. It suggested that, when I wasn't looking, the world operated in a starkly different way.

I might have told this story before on here, apologies if so. A friend of mine was in a guided hiking group through the rainforest in Australia. The guide said that if they looked carefully, they'd see these giant spiders. My friend spent the whole time looking, never saw one, until near the end when he overheard the guide telling someone that you have to adjust your focus to see them because they hang between the trees and our brains have difficulty focusing on the spaces between things.

So he really focused and eventually he saw a giant arachnid dangling between the two trees in front of him. Then he turned around. They were fucking EVERYWHERE! He'd been surrounded by them the whole time, he just didn't know how to see them.

The girlfriend after the girlfriend after that told me a similar thing about guys intimidating her by yelling, slowing down etc. but also about how it didn't happen if she was with a man. Once, she and this guy had had to walk single file down a narrow path. Another man coming the other way saw her but not him, verbally abused her, then saw her friend and apologised... TO HIM!

After that I started seeing it everywhere. It's not that it hadn't been happening around me, it's just that I never tuned in. I'm in no particular position of power either, but at least I have the power to tell creeps to go fuck themselves when they start harassing lone women in the street. All because one friend who went to Australia and another who once had to walk single file taught me not to trust my biases over their experience.

Give me an example of something I should take as a "given" in your world.
— synthesis

That you'll not simply float away. Gravity — Isaac

If you believe that all time is taking place at the same time, then perhaps you should go to the closest window and there I am...simply floating by.

I don't understand why nobody in this thread can accept that this forum doesn't fall on the exact midpoint between Brett's political views and whatever liberal views he had in mind when he made this thread. It should be obvious.

I don't understand why nobody in this thread can accept that this forum doesn't fall on the exact midpoint between Brett's political views and whatever liberal views he had in mind when he made this thread. It should be obvious. — Garth

Pfhorrest did a poll. The forum leans toward the left, unsurprisingly.

Then what are we arguing about?

Then what are we arguing about? — Garth

Ummm dunno. Looks like whether or not facts should impact our beliefs, post-truth versus empiricism.

Everyone's in a position of power all the time. — Kenosha Kid

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? Excatly.

Likewise, we can help people we love better if we are unbiased against the particular challenges they face.

What exactly are we talking about? Do you think I'm a right-winger?

I remember my (now ex-) girlfriend telling me about guys beeping her, yelling at her, slowing their cars down, winding down their windows, laughing, when she was out jogging. I found that difficult to process. It suggested that, when I wasn't looking, the world operated in a starkly different way.

Good morning to you, too!

So he really focused and eventually he saw a giant arachnid dangling between the two trees in front of him. Then he turned around. They were fucking EVERYWHERE! He'd been surrounded by them the whole time, he just didn't know how to see them.

Same goes for when one is picking chestnuts or looking for mushrooms. Or noticing how many other people have a car of the same make and model as oneself.
Then there's a bias there as well, one of jumping to conclusions where, if one is looking for X, one is more likely to see it, and also interpret Y and Z as X.

After that I started seeing it everywhere. It's not that it hadn't been happening around me, it's just that I never tuned in. I'm in no particular position of power either, but at least I have the power to tell creeps to go fuck themselves when they start harassing lone women in the street. All because one friend who went to Australia and another who once had to walk single file taught me not to trust my biases over their experience.

Well, more power to you, then!

Then what are we arguing about? — Garth

I think the real topic is if the leftist bias hinders open discussion, which is crucial for the forum to work.

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? — baker

Wut?

What exactly are we talking about? Do you think I'm a right-winger? — baker

No, nor do I think I *was* a right-winger. Nonetheless examining our biases to avoid misleading or, in this case, failing to protect others is important.

Then there's a bias there as well, one of jumping to conclusions where, if one is looking for X, one is more likely to see it, and also interpret Y and Z as X. — baker

That's true, but in my example the difference was qualitative (no spiders --> many spiders) rather than quantitative (some spiders --> many spiders). Let's not forget, he was *always* looking for spiders; the difference came when he changed how he looked at the world around him.

I don't think the "leftist bias" on this forum inhibits discussion.

I think the behavior of certain members, some of which probably would style themselves as leftist, inhibits discussion.

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone?
— baker
Wut? — Kenosha Kid

You said:

Everyone's in a position of power all the time. — Kenosha Kid

To which I replied:
Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone?
Because they weren't in a position of power then. Or would you say they were?

No, nor do I think I *was* a right-winger. Nonetheless examining our biases to avoid misleading or, in this case, failing to protect others is important.

Sure.

That's true, but in my example the difference was qualitative (no spiders --> many spiders) rather than quantitative (some spiders --> many spiders).

As I exemplified right away with looking for chestnuts and mushrooms. I experience it every ear: I go to collect chestnuts, I know where the trees are, but when I'm first there, I don't notice the chestnuts on the ground. I really have to look to begin seeing them, and then I continue seeing them.

I think the real topic is if the leftist bias hinders open discussion. — ssu

It should hinder e.g. racism, which tends to live on the right. But not always (e.g. anti-Semitism in the British Labour party.) It doesn't matter where it comes from, it should not be tolerated imo.

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone? — baker

Ah. Yes, always.

I go to collect chestnuts, I know where the trees are, but when I'm first there, I don't notice the chestnuts on the ground. I really have to look to begin seeing them, and then I continue seeing them. — baker

Ah okay. Yes, same thing. Not the same thing as confirmation bias, though.

Were your girlfriends who were accosted by men when they were alone?
— baker

Ah. Yes, always. — Kenosha Kid

I think he’s asking if they were in a position of power then.

I think he’s asking if they were in a position of power then. — Pfhorrest

I'm reading it as:

Were your girlfriends (who were accosted by men when they were) alone? — Kenosha Kid

Without punctuation it reads as gibberish to me.

It should hinder e.g. racism, which tends to live on the right. But not always (e.g. anti-Semitism in the British Labour party.) It doesn't matter where it comes from, it should not be tolerated imo. — Kenosha Kid

As you yourself noticed, racism is a separate issue and not dependent on the right/left divide. More typically is that the response if someone brings up ideas of some thinker or philosopher is quite different depending on the political side. For some reason, one side invokes a serious and cordial response, while another is invokes jeering. But this is quite natural for especially those who feel passionately of their ideology and see the opposite side as basically evil.

If the tables would be turned around (meaning there would be only a few leftists here), I think there would be even more jeering and hostility, which I think is something because of the times we live in and the vicious culture of social media (that has settled here too).

And being a centrist is like being an agnostic: both atheists and theists are annoyed at you being so indecisive about such a clear yes/no question.