Comments

  • The Scientific Method
    ↪180 Proof


    I should give that a read — sounds interesting.

    I also think that there is a scientific attitude, a characteristic way of approaching problems. — Quixodian

    I agree with you. But I think a similar attitude can exist in philosophy, and that what we call science is an offshoot of this. The difference being that scientists’ ontology is naturalism.

    ↪Echarmion


    Others seem to be understanding the OP just fine, so I’m not sure what more you’re looking for. Either science is unique in some way — as many claim, and which I myself believe — or it isn’t. If it is, what makes it unique? The scientific method? That’s also been claimed, and I don’t agree with it.

    Scientific practice ideally consists in unbiased and (as much as is humanly possible) presuppositionless inquiry. — Janus

    But it does presuppose naturalism, does it not?

    I don’t know if it’s humanly possible, as you mentioned. It does seem like the best we have, but even the best makes some very basic assumptions.

    In my view, it'd be hard to sincerely act as if anything goes. — plaque flag

    I don’t mean to say that anything goes. I don’t believe that. I’m saying the idea of the scientific method is mostly wrong-headed. Unless of course we want to define it as something different from what is usually meant.

    However this is itself a danger, because pseudo-science can also cloak itself in the garb of architectonic. Hence the confusion of the modern world. — Pantagruel

    A very important point, yes.
  • Climate change denial
    Does everybody want climate-change/global-warming to be "solved" ? — Agree to Disagree

    Anyone with an 6th grade understanding of climate change does, yes.

    True, the fossil fuel industry and their propaganda cronies probably don’t— but I’m not interested in narcissistic greed.

    Are the people who live in Moscow “suffering” from global-warming? — Agree to Disagree

    Questions like this is why I say you’re an average climate denier, or at least parroting their greatest hits.

    Do you really not understand how irrelevant this is? It’s the equivalent of bringing a snowball to the senate floor.
  • Climate change denial
    Questions about Eunice Foote's experiment: — Agree to Disagree

    You can look up the details if you want to. But what is your point? Are you seriously doubting whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Are you seriously suggesting that the rise in temperature we see globally is due to water vapor (a common denialist claim)?

    We can go into the weeds on the greenhouse effect and the physical properties of CO2 if you like. But as far as Foote’s specific experiment — who cares?
  • Is Philosophy still Relevant?
    ↪Pantagruel


    Depends on what you mean by philosophy, of course.

    Is asking universal questions irrelevant, for example? I don’t think so. I think we need it more than ever.

    How philosophy is thought of today, as one academic subject of many, taught by those with Ph.D.s, who mainly discuss the history of the great thinkers and great books…yeah, this professionalization is basically irrelevant today. May it die out sooner than later.
  • Climate change denial
    Calling me names seems to be your way of avoiding a real discussion of climate change. — Agree to Disagree

    Okay— so here’s a primer on climate change. Since you claim to want a discussion, and aren’t here to troll, lets begin. Let me know where you get confused…

    In explaining climate change, for people who are truly interested in learning about it, I always like to start with an easy experiment: you can take two glass containers -- one with room air and one with more CO2 added, and put it in the sun, seeing which one heats up the fastest. Easy, simple. In fact, Eunice Foote did exactly this experiment in 1856:

    EuniceFoote_Illustration_lrg.jpg

    Then we can ask: How much CO2 is in our atmosphere? Since trees take in CO2 and most living organisms let off CO2, there's always fluctuations. So the next thing would be to look at the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, measured all over the Earth -- starting in the Mauna Loa Volcanic Observatory in 1958 and expanding from there.

    What do we see? Concentrations go up and down a little, naturally, every year, because there are more leaves on trees in summer in the Northern Hemisphere than in winter. Yet the average rises every year, leading to the famous Keeling Curve:

    b546cb12-a273-4f7a-90f2-a2eec56fcb98.jpg

    That's just from 1958 to the present. When you look at the concentrations over the last 800 thousand years, an even more interesting trend emerges:

    https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/paleoCO2_2020dot_1400_2.jpg

    That's 412 parts per million currently, and the last highest level was about 350 thousand years ago at 300 ppm, before modern humans were even around.

    So we know (1) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and (2) that there is a lot more CO2 in the atmosphere now than in the last 800,000 years.

    One would think the planet would be warming, giving these two facts. So now we'd have to look to see how temperatures have fluctuated over time, and if increases in temperature correlates in any way with increases in CO2. Is there a correlation?

    Turns out there is.

    Over 100 years:

    temp-CO2.png

    And over 800 thousand years:

    graph-co2-temp-nasa.gif?ssl=1

    Then the question becomes: why is this happening? Where is all of this extra CO2 coming from -- and in such a relatively short period of time?

    The answer to that question is because of human activity, especially since the industrial revolution. As world population increases, and more trees are cut down (for fuel, houses, and to make room for raising livestock), there is less of a carbon "sponge."

    But on top of this, we're also burning things. Burning wood puts CO2 into the atmosphere. Cows and other livestock also release a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.

    But of course it's not only wood and not only livestock. The main culprit, it turns out -- and why the industrial revolution was mentioned -- is fossil fuel: coal, oil, and natural gas. These are carbon-dense objects, and when burned release a huge amount of CO2. Multiply this burning by an increasing population, year after year for over 150 years, and it becomes very clear where the excess CO2 is coming from.

    So human activity is the driver of rapid global warming.

    Lastly, so what? What's the big deal about increasing the global temperature by just a few degrees?

    I think the answer to this is obvious once you realize how, although it seems like a small amount, a few degrees has big effects over time, which we're now beginning to see. The melting of the ice caps, sea level rise, an increase in draughts and wildfires -- all happening before our eyes, as every year we break more heat records.

    In my opinion, I think it's undeniable that this is the issue of our time and those of us who aren't in denial should at least put it in their top 3 political priorities and act accordingly.
  • Climate change denial
    There is nothing "average" about my views on climate change. — Agree to Disagree

    No, there is. They fall right in the meaty part of the curve of climate denial. Fairly boring, actually.

    If you think that worrying about cows producing methane is ludicrous then please tell the people who think that this is problem that they are being ridiculous. — Agree to Disagree

    No, it’s a very real problem. Your characterization of the solution, and your dismissal, is ludicrous.

    As well as looking at temperature anomalies I have also looked in detail at actual temperatures. — Agree to Disagree

    Good, so you know very well that the temperature is increasing, and at a very alarming rate. I’m glad you can read a graph.

    Do I sound like "just a fairly average climate denier" to you? — Agree to Disagree

    Yep. And from the other ignorant things you’ve said so far, perhaps below average.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    ↪GRWelsh


    Trump's team is preparing to falsely claim that mail-in ballots counted after Nov. 3 — a legitimate count expected to favor Democrats — are evidence of election fraud.

    And this article was published days before the election. I guess they’re psychics. Only explanation. Definitely not because any thinking person could see it beforehand.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    he clearly had a plan ahead of time to declare victory regardless of the election results. — GRWelsh

    Which is so obvious even a Trump supporter will deny it.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Agree to Disagree


    Another climate denial retort. What a shocker.

    So I’m seeing now that you’re just a fairly average climate denier coming here to spread old, tired canards. Scroll up for responses.

    Let me guess:

    - The climate is always changing.

    - Climate scientists the world over are involved in some kind of conspiracy involving controlling people for a New World Order.

    - Climate change is happening, but it’s from natural variation, not CO2 buildup.

    - Celebrities and scientists use planes/cars/anything involving fossil fuels— bam, climate change is refuted.

    - CO2 is good for us.

    Etc etc.

    Look about right? Thought so.

    Why not run along before embarrassing yourself further about a subject of which you’re completely ignorant? :up:
  • Climate change denial
    Democrats: It's raining.
    Republicans: No it's not.
    Media (without bothering to look out the window): There's a political dispute about whether or not it's raining.

    Just saw this. Accurate.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    “It was also very sad driving through Washington, D.C., and seeing the filth and the decay, and all of the broken buildings and walls and the graffiti. This is not the place that I left.”

    Comedy gold.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Imagine a candidate losing an election, and claiming the loss was because of millions of votes from the Moon People.

    Then everyone has to dissect whether or not there really are Moon People, whether the candidate “really” believes it, etc— and 50/60 million people end up believing it.

    There’s just as much evidence for Moon People as there is for voter fraud or a stolen election.

    All of these legal proceedings for the ramblings of a narcissistic man/child. It’s an incredible sight. And watching the supporters contort themselves into mental pretzels is astonishing.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    I didn’t fail the test mom — the teacher is out to get me.

    Trump supporter defense. Airtight.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    That will be trivially easy. The election was legit. His own people told him that - Pence, Barr, Wray, Krebs, etc, etc. They will testify as such in court. And there are 1000s of election officials all across the country who have stated that the election was fair - I'm sure they would be willing to testify if called upon.

    It's now been over 2 & 1/2 years and yet there is no evidence of any fraud that would have altered the outcome. All Trump's lawyers have is just hand waving.     — EricH

    And dozens of court cases, where the lawyers were laughed out of court. Also, look no further than Arizona -- where the Arizona senate-commissioned "Cyber Ninjas" conducted their 9 million dollar "audit" and found ugatz: https://www.americanoversight.org/records-reveal-high-cost-of-security-contractors-for-arizona-election-audit

    Trump was saying the election was going to be stolen if he lost long before the election, and so any thinking person knew he was going to say it was stolen if he lost. I was calling it long beforehand -- as anyone would. It wasn't going to matter if it was the cleanest election in history -- which it turned out to be -- or if there were massive glitches.

    (We knew, for example, that mail-in votes, which are counted later, would swing democratic because Trump was screaming about voter fraud and telling his followers to go in person. So his numbers spiked at the beginning, and gradually tapered off...which was expected--again-- by anyone with a thinking mind. He seized on this, of course, pretended he didn't know it, and made out like the election was someone being stolen from him.)

    What's sad about all this is that we even have to talk about the predictable tantrum-ramblings of a man-child. It's so very obvious it's all bullshit -- it didn't need to go to the courts, or have million-dollar audits, or anything else. It was all fabricated, predictably, by a man who psychologically cannot lose. In his mind, he cannot be a loser. What did we think he would do, concede graciously?

    If our country was rational, a person like this would be relegated to the fringes of society, easily ignored. But we have to go on about it because 30% of the country actually believes this stuff. Sad indeed.
  • Climate change denial
    political will to regulate industries, which are the material if not the final cause of climate change. Well that's exactly what I suggested people could be persuaded to do, essentially curtailing their own worst tendencies, indirectly. — Pantagruel

    :up:

    Sounded as if you were saying something along the carbon footprint line, which directs responsibility on the consumer a la the tobacco industry of yore. But if you weren’t saying that — my fault for misreading.

    ↪unenlightened


    Yes. After COVID, I think people got a sense of just how quickly governments can move if they want to. Prior to that, at least in the states, the example was WWII — but that’s simply not as visceral (or remembered).
  • Climate change denial
    People and their inherent stupidity, their willingness to project problems on others while completely ignoring their own culpability, are definitely at the heart of this problem. — Pantagruel

    Which is the same excuse fossil fuel companies give. Just lower your carbon footprint. Never mind that the entire continent of Africa emits only 4% of global emissions a one ton per capita. Their “inherent stupidity” and “ignoring their own culpability” is the “real” problem.

    Give me a break. The issue is that the wealthier nations have benefited from fossil fuels for over a century and have crippled government ability to do anything about it. Despite having the solutions right in front of us.

    If ordinary people are responsible for anything it’s allowing themselves to be fooled by propaganda. But even there the fight has never been fair.
  • Climate change denial
    Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them a troll. — Pantagruel

    To come here and announce “Give me any solution and I will tell you why it won’t work,” use an example of cows, declare “good luck with that,” and expect to be taken seriously, is exactly the issue. Whether it’s truly trolling or just childishness, I don’t know.
  • Climate change denial
    People have to reduce their demand to have any hope of "solving" climate change. — Agree to Disagree

    No, they don’t.

    Please tell me any solution that you have and I will tell you why it won't work. — Agree to Disagree

    Like with the ludicrous cow example? Where you simply declare “good luck with that”? That’s not an analysis— it’s childish nonsense.

    I’m not interested in the armchair thoughts of a random internet guy, or what s/he thinks is possible or isn’t possible. The facts are quite clear; the climate scientists are quite clear. The solutions are already available and being employed. I’ll repeat: the issue is time and political will. For some industries, like cement and steel, we’ll need more funding and research— even though technologies already exist that look promising.

    But like I said, if you want to go on believing that it’s impossible, for whatever reason, you’re welcome.
  • Climate change denial
    Many people are concerned about cows because they produce methane. — Agree to Disagree

    And your answer is “good luck trying to reduce numbers.” Got it. Excellent analysis.

    Who are you and why are you trolling this thread?
  • Climate change denial
    The companies are only supplying what people demand. — Agree to Disagree

    It’s true that this is a common myth used by industry, but it’s on par with the “carbon footprint”: a way to divert blame to the individual consumer and away from the corporation. It’s brilliant propaganda, no doubt.

    Exxon knew about the risks of climate change for decades and deliberately spread misinformation about it— all for profits. To turn around and put the onus on ordinary people is a complete joke.
  • Climate change denial
    There is not much political will to do things that people don't want (if you live in a democracy). — Agree to Disagree

    People do want them.

    Please tell me some of the "plenty of solutions", and I will tell you why they won't work. — Agree to Disagree

    No thanks. If it makes you feel better, believe whatever you’d like. Doesn’t change the facts.
  • Climate change denial
    I believe that there are no solutions that aren't doomed from the start. — Agree to Disagree

    Plenty of solutions. They’re being employed as we speak. Hardly doomed. It’s a matter of time and political will.

    When 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions, it’s not hard to see what the problem is.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-indictment-jack-smith-2020-election-4b351abf?mod=mhp

    “Today’s indictment serves as an important reminder: Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” — Joe Biden

    Reveal
    Oops—wait, that was Mike Pence.
  • Climate change denial
    ↪jorndoe


    We should absolutely be scared senseless. This is unprecedented in human history.
  • Climate change denial
    July is globe’s hottest month in recorded history

    “Climate change is here. It is terrifying. And it is just the beginning,” Guterres told reporters in a New York briefing. “The era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived.”

    Yes indeed.
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    “Republicans are high class … but they have to be a little more lower class.” — Trump
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    How is that anything but a Marie Antionette-like dismissal of the plight of the 90% of Americans who are getting screwed? — Mikie

    can tell by your attitude you are not at all interested in discussion so bye bye — I like sushi

    It’s true I’m not interested in discussing ignorant comments. Bye.

    Uummm... there's no such thing as a "true" tax rate, including paper gains on investments. — LuckyR

    They explain their calculations. The term “true tax rate” is not a technical term.

    The story’s main finding was that these 25 people saw their worth rise a collective $401 billion from 2014 to 2018 while paying a total of $13.6 billion in federal income taxes. That amounts to what we called a “true tax rate” of 3.4%.

    Below, we’ve laid out how we performed this analysis. Our story also included calculations of more typical American households in order to provide context for the ultrawealthy’s numbers, and we explain those here as well.

    https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-true-tax-rates-of-the-wealthiest

    Anyway: the wealthy don’t pay as much in taxes, and in fact sometimes avoid paying anything at all. Especially on capital gains, which are already lower than what an average person pays in taxes as a percentage of income. It’s currently capped at 20% — but as the OP discusses, that’s often avoided completely.

    And it’s exactly where they house most of their wealth. They borrow off of it, and then pass it off to kids or spouse tax-free. Hence “buy, borrow, die.”
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Frequent flights, trips to Europe, better food and alcohol, fashionable clothing and larger dwellings -- it's easy to outspend the family's combined salaries. — BC

    Sure. I heard it called “lifestyle creep.” I like that. As your salary increases, so does your spending— so you remain even, or even get into debt. But you don’t save and don’t invest.

    Who gets the biggest pieces of pie is a matter of POLICY, not talent, luck, prudent investing, or any such thing. Since the 1970s, policy makers have been steering the pie slices to the top decile of income and the very top layer of wealth, the richest .0001%. 90% of us are dividing up a couple of small pieces and arguing over the crumbs. — BC

    :100:
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Yes, I am ignorant about US. — I like sushi

    That’s fine — so then why come to this thread, which is mostly about how the wealthy avoid paying taxes — and go on about how people should simply save more money, as if it’s easy to become “one of them”?

    How is that anything but a Marie Antionette-like dismissal of the plight of the 90% of Americans who are getting screwed?

    I do question the ‘survey’ that states that over 50% are living pay check to pay check btw. — I like sushi

    Maybe apply equal skepticism to feelings, without a basis in fact whatsoever. I have a number of other sources, if interested.
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Well if he's got billions in income, he's theoretically paying income tax. — LuckyR

    Yes:

    Bezos paid zero federal income taxes in both 2007 and 2011. From 2006 to 2018, when Bezos' wealth increased by $127 billion, he reported a total of $6.5 billion in income. He paid $1.4 billion in personal federal taxes, a true tax rate of 1.1%.

    https://americansfortaxfairness.org/wp-content/uploads/ProPublica-Billionaires-Fact-Sheet-Updated.pdf
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Do you think some kind of scheme should be put into place to help minimum wage workers in later life? I do. Maybe open up a pension/saving scheme to set up like I said? Good idea or bad idea? — I like sushi

    That’s fine. Most people can’t afford to invest in stocks or save “5%” a month. Most are in debt up to their eyes. So how does it get done? How about we pay them more?

    Again, real wages have stagnated. Which is why you have more debt— which is why you have people living paycheck to paycheck. To remark that “hey if you can’t beat them, join them” and that it’s “easy,” is just ignorant. Especially given the context of this thread.

    ↪BC


    This applies to some people. But look at the general trend. You know well enough that real wages have flatlined since the late 70s. That’s a robust explanatory data point. Telling people to thrift or wherever— yeah, it’s just not realistic in the context of 37% of Americans not being able to afford a $400 emergency:

    Households survey released Monday, some 37% of Americans lack enough money to cover a $400 emergency expense, up from 32% in 2021.

    https://fortune.com/2023/05/23/inflation-economy-consumer-finances-americans-cant-cover-emergency-expense-federal-reserve/amp/

    That being said — I’m in favor of consuming less and financial education.
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    Uummm... where do the loan repayments come from? — LuckyR

    That’s a good question. It’s not that Bezos has no income — he does. Millions (even billions) cash on hand. Repaying a loan isn’t difficult, especially when the interest rate is so low. But the point is to avoid paying taxes.

    You just need to start early and be disciplined. — I like sushi

    Is this a joke?

    You just have to set aside a little and put it into savings. That is how people become millionaires. It is not really that difficult if you start young. — I like sushi

    Apparently not.

    1) That is not how most people become millionaires.
    2) If it were so simple, everyone would do it. Perhaps ask yourself why they can’t. (If you think it’s laziness or lack of education, I’ll leave you to it.)

    Very, very few people today are completely unable to put aside something on a monthly basis. — I like sushi

    Hundreds of millions of people.

    When 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, are in enormous amounts of debt, don’t have a $400 emergency fund, and whose real wages have flatlined for 40 years — yeah, your thoughts on this matter are not only ignorant, but callous.
  • Buy, Borrow, Die
    ↪Relativist


    Agreed. There are many things we can do — any of them would be a start. Close these loopholes; wealth tax; higher corporate and individual taxes; higher capital gains tax; get rid of the social security cap. You name it.

    A spouse dying also works. I don't recommend it. — L'éléphant

    I guess this would fall under “die,” yeah. Rather than to kids, you have it to your spouse. The stepped-up basis applies there too.

    Expropriating the expropriators would be a simpler solution to the problem of too many way too rich people than screwing around with the complicated tax code. — BC

    Simpler in theory, but I think much more drastic and therefore less likely for success. Government taking private property isn’t a good look for most Americans.

    The tax code is complicated by design, as you know — and always manages to favor the wealthy. That can be undone just as it was done.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    Those ideas may have their place in theology or discussion within the context of shared faith, but not in philosophy, whereas the practical human wisdom (phronesis) which may be exemplified in literature, including religious scriptures, does have a place in philosophy. — Janus

    :up:

    You put it much more succinctly than I did.

    Moderator Mikie's thread on religion has been troubled by unclear communication which I think is his problem. — BC

    You’re right. See my response to unenligtened, above. I try to go over the reasons for why it’s unclear and thus misunderstood.

    Unless that is unclear as well— in which case I may have to accept the fact that maybe I suck at writing and should hang myself. :lol:
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪unenlightened


    Sure, but I’m not really advocating avoidance.

    Here’s the problem with OP, I think: I’m making a lot of assumptions which are not explained and using a lot of words that I haven’t defined (e.g., philosophy, religion). (Also, that the title is too provocative, potentially evoking an adversarial response on the part of the reader.)

    I agree we all have perspectives, beliefs, and stories. In one sense, I see them all as part of a bigger whole and respect them as important, and in another sense I discriminate some as sillier than others, and so deserving of less attention — like my made up god tries to show.

    That’s a personal judgment. For example, I think the story of the Big Bang is deserving of more time than creation stories— even though it is a kind of creation story itself. I do think there’s something to naturalism, in other words, that is indeed unique and special.

    So this can be seen as my religion, when put like that. But then again, I also believe in something “bigger” than nature. I prefer terms like “such-ness” over God or Brahman, but it’s still something not within the purview of science (which I see as the philosophy of nature; assuming naturalism by default).

    Anyway— I see the problem now, and it’s that I’m presupposing that there is no such thing as Christian philosophy, and I assume most others here agree with that. Turns out that’s not the case. So my advice is bound to fall flat, except for a few outliers.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    I don't feel persecuted at all, as it happens, at least, not by you. — unenlightened

    Glad to hear it.

    then who are you addressing, and what are you saying for them not to do? — unenlightened

    Not to treat it as special or requiring special attention, philosophically. I think we do that subconsciously — I’ve been guilty of it too. It’s why I invoked ethnocentrism, which I think is a related phenomena.

    I’m not saying don’t read the Bible, or deprive yourself of the wisdom of Christianity, etc.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    ↪unenlightened


    Your entire post is a strawman. But you’re free to feel persecuted if you wish.
  • What do we know absolutely?
    ↪Cidat


    There are no absolutes; I’m absolutely certain of it. :wink:
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    If a believer thought their religion was just a bunch of stories they wouldnt be a believer. — DingoJones

    It’s rare perhaps, but not as rare as you’d think. Tradition and identity go a long way. What’s so great about belief?

    Anyway— I’m surprised you didn’t ask whether it’s impossible to be a believer and do philosophy; i.e., whether a Christian philosophy is possible. I’d have answered in the negative.
  • God & Christianity Aren’t Special
    For many, abstract thinking is toil; for me, on good days, it is feast and frenzy. Abstract thinking a feast? The highest form of human existence? … The feast implies: pride, exuberance, frivolity; mockery of all earnestness and respectability; a divine affirmation of oneself, out of animal plenitude and perfection—all obviously states to which the Christian may not honestly say Yes. The feast is paganism par excellence. For that reason, we might add that thinking never takes place in Christianity. That is to say, there is no Christian philosophy. There is no true philosophy that could be determined anywhere else than from within itself.
Home » Mikie