very poor reasoning — RAW

:lol:

Coming from you, this really means a lot. I'm devastated.

You keep up the good fight of defending quackery because it goes "against the mainstream narrative." Excellent "reasoning."

childish immature unfounded unnecessary rudeness and arrogance — RAW

Wasn't that a Rolling Stone song?

Are you serious? — Philofile

Yes -- and who are you? Odd that you jump in the middle of this after joining the forum 2 hours ago.

I find it interesting that AJJ, Yohan, RAW, and now Philofile are all relatively new members who have come out of the woodwork to pursue this crusade of ignorance and championing of woo-woo.

Not a coincidence. Probably banned members reconstituted. All the more reason to take with a grain of salt.

Just ignore me from now on, ok? — RAW

When you stop posting nonsense on my threads and mentioning me in your comments, you got it. :ok:

No, it isn't incorrect. Given what you're said prior, this is the correct conclusion. Wormy people like you want to try to hide your very obvious prejudice, and appear as neutral/objective when confronted on it.

You've deliberately taken the side of a minority medical position, and now go on harping about how they've been mistreated for "not following the mainstream narrative."

Gaslight somewhere else.

Yeah, because we’re all convinced you two care about scientists being abused. If you are, then it’s funny you should exclude the more glaring example: the case of Dr. Fauci, who has received numerous smears and death threats for months, for doing nothing more than giving the current medical understanding, over and over again. Or the thousands of others — like the head of the CDC and its other employees.

Creationists love to paint themselves as oppressed martyrs fighting for truth as well. So do Holocaust deniers. So do flat earthers. Wait— so does every pseudo-scientist and Qanon conspiracy lunatic out there. Hmm…

Talk about scary and tragic.

But I do hope you are honest enough to accept that it is a legitimate concern. Science is not immune to it. — Yohan

Never said it was.

Misunderstood and unknown words are the main reason why comminications fail. — Alkis Piskas

Which is exactly why this entire thread is a complete waste of time.

I am afraid to say that this is the only way a discussion or simple communication can take place. Common or similar definitions of terms consist the common reference on which both interlocutors can be based. And dictionaries are a means to provide that common reference. — Alkis Piskas

Tell that to physicists.

Another way is for one interlocutor to provide his own definition of a term, independetly of dictionaries. This way, the other interlocutor knows what he is talking about. Doing neither of them calls for unnecessary misundestandings and conflicts between the two interlocutors. It's only too logical. — Alkis Piskas

Agreed. But outside an explanatory theory, like in the sciences, we can define words however we want. Common usage doesn’t help, nor does armchair meaning creation. If I define nature as God’s creation, or “work” as my job, or “energy” as my stamina, etc. — fine. Best to clarify what you mean by your words.

But the questions you’re raising, in philosophy and science, have a long history, and most of them have technical meanings given to them. We’re not interested in defining things in a vacuum.

I can define the heart as the liver, if I want to. That’s what I mean when I say “heart.” Okay…does that advance the field of medicine?

So much for that.

Glad to see reason prevail. To the one person who voted that Newsom would lose: wishful thinking?

So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile. Fair enough. Stick with it.
— Xtrix
Yes. If someone said there is a match of 3 martial artists vs 97, and told me I could not know anything else about the match, and asked me to place a bet, I would think its likely a set up and place my bet on the 3. Probably the 3 have some unfair advantage that wasn't stated. Seems pretty obvious to me. — Yohan

:rofl:

Actually had me laughing. I appreciate it.

Remind your friends never to gamble with you. Roulette: "I'll place my money on GREEN -- seems likely there's a set up going on."

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?
— Xtrix

I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% — Yohan

Does the Philosophy Forum have a Hall of Fame for the most stupid answers?

If you really can’t bring yourself to admit you’d go with the 97, then you’re simply arguing for other reasons — which I can guess about, but which are completely irrational. — Xtrix

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?
— Xtrix
I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% because its more likely the majority is influenced by group think, while the minority are better at thinking out side of the box (less biased and influenced by peer pressure) — Yohan

:lol:

So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile (apologies for the accuracy). Fair enough. Stick with it.

(Or it's "more likely" that the 3% are bought off by fossil fuel interests -- which indeed is the case. It's also "more likely" that the small group of Creationists who argue for a Biblical flood are influenced by religious beliefs. But you go with those guys.)

I brought in a definition from a standard dictionary. — Alkis Piskas

It’s unbelievable how often this mistake occurs. I’ve written about it elsewhere:

Since joining this forum a few months ago, I've been surprised at the number of times people have appealed not only to "common sense," but specifically the dictionary, in an attempt to support their claims about the meaning of various terms. So I think it's worth making the following points:

1) Within philosophy and science, there is a thing called a technical language. In philosophy: "being," for example. In science: "energy."

2) These terms have a specialized, technical meaning, quite apart from everyday use and ordinary "common sense."

3) When discussing a particular word's meaning, it should go without saying that we are not interested in creating definitions outside of a larger framework or explanatory theory.

For example, when discussing physics, we're not interested in simply defining what "work" or "heat" mean out in space, so to speak. Likewise, we keep our "gut feelings" and "personal" semantics out of terms like being, mind, nature, universe, reference, event, meaning, etc.

If that is what you are calling "games" or you think that consulting dictionaries to get the meaning of terms is uselsess, no wonder why you find everything meaningless! — Alkis Piskas

The mind/body problem is meaningless, unless we know what "body" is. As I said before, there WAS once a technical notion of "body", within the mechanical philosophy and early physics of the 16th and 17th centuries. That was based on the principle of contact action and the idea that the world behaves like a machine, like the machines of the time -- clocks, for example.

That was destroyed by Isaac Newton. As Hume writes, he “seemed to draw the veil from some of the mysteries of nature, he shewed at the same time the imperfections of the mechanical philosophy; and thereby restored Nature's ultimate secrets to that obscurity, in which they ever did and ever will remain.”

There has been no technical notion of "body" since. Chomsky has interesting things to say about this.

If we want to sit around and invent definitions for what "body" or "material" or "physical" means, we can. Outside an explanatory theory, it's a complete waste of time. Appealing to "common sense" and the dictionary, or common usage, is also a waste of time. It would be like pointing to the dictionary definition of "work" in a physics class. Is that what physicists mean by "work"? No -- not even close to what we ordinarily mean by work.

So there is no mind/body problem.

I noted in other thread what I will note here. Bartricks is a waste of time. Be wise and don't waste your time, and don't feed the Bartricks. Unless he starts to make sense, but best to wait for that. — tim wood

Where was this advice two pages ago?

:clap:

You’re a more patient man than I.

Two martial arts experts vs 1 martial arts expert.
Which side is more likely to win, if that is all we know?
Answer: It depends. — Yohan

Yes, but calculating the exact odds aren’t the issue. Why? Because with incomplete information— in this case limited to 2 against 1 — we have a choice: do we bet on the 1 or on the 2?

The question isn’t “what’s the EXACT probability”? The two could be 5th degree black belts, the one could be Jet Li — that changes things. But we don’t know any of that. We also aren’t expert enough to say which material arts style pairs well against another, even if we knew the styles. And on and on. There are many variables. That’s not the question.

The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?

To shift to your example: there’s 97 martial artists against 3. Knowing nothing else, what is your choice for who wins?

If you really can’t bring yourself to admit you’d go with the 97, then you’re simply arguing for other reasons — which I can guess about, but which are completely irrational. The answer is obvious, and has been my only point all along. If you don’t want to concede that, that’s your issue. But as I said before, it’s essentially a truism.

There is this myth that the world of Science doesn't work like other fields. That in science everything is clear cut and absolute and simple. I am challenging that myth. — Yohan

No, what you’re doing is creating a straw man. You can have fun destroying it if you like— so you can feel like you’re accomplishing something— but it makes no difference, because I’ve never remotely argued that everything in science is “clear cut and absolute and simple.” Never.

You don't seem to understand what a big factor unknown variables play in probability theory.
Are two writers working together on a book more likely to write a best seller than 1 writer working alone?
I imagine you do, which means you are assuming a bunch of variables without warrant. — Yohan

I anticipated you would get fixated on the example, but not the principle. So be it.

Some writers, scientists, etc, work better alone. Joint efforts can work better in some cases, especially when the answer is predetermined and proof readers are just checking for commonly known mistakes. I don't deny that more is more when more is more, but its not always. Some times more is not more, and sometimes less is more. The answer before enough variables are known is: It depends. — Yohan

I’m not talking about “joint efforts.”

I said if there are more experts on one side, and less but still some on the other side, that that isn't enough information to reach a conclusion about which is more likely to be right.
— Yohan

It is. If that’s all the information I have, as you say, then going with the greater number of experts is the correct move.

Take the climate change example. Knowing nothing except that 97% of climate scientists agree— is it a better bet to go with them over the 3%? Yes, it is.

There are ways to test this too.

In science, when numerous fields and numerous experts, from around the world, come to the same conclusions and results after weighing evidence and doing experiments independently, the level of certainty is increased.

There are always exceptions we can point to— but science is the best we have. — Xtrix

No— this seems right, but is completely wrong. Which you would know if you deigned to read what doctors and the CDC say about this. Completely open to everyone to learn— simple google search would do.

You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact.

More importantly, there are other people who are unvaccinated (like children, and those who can’t get vaccinated for reasons beyond refusal) who will be impacted.

There is also the fact of overwhelming hospital ICUs, which is happening in Idaho and across the south— which has wide ranging effects on heath care personnel as well as people with other health concerns.

Less people get vaccinated, less chance of reaching herd immunity.

Lastly, there’s the greater possibility of mutation as the virus continues to spread— mutations which will effect everyone, as the delta variant is — only with the possibility of being vaccine resistant.

There are thousands of deaths every week. This effects everyone. We have a vaccine which can stop it, as every major medical organization has stated and is why they are pushing for people to receive them. — Xtrix

Worth repeating for those genuinely curious — and interested in the facts (upon which we base our ethical decisions).

All these factors have to be considered together, not isolated and minimized.

Apparently one simply has to NOT be an “ethical expert” to see these simple facts.

Don't say that. He might have a learning disability. — Wheatley

Fair point.

Don’t bother. This imbecile is another example of a lost cause— he has no interest in learning anything, and apparently doesn’t allow himself to even hear anything (“you said some stuff”). That’s impressive!

Oh well.

“But I’m an ethics expert and you aren’t!”
:lol:

And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? — Bartricks

And then there's sick little tiny Tim ....but what about the children!! — Bartricks

Thousands dead every week, hospital ICUs pushed to capacity, during a worldwide pandemic, and this is what gets said.

Just another anti-vaxxer disguising himself. I’m glad to have helped to reveal it, at least.

The self-proclaimed ethics expert, folks.

:lol:

Reading comprehension isn’t a requirement for ethics curricula anymore, I guess.

No it hasn't. Explain. — Bartricks

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/594855

Now, explain how I'm wrong. — Bartricks

I have. So have many others here. I won’t be doing it again. You can re-read. That’s all you deserve, and it’s generous at that.

Better advice: learn something about ethics. Perhaps start by reading those who know what they’re talking about (i.e., can understand basic medical facts).

Once more: what risk are the unvaccinated posing to the vaccinated? — Bartricks

See above. Has been explained several times now.

My advice to others here: it’s about time to ignore this imbecile.

Maybe you're one of those with no common sense. — Caldwell

No ethical sense, either.

Apparently been beaten out by years of scholarly study.

They are posing a risk to themselves, not others. — Bartricks

Imagine being such an imbecile that you keep repeating this nonsense. :lol:

Answer my questions, Xtrix - what about sex? Should everyone be made to wear condoms if having sex? I mean, you can catch things from it. Should everyone be made to take Prep? — Bartricks

It’s hard to believe you can call yourself an “expert” in anything, with such embarrassing questions like this.

Safe sex has been encouraged for decades. Besides instances of rape, sex is a choice undertaken by individuals— with known risks of AIDS, STDs, and pregnancy.

COVID can be caught through the air, so the more appropriate analogy is to smoking. If COVID could be caught through sexual contact, the story would be different. That’s not the reality. COVID effects the entire community.

Ethics: it's what I am an expert in and you're not. — Bartricks

This is laughable. In my experience, anyone who has to go on about what experts they are, or their credentials, rather than letting their arguments speak for themselves, are usually just betraying their insecurities. In your case it’s so transparent its cringe-inducing. I’m glad this is the internet, for your sake.

If you knew anything at all about ethics, you'd know that ethics is not all about securing optimal consequences (even after one has figured out what those may be). It is about respecting people's rights in the process. That's why if the only way to stop covid was to torture a child, it'd be wrong to do that. — Bartricks

You have a shallow understanding of ethics. Why? Because ethics is a branch of philosophy, and of which there are many perspectives. To simply declare that the field of ethics isn’t “all about” consequences is saying almost nothing whatever. Neither I, nor anyone else so far, has stated that we’re concerned only with consequences.

Secondly, the tired example of sacrificing a child for the sake of saving many other lives— which is something out of any undergraduate philosophy course — is irrelevant here. Why? Because we’re talking about the real world. You want to ignore the real world so you can go on about thought experiments, but that’s simply a deflection.

The reason medical authorities, medical ethicists, and most of the country agree with mandates is because they understand something that you, with your self-proclaimed “expertise,” can’t seem to — which is why you come to ridiculous conclusions: vaccines are safe, they’re effective, they help stop the spread, and they will get us out of this pandemic. With those facts as a basis, the rest becomes fairly easy to determine.

I’ve quoted an actual medical ethicist on this topic. I can quote others. I take them seriously— in contrast, I think you’re a joke. You’d do well to listen to them.

People have rights and those rights put restrictions on what you can do to other people to further your own - and their - ends. — Bartricks

Brilliant insight.

Now, those who take the vaccine are free to do so. Nobody is arguing that people should be prevented from taking the vaccine. But people should also be free not to take the vaccine if they do not wish to. Yes, it's dumb. But people are free to be dumb (see, I'm on your side - you just don't realize it). — Bartricks

They are free to be dumb to themselves. Smokers are dumb. When you smoke next to me, it’s not longer about you being dumb to your own body, but mine as well. You simply refuse to understand this, despite it being raised over and over again…for example:

They're not exposing others to a risk apart from those who have themselves made the same choice. — Bartricks

This is completely wrong, as my other response shows, and also fails to consider other effects of these choices.

If people want to refuse the vaccine and isolate themselves from others— I have no issue with that. If people want to smoke in their homes, or never wash their hands when they make a meal (at home), that’s their choice. But we live in a society — these choices effect others, whether you refuse to see this or not.

Kind of odd you don’t, for someone who pretends to care about “ethics.”

The vaccine protects against the virus. So, the unvaccinated are exposing only themselves and others who have made the same choice to a risk. — Bartricks

No— this seems right, but is completely wrong. Which you would know if you deigned to read what doctors and the CDC say about this. Completely open to everyone to learn— simple google search would do.

You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact.

More importantly, there are other people who are unvaccinated (like children, and those who can’t get vaccinated for reasons beyond refusal) who will be impacted.

There is also the fact of overwhelming hospital ICUs, which is happening in Idaho and across the south— which has wide ranging effects on heath care personnel as well as people with other health concerns.

Less people get vaccinated, less chance of reaching herd immunity.

Lastly, there’s the greater possibility of mutation as the virus continues to spread— mutations which will effect everyone, as the delta variant is — only with the possibility of being vaccine resistant.

There are thousands of deaths every week. This effects everyone. We have a vaccine which can stop it, as every major medical organization has stated and is why they are pushing for people to receive them.

There’s simply no excuse anymore, and no time to keep debating with people who don’t want to change their minds anyway. Hence the mandates, which are not only legitimate but overdue.

So, this thread is not about discussing the bill, rather doing all one can to assure its passage. OK — jgill

This thread presupposes a modicum of rationality, yes. Those part of the death cult, who wish to do nothing about climate change -- and in fact don't even recognize climate change as the problem of our time, have plenty of other venues to voice their backward ideas.

Keep fighting for the "freedom" to spread a virus like a selfish imbecile. You're doing God's work.

When in doubt, play identity politics. — NOS4A2

Others play it, you live it.

You mean that probably material world is much different than what we perceive from our senses? — dimosthenis9

No, I'm saying that we don't have a technical notion of what "material" means.

But what it amounts to is something like “the mind/ectoplasm problem”
— Xtrix

What you mean with ectoplasm? — dimosthenis9

That's my point, actually. What do we mean by "body"?

We can define ectoplasm in all kinds of ways if we want to. That doesn't mean there's a "mind/ectoplasm" problem.

Here's a thought. If you take people who refuse to vote in elections (the voter turnout is never 100%) as those who eschew engaging in politics then, consider the fact that dead people can't vote. Non-voters = dead persons. — TheMadFool

I really don’t see the relevance of this remark.

The word "body" has a lot of meanings, of course. But here I think it's meaning here is very clear: "The physical structure, including the bones, flesh, and organs, of a person or an animal." (Oxford LEXICO)
So, I don't think we have to make a big deal out of this. There are more important issues to solve! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

That’s my point— there aren’t important issues to solve, because the problem is meaningless.

The “physical structure”, for example, means what? What is physical? Mostly this is used to refer to anything we more or less understand. It’s honorific.

If we simply want to play games with words, fine. But if no one can offer a technical notion of “body,” then asking whether or not this is the same as something else is a matter of how we want to define it. You say the body is X, fine— someone else says it’s Y, fine.

In science, things don’t get defined out in space. Nor in philosophy— if we’re serious.

Wouldn't that mean focusing locally? — frank

Yes, almost always. So are we doing locally to help this pass?

Ok but there must be a very good reason there are no philosopher politicians. Just like there are no Jain terrorists, it must mean something, no? — TheMadFool

I’m sure it does. I think that might not be such a great thing, however. I think it says far more about politics than about “philosophers.”

Regardless, nearly every politician out there is carrying around in their little heads the political and economic philosophy of some past thinker — whether we consider them philosophers or not doesn’t matter. They’re still the ones holding the levers of power. They and the business community.

Keep fighting the good fight against the medical community. COVID has a good ally.

Then explain how. I gave a detailed explanation. Show where I made an error, if you want. I am always open to being proven wrong. I hope I do get proven wrong because then it will mean I have learned something. — Yohan

I’ll give a simple example — very simple, and admittedly limited, so let this be the obligatory qualification:

Scenario 1: We have a complex math equation to solve for. Many people have made minor errors in prior classes, the teacher mentioned. You think you have the problem solved. You hand in your work.

Scenario 2: Same situation, with one difference: you have 3 of your friends check your work for errors. You hand in the work.

Scenario 3: Same as scenario 1, only before handing in your work you find out that 3 of your math friends, working independently, have gotten the same result.

Should we be equally confident in all three scenarios?

I said if there are more experts on one side, and less but still some on the other side, that that isn't enough information to reach a conclusion about which is more likely to be right. — Yohan

It is. If that’s all the information I have, as you say, then going with the greater number of experts is the correct move.

Take the climate change example. Knowing nothing except that 97% of climate scientists agree— is it a better bet to go with them over the 3%? Yes, it is.

There are ways to test this too.

In science, when numerous fields and numerous experts, from around the world, come to the same conclusions and results after weighing evidence and doing experiments independently, the level of certainty is increased.

There are always exceptions we can point to— but science is the best we have. Maybe a psychic or astrologer is right once in a while— does that prove anything?

Here is quick test for you. If 2 experts believe Y is true, and 1 expert believes Y is false, is it TWICE as likely that the 2 experts are right and the 1 expert is wrong? Please be honest here. — Yohan

It’s more likely that the two experts are right. I don’t know about twice as likely — probably not, but compared to what?

Two people are proofreading your paper instead of one. Are two people more likely to find errors? Yeah, of course. In general that’s true. Two people mining for gold are more likely to find something than one person. 100 people mining, even more likely. Etc.

Remember, we’re assuming a level of expertise as well. If two people proofreading your paper are average Joes, and one is an experienced editor, that situation is different.

I’ve said this a number of times, but there can’t be a mind/body problem. Why? Because we don’t have any sense of what “body” means. Or material, or physical.

There used to be a conception of “body,” within the mechanical philosophy of Galileo and others in the early scientific revolution, with the principle of contact action. That was abandoned, since Newton in fact, and there hasn’t been a technical notion of it since. If we want to use it as an honorific term, fine. But what it amounts to is something like “the mind/ectoplasm problem”.