This is an example of bad faith, I think. I can't imagine why anyone would want to continue on like this unless they're secretly an anti-vaxxer. Otherwise it's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe some people like to think of these things as "debates" where one gets points if one "wins," or pride themselves on arguing indefensible positions. Who knows. Any thoughts?

Is this an example of a complete waste of time, which I've argued against in the "Axioms of Discourse" thread?

This is the only interesting question that emerges from such interchanges, in my view.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
— Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but in my experience going on living is not even in the top ten. People want to enjoy themselves, have sex, relax, learn new things, have a group of friends, taste nice food, make meaningful relationships, see beauty, stamp their identity on the world, play a part in something bigger then them...Maybe the mundane act of going on on living comes 11th at best. — Isaac

Worth quoting the whole thing. This is why philosophy gets a bad rep.

But your only criteria for identifying these people is that they win. That's not the criteria you're using here. The criteria you're using here is that they trust the same people you trust for the same reasons. Winning has not entered into it. — Isaac

Yes, because that's an analogy. The point being made with that analogy is about decisions, and what we base those decisions on: knowledge or instinct.

Let's go over this yet again. The original point you made was: those who believe in climate change and vaccines are usually just as ignorant as those who don't. That's probably true and I agree with it. My claim, which started this odd interchange, was a simple one: regardless of their ignorance, one group is lining up with the truth (climate change is real; vaccines are effective; the Earth is spherical, etc), the other isn't -- this matters. I also think the people who go with the truth over bullshit, or in this case the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, deserve some credit for doing so -- just as the "instinct player" deserves some credit (not a lot, but some) for having the instincts to make the right poker moves.

I'll repeat all this as many times as you need, as tiresome as it is.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.
— Xtrix

This just assumes the question of discussion. — Isaac

Whatever question you have in mind, it wasn't what started this discussion. What started this discussion is the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

That's all this has been about, your digressions aside.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"
— Xtrix

Yes, that's exactly the question I'm asking. — Isaac

Amazing. All right, I'll explain it:

Assuming people like to win money, putting their money on something with a higher probability of winning is the right move. It's advantageous. It's also basic logic. Here's the definition of advantage:

"a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position."

Putting money on something with a 20% chance of winning puts you at a disadvantage compared to a 70% chance of winning.

Now switch to the topic of this thread. Assuming three things: (1) people want to live a healthy life, (2) people want the pandemic to be over, and (3) the medical establishment is correct in recommending vaccines as a way to stop the spread of COVID and take us out of the pandemic, then we're in the exact same position. It's advantageous for everyone if people take the vaccines.

Are you in favor of vaccinations or not? Do you believe people should get themselves vaccinated? Do you agree with the medical establishment? If not, just say so and trying to dance around it by playing dumb and arguing these ridiculous points.

All true. What's that got to do with the ethical question of whether one ought to take the vaccine? — Isaac

That wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

You now want to raise an ethical question, which is different. But I'll indulge. It's very simple:

If we make the basic assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want to come out of the pandemic, etc., then the facts mentioned above lead directly to the conclusion of what one ought to do. If you're really questioning those assumptions, then that's your own business.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
— Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? — Isaac

:lol:

Because people want to die, be sick, etc.? It's hard to skydive when you're dead -- but have it your way.

I very much doubt there is a nutritionist out there who says you can eat the quantity of junk food most Americans eat who does not have a clear bias — Isaac

Likewise with the fossil fuel industry "scientists" and the COVID quackery. Very clear bias, very clear motivations (almost always monetary).

It's clear that a doctor cannot provide a judgement about what one ought to do, they provide medical facts. What one ought to do about those facts is a separate question which a doctor is no more qualified to answer than you are. — Isaac

Doctors do this all the time, because they live in the real world and assume people don't want to be sick and die -- an assumption you seem to want to argue about.

Again, put down David Hume and what you've read about the "is/ought" gap -- it's bogus anyway.

Regardless, this wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

If you want to have philosophical debates about dividing the world up into "facts" and "values," fine. But we're dealing with a real world situation. It's very simple: people should listen to doctors and take the vaccine. It would be better for everyone. It's the ethical thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do -- all based on overwhelming evidence. True, all this rests on the assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want the pandemic to be over, want to stop the spread of COVID, aren't sociopaths, etc. I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but this is the assumption I make -- and I think it's reasonable to everyone but those who spend way too much time with abstractions and introductory philosophy books. ("What if people like being sick? What if they want to die?")

Again, if you don't agree with that, then say so. But don't try to shift the topic into the fact/value dichotomy -- I'm really not interested, nor do I believe in such nonsense.

https://www.newsweek.com/pope-francis-pleads-world-listen-cry-earth-climate-change-fight-1626788

Pope, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, all put out this statement. That's a big deal.

Some other interesting current reading:

Climate Change Is The Greatest Threat To Public Health, Top Medical Journals Warn

Weather Disasters Have Become 5 Times As Common, Thanks In Part To Climate Change

Climate change should be the top story, daily, in every newspaper in the world.

Centuries of experience in the law have taught that expert opinions are a very low grade of evidence. Popper, the greatest philosopher of science of the 20th Century, has shown that unfalsifiable opinions are no part of the scientific method. This means that climatology is only pseudo-science. — Neri

:lol:

There you have it, folks. Don't bother with climate science: some internet guy says it's all "pseudo-science."

Evolution? Also pseudo-science -- at least according to Creationists. Equally relevant.

Those who question this “religion” are personally attacked--as many of the posts herein have amply demonstrated. — Neri

You're not "questioning" anything. You've showed up with a viewpoint, and your offered evidence is laughable.

I think climate denial should be attacked, generally. Because there's no "questioning" or good-faith effort to understand anything.

Then why the praise? If they've not done something ethically praiseworthy? Are just personally pleased with them? — Isaac

I initially said "credit," not "praise" -- you wanted to use "praise." That's fine, call it what you will. But as I've said several times now, I don't think it deserves much praise at all. But it deserves some. Why? Again, the poker example is a good one. There are winning players who don't know a thing about game theory, and yet they win. That's not just random chance and lucky guessing; they're making the mathematically/theoretically "correct" moves, but they're doing so by incorporating things like instinct, intuition, sensitivity to psychological data, the ability to read people, etc. Whatever the source of these instincts, I think they deserve some credit for having them in the first place. That's arguable -- maybe they don't. Maybe people who have a natural "aptitude" for things don't deserve any credit either. That's a discussion perhaps worth having. But either way, I'm not suggesting high praise.

OK. So, same question but for laymen. what's the advantage to society in have all the laymen follow the advice that it most likely to be right (as opposed to having some of them follow the second most likely, third most likely etc.)? — Isaac

You speak as if we're not currently living the answer, presumably forgetting the thread topic.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"

Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not?
— Xtrix

Woah. When did 'Truth' enter into it? — Isaac

It's true that smoking increases the likelihood of getting cancer. It's true that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's true that vaccines are highly effective at combating COVID. It's true that masks help slow the spread of the virus.

Many people outright deny all of the above, largely because they believe the wrong people. People and things which I mentioned above -- quack doctors, Facebook memes, YouTube stars, bloggers, Twitter users, bogus websites, etc.

Neither of those things are a statement about what we ought to do. They are both statements of fact. — Isaac

Again, take a step away from Hume for a minute. Everything I mentioned above is a fact -- it is true, in any sense of the word. Based on those facts, we can decide what to do. It's that simple. But people aren't listening to the facts anymore, and that's the problem. They're not listening because they don't trust medical or scientific authority -- and that's a dangerous mistake.

True, maybe there are people who want the Earth to burn up, who want the pandemic to spread further, who want to die tomorrow, who want to get lung cancer, etc. In those cases, the facts I mentioned above, in their minds, translates to the exact opposite actions of most sane people. So what?

To get an action out them we need an objective, and a value system to weigh it against other objectives. Do you have experts in those things? — Isaac

Yes: nearly every human being on the planet who want to continue to live, who want the pandemic to be over, who want to sustain the environment for future generations, etc.

The question isn't whether or not people are insane. I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.

The question is a matter of who they're listening to. Eventually it'll be right in front of them: they'll get COVID themselves, even after believing it was a "hoax" because they listened to some guy on the internet say so. Eventually the impacts of climate change will hit them where they live, despite believing it's a "Chinese hoax" because they trusted Donald Trump over the overwhelming scientific consensus. Etc.

You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them
— Xtrix

Find one then. — Isaac

That's like saying "find someone who says climate change is a hoax." Equally ridiculous. But they're out there, despite not helping whatever argument you're trying to make.

the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.
— Xtrix

Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do? — Isaac

Are you serious?

I won't even get into it again -- see above -- but think for a second about what you're saying. You're really going off the rails, and I have no idea why.

I think you're a prime example for the people on here who argue that studying philosophy isn't such a good thing for most people. If this is the kind of argument that comes out of it, we're in very deep trouble indeed.

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines
— Xtrix

That's just bullshit. — Isaac

No, it's just a fact.

But let me get this straight: the idea that there are nutritionists out there who would say "eat McDonalds as often as you like" you consider to be outlandish -- you don't even think there's one. But the idea that there are "almost no experts" who question the vaccine -- equally absurd -- you think is "bullshit," and then talk about recommendations for kids as "proof" of this?

In case it's not clear: none of those doctors are questioning the use of vaccines. If you believe recommendations about appropriate ages to get the vaccine is equivalent to "questioning the use of vaccines," you've really misread my statement. Which is a striking misreading.

You singled out, for credit, those who put their money on most experts. — Isaac

Yes, I've been saying that all along. This was my original statement in response to your emphasizing that most people, even those who are what we would call "correct" about a topic (climate change, vaccines), are themselves often just as ignorant about climatology and medicine. I agreed, with the following qualification:

The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however. — Xtrix

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. — Xtrix

And what does the greater probability of it being true have to do with ethics? — Isaac

Nothing.

You've not explained why a society in which everyone follows the highest probabilities is a better one than one in which most people follow the highest probabilities and some follow the second highest, the third highest and so forth — Isaac

I never once made sweeping statements like this. You repeatedly seem to forget the topic, and what I have actually said. I never once mentioned "everyone." I'm talking about laymen, the average citizen, and have been from the beginning, as quoted above.

For them, as for anyone who doesn't have a clue about a particular topic, the best move is to go with the overwhelming consensus of experts. Those who do, I argue, deserve praise only in the sense of having the good judgment to do so -- their ignorance of the topic itself notwithstanding.

I really don't think this is a controversial statement if you take a few seconds to think about it. Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not? I'd argue it is. I'd argue it's better to make a bet and win than make a bet and lose. I'd argue it's better to choose surgery if 98 out of 100 surgeons say it's the right move. I'd argue it's good to put your money into the pot when you're a 3:1 favorite to win.

To you castigate people — Isaac

ore risky one is to be reprimanded? — Isaac

This entire conversation has been rather bizarre. I'm not castigating or reprimanding anyone. Listen once again to what I initially said (and have repeated since):

"Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters."

That's not high praise, and it's not castigating those who don't.

You seem to be overthinking this and reading into things way too much.

Not everything is a debate, and you don't lose points by agreeing with truisms.

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.
— Xtrix

Really? — Isaac

Really? Yes, really.

You think you could find a qualified, nutritionist who says you can eat at McDonalds as often as you like (one who isn't obviously paid, or influenced by the fast food industry). — Isaac

I never said "as often as you like."

You can find "experts" who make all kinds of claims. About tobacco, about fossil fuels, about sugar, about fast food, about anything you like. And that's part of my point.

The reason why your example sounds so convincing to you is because you've made up a deliberately convincing (and unfortunately completely fantastical) one. — Isaac

Not at all. You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them -- just as you can find climate scientists who deny climate change, who are also sincere.

So it's not fantastical at all. But even assuming it was -- that completely misses the point. Just use the examples I started with, in this very thread, regarding COVID and vaccines. Nothing "fantastical" about that either -- the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.

My advice to those who know nothing about medicine is simple: listen to the overwhelming medical consensus about this issue.

Simple. Easy. Yet seemingly very difficult for you which, again, is rather bizarre.

There are scores of properly qualified, unaffiliated experts in the appropriate field who raise a variety of objections to the consensus response to covid, climate change, (possibly 9/11 too - I've never looked). — Isaac

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines, or that climate change is real, or that 9/11 happened. If this is what you mean, then I can see why this discussion has been difficult for you.

If that's not the case, then whatever you mean by "response" here is doing a lot of heavy lifting. Yes, there are disagreements about exactly how to tackle climate change, how best to handle COVID (although there is still a large consensus), etc. So what? That's completely irrelevant.

Maybe this will help: do you think vaccines should be taken? Do you think climate change is real and should be dealt with? Do you believe the Earth is spherical?

If you answer yes to any of those, then I'm not sure what you're arguing against -- besides straw man you've constructed about my "praising" people. My only claim was that they deserve some credit, and I used the example of instinct players in poker, which is a good example.


I can say it only so many ways:


Those lay persons who go with the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, despite knowing nothing about science or medicine, at least deserve credit for that judgment -- because it's the wiser bet.


Shouldn't be controversial, except for those who want to defend their own bad judgment.

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person
— Xtrix

Ha! We all think we're better than average drivers, have better than average senses of humour. — Isaac

My statement is not subjective. I simply know more about the topic than average people.

To react how you did is typical, I suppose, because it sounds ego driven. But it’s a statement of fact, and there’s no reason not to say it simply because it applies to myself— any more than the claim that I’m taller than the average person. I take no pride in it any more than I do about chess or poker. Doesn’t make me special, just means I’ve spent more time on it. Why one is considered bad taste and the other perfectly fine is something we should grow out of.

your knowledge is still second hand, — Isaac

My knowledge of mathematics is also “second hand.”

Why you continue on like this is baffling.

Neither are a sufficiently homogenous group to be either right nor wrong. — Isaac

They are. Those who are anti-vaxxers and climate deniers are wrong. Sorry it’s a struggle for you to acknowledge the obvious.

That wasn't the question I asked. I asked if people should trust the consensus. — Isaac

Which I answered: yes.

If fifty fully qualified experts think one thing and five similarly qualified experts think another, what is it about choosing the fifty which deserves such praise over choosing the five when deciding who to trust? — Isaac

It doesn’t deserve much praise. It’s just a much better bet, as a layman.

Why? Because the more experts draw the same conclusion, the greater the probability that it’s true. This can be checked— it’s an empirical claim.

98 out of 100 nutritionists say you should almost never eat McDonalds. Does following their advice deserve much praise? No. But it certainly deserves more than those laypeople who go with the 2% because they like Big Macs.

Do we really only want people who trust the "overwhelming medical, scientific consensus"? — Isaac

Yes, when it comes to laypeople. People should trust scientists and doctors — and these institutions should be trustworthy.

As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube.

What advantage to society does removing scientific dissent bring? — Isaac

I figured you’d go this route.

I’m not talking about scientific dissent— which is indeed important.

The topic was the similar ignorance of both those who agree with and disagree with scientific consensus and mainstream medicine. My sole claim, in this case, is that those who have the intuition, instinct, or judgment to put their money on — and trust — the opinions of most experts deserve some credit, despite their ignorance of the subject.

Do you see those as the only two options? — Isaac

Do you?

No—those are called examples. There’s gray area.

But you're neither climate scientist, not virologist, nor (whatever a 9/11 expert would be!), so you can't 'step outside' of this. — Isaac

I can, and do. I know more about climate science than the average person, which is what we were talking about.

There is also plenty of evidence in favor of going with mainstream science and medicine.

There is such a thing as correct and incorrect. The people who are anti-vaccine or climate deniers are simply wrong. The ones who “throw in” with mainstream science and medicine, but who are almost completely ignorant about science and medicine, is what the topic was. They happen to be right, and that matters.

Government make a decision favouring the arms manufacturers they're "so obviously in their pocket, it stinks". Government makes a decision in favour of the pharmaceutical industry they're "following the science". It's just roles in a story, evil arms trader, white-coated scientist-hero. — Isaac

But one happens to be right and the other wrong, regardless of how one arrives at that claim. So while I also think it's a shame people aren't more educated, I also am willing to credit them for have the instinct, intuition, or whatever else was required to end jump making the right choice in the end.

In fact I saw this in poker a lot. Though some people wouldn't be able to give a theory or knowledgable explanation of a decision, they would consistently make the right ones -- and would be winning long-term players.

To say they're just as bad as the losing players because they're both equally ignorant of game theory is a mistake.

I'd wager less than a tenth of the people passionate about climate change actually understand climate change, likewise for vaccines, covid, 9/11,...whatever. — Isaac

A good point, and probably true -- even if you double the numbers, it's still not great.

It comes down, in the end, to who we do trust. Nearly everyone says they distrust government, business, the media, etc. -- for very different reasons. Yet they get their information from somewhere, and have arrived at their opinions somehow. It's almost always the influence of their social environment -- their upbringing, their location, their "culture." We see this in the predictability of rural versus urban polling.

But no matter who you talk to, they will give you their reasons -- even the crazy ones -- and these reasons usually come from something they heard or read, and can be traced to somewhere and someone. Much of the COVID misinformation, for example, was traced to under 20 people on Facebook, Twitter, etc. I forget the number, but it was a large percentage.

I'm not only targeting conservatives, either. I'm always surprised by how little people, who I would say are on the right side of an issue, know about the issue they're "right" about -- whether vaccines or COVID or climate change, as you mentioned. The fact that they happened to be right doesn't say much -- they're ultimately just as ignorant as the anti-vaxxers and climate deniers, they just are lucky enough to have "good taste" in who they trust. They at least deserve credit for that, however.

Give me someone who goes with the overwhelming medical, scientific consensus, and with expertise, over someone who listens to a Facebook meme and YouTube influencer any day of the year. Both may lack real knowledge of the subjects, and both may hold lots of cynical or skeptical views about authority, but in the end only one has arrived at the right choice because of who they judged worthy enough to trust -- and that matters. I'm not even sure it can be taught.

This assumes that people want or should want to cooperate, that their basic belief is something like "We should all be willing to cooperate with everyone else." — baker

I wouldn't use "cooperate," but be willing to learn and understand -- yes, that's assumed; indeed, it has to be. If that's not the case, what point is there in talking? Perhaps in front of an audience, to demonstrate how irrational the other person is, or something like that -- which is fine. But I don't have much interest in it -- although I admittedly fall into that trap too often without knowing it.

And for some people, sometimes, political tribalism and dehumanizing the "other" is precisely what they are in for in discussion, even if ostensibly, they're seeking to discuss advanced mathematics or climate change or whatever. — baker

Sure -- that's all over the place and, I argue, is almost always a complete waste of time which gets us exactly nowhere. Might as well just scream at each other or, better yet, fight to the death with fists, swords or guns, as they would do in times past when there was no other way to settle a dispute. I'm not opposed to that either -- but I'm excluding that from my axioms, since it falls outside the realm of discourse.

These are good, solid ideas, Xtrix. But, like all rules for conversation, I think they will increase time and energy rather than reduce them. — NOS4A2

I'm only not in favor of wasting time and energy.

Yours and my own views are quite different and I fear pulling them apart would only lead to frustration. — NOS4A2

I guess you're a good example, yeah. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect your views on both the world in general and human nature are radically different, and so there's no sense in seriously "debating" any political or economic or scientific or philosophical issue.

despite Friedman’s successes with the abolition of the draft and maybe floating exchange rates, he has had little influence worth noting, and the crimes of “neoliberalism” are too often overstated. — NOS4A2

Little influence worth noting?

Again, this is just factually wrong, and demonstrably so -- like most things you think and claim -- but since I know the reason why you often make these false claims, as I would about the claims of a flat-earther or creationist, showing it as such is a good example of a waste of time. You're not capable of seeing it, so it wouldn't be for that reason, and doing so for anyone reading this exchange (in the off chance anyone *is* reading it) is generally futile or exhibitionist as well.

But when there is such consensus, what will people talk about? — baker

All kinds of things. How best to solve problems, personal and otherwise, comes to mind. Remember that I'm talking about answers to very basic questions, and more as a reminder of common beliefs and goals. Starting there and building on it is important, because then you better flush out the differences in solution or approach.

I've used mathematics as an example, and poker. But perhaps health is a better analogy. Any discussion about a proper diet rests upon the background assumption that there is such a thing as "healthy," that it's a goal, and that it is generally achievable.

Or perhaps what route to take. No point in discussing that if neither party agrees on the destination. And so on.

Seems very obvious, and indeed it is. It's nearly a truism. But especially in areas of politics and economics, it's worth having and worth reminding each other of. In an age where many assume the other person "hates America and wants it to fail," it should occasionally be done. Better to take the person at their word and go from there -- because if their actions, solutions, strategies are counter to their professed goals, this can then be shown with evidence. Yes, this is an idealization, but when possible should be applied. I disregard anything else -- because at that point, conversation is totally useless anyway, so all rules go out the window and you might as well be talking to a gazelle.

And naturally we take things personally. Someone telling us we are incorrect feels to many like an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. We are social beings and in real physical meeting with people there is a multitude of factors on how we approach the other. In the internet there is just a name without anything else. Hence we can be incredibly different in the social media (or here, where we are anonymous) than when actually meet people or have to work with them. — ssu

Very true. I have struggled with this since the days of AOL message boards. I have seen it everywhere. In real life I’ve run into problems too, but much less — either because I’m forced to communicate better and hold my temper, because of nonverbal cues, because others are less aggressive, or a combination. But it’s always been there online, and has only gotten worse.

I think the rules I mentioned apply in both cases, but should be even more explicitly applied to the online world, where anonymity pulls one into acting poorly and generally wasting time by shouting into an ether.

But what's the difference between moderation and censorship? — ssu

A very fine line. When one agrees to rules of the game, however, it’s a different story. I think the Forum does a good job with moderation generally.

You think that's a minority group? — Isaac

When it comes to climate change, vaccines, COVID, etc — yes. But overall, the general feeling is that government is bought by special interests.

Your axioms of discourse appear typicaly liberal to my eye. It seems I presumed too much. We might leave it there. — Banno

They may very well be. I was being genuine when I asked you to clarify it for me, because the connection may well be an interesting one -- just one I'm currently ignorant of. But I'm happy to leave it there too.

If consensus is agreeable to you, fine. — Neri

Yes, the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists -- like the overwhelming consensus of any scientific field -- should immediately tell a layperson something about the world.

For example, that perhaps their few hours of research and citation of two relatively obscure articles may not undermine the entire field, that the field has probably considered many of these "discoveries," and that maybe -- just maybe -- they don't really have a clue about climatology, but have approached the field in an attempt to undermine it for emotional reasons -- reasons usually tied to religious or political belief.

These ideas should at least cross one's mind.

Or go on believing that you've cracked the code. Whatever floats your boat. In which case you'll have a seat with the flat earthers, creationists, holocaust deniers, and 9/11 truthers.

Why disavow liberalism? Is there a considered reason? — Banno

When did I disavow liberalism? I'm just not immediately seeing the connection. If you want to clarify both what you mean by "liberalism" and how you think the parts of what I said relate to it, I'm all ears.

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."
— Xtrix

Really? You set out some of the basic tenets of liberalism. Was that not your intent? — Banno

Well the word "liberalism" is pretty vague these days, but I was assuming you meant it in its modern context. If you're referring to classical liberalism or the enlightenment, etc., then I'm sure there's something to that. But that wasn't my conscious intent, no.

A large minority of this country are so distrustful of everything except their favored media, that they're willing to fight on the side of Covid, climate change, and insurrection. All in the name of "freedom," of course.

It's a large death cult which will probably bring everyone down with it.

In a perfect world every discussion would end with a Rogerian agreement. — Shawn

I don't believe that.

If I recollect correct, in logical argument, both parties run backwards together as far as necessary to find a premise upon which they agree. Then and only then do they go forward with disagreement. Otherwise, they're just two ships passing in the night, or risk being so. I think the same analysis would apply to the definition of terms. — James Riley

I think so too.

How much time and energy would be spared if these simple propositions were adopted?
— Xtrix
Perhaps one simple (if not already mentioned) issue is what is the agenda, the motivation of someone to engage in a discourse. This can vary a lot. — ssu

Sure, and I didn't make clear in the OP, but I'm assuming good faith. If there are ulterior motives, then that's a different story -- but since that's sometimes hard to tell, for the time being I suspend that judgment and assume the other person really believes what they say they do.

Philosophical debates can lapse into a competition about who knows best. Some think it's a contest of who is the most intelligent. Not that we can learn something from each other and different viewpoints and arguments are beneficial. — ssu

Yes, which is unfortunately what "debate" has often turned into: scoring points. As if it's a boxing match. That can be entertaining, but I for one am often left disappointed by interchanges like that.

That all sounds very liberal and pleasant, but what process goes into "establishing agreement not only about basic definitions... but also about basic beliefs"? — Banno

I don't understand the claim about this being "liberal."

I mentioned the process that goes into establishing agreement. It takes a willingness of both people to accurately understand the other person's point of view. I think it's essential to go to more basic questions beforehand -- for example, questions about human nature before diving into a "debate" about economics. We may find the other person's point of view is so different that any discussion will be irrelevant, or else we find that we're in agreement -- in which case, the conversation goes on.

And what if such agreement cannot be found? — Banno

Then it's often not worth having a discussion, in my view. If the other person doesn't even agree that 2 + 2 = 4, what's the sense of discussing the quadratic formula?

What if the other person's position remains obscure? — Banno

This is part of the process -- making that explicit. If they can't agree on basic terms, beliefs about the world, or goals, then it's usually a waste of time to discuss much of anything.

What if the difference of commonality is exactly what is significant? — Banno

Sometimes it is, and one can still go on talking. Other times it's not worth continuing (and in my view, that's most of the time). But it's best to know the differences beforehand, either way.

I'd rather know, before discussing geology or evolution, whether you're a Biblical literalist, and believe that God created the universe in 6 days, that the Earth is 6,000 years old, etc. Likewise, if you believe humans are essentially selfish, greedy creatures and the highest purpose of life is the maximizing and accumulation of gold and slaves, I'd at least like to know that before discussing macroeconomic policies. Would save me a good deal of time.

Sometimes folk are what we in the trade call wrong. — Banno

Of course. I don't argue differently.

An unwelcome truth is that the folk who are wrong can equally be ourselves. — Cuthbert

And often is.

Other people will presume that we are crazy, evil, brainwashed, hypocritical or dim — Cuthbert

Probably, yes. That shouldn't stop us.

We can argue that both the loggers and the conservationists want the same thing for their children. A viable future. But at this point it can go south very quickly. — Tom Storm

I think the the tools you describe are useful and can work if people come together in good faith. — Tom Storm

Things can go south very quickly, yes. That's a possibility.

But if they truly do want a better world for their kids, there is a right answer about the decisions they're making to cut down trees -- an answer that can only be given when that goal is established. This then requires evidence, reasoning, etc., to show. But unless we establish (or assume) that they really do share this goal (of a better life for their kids), there's no point in engaging. At that point you reach the level of dealing with a rabid bear.

But it's extremely difficult to begin a conversation without these buzzwords coming up very quickly. — Manuel

Right, which is why I think they should be avoided or at least clarified. Otherwise it's a complete waste of time.

Why? — Ennui Elucidator

Why what?

Can you provide a few examples of conversations that would have been improved by this process? Additionally, please provide some indication of how improvement is being assessed - from who’s perspective, by what criteria, etc. — Ennui Elucidator

I think this forum provides plenty of examples, but there are many from my own experience and mistakes. I often misunderstand and misrepresent the other person, and in the end, only after a long argument, come to see that I was mistaken and had misattributed beliefs, values, attitudes, or characteristics to them without knowing it. Had I not assumed the other was an idiot, or deluded, or childish, or otherwise simply reacted, and first made an attempt to understand, it would have saved me time -- I would have either confirmed I was correct or else realized I wasn't and went on to more constructive discourse.

I think progress is when two people are collaborating on solving a problem and learning rather than wallowing in misunderstandings before anything happens.

It is not the same when it comes to political and economic structure. These cannot be analogized, not by any sensible stretch of the imagination. Again, power and positionality. Who is speaking? To what end? — StreetlightX

Exactly right. I'm failing to see the disagreement, beyond my use of analogy (which is admittedly limited).

Had Friedman's ideas not provided the ideological cover for what would have, in all probability, be done with or without them, they would have used another set of ideas. The idealist approach to understanding neoliberalism is totally misguided. — StreetlightX

Every destructive action taken the last 40 years, in what amounts to nothing more than a capitalist-class power grab, has its intellectual justification -- and that's true across the board historically. It was true with National Socialism. Whether those in power truly believe these justifications or not isn't my point -- my point is the effect it has on the public.

Since they can't express what amounts to a belief in the divine right of kings, they need cover. I argue that this cover matters in the same way that propaganda, through education and media, matter. That's not the same as ignoring actions. Besides, is there any doubt that certain actions can't be taken without first fooling the public into permitting them?

Just look at real examples -- like the slogans that get repeated about small government and the welfare queens here in the US. Very effective propaganda. If ideas like these take hold, as they did, then it opens the space for the concrete actions of cutting taxes and eliminating social programs, which is what was desired all along by the wealthy and powerful.

You're quite right that if it weren't Milton Friedman it would have been someone else -- but I bring him up only because that's what in fact won out. So there's no doubt that the neoliberal program is a set of actions like deregulation, destroying unions, cutting taxes, and so on -- but do you think any of these actions could have occurred in the Keynesian era?

And just to be clear, I'm all for bad faith arguments, tactically employed. I want to win in reality, not 'be the most rational'. The enemy ought to be exasperated. — StreetlightX

Sure, but I don't think this is how the Chicago boys won the universities and most of the public. I think they truly believed this bullshit, and so were in essence acting on true convictions and in good faith. Much more persuasive.

I could be wrong about that -- in which case, fine: bad faith it is. I'm all for effective propaganda. It's true the left sucks at this.

I don't agree. I think the values of most Americans are pretty mainstream. Discord has been intentionally engineered to keep people with common needs and goals separated. — T Clark

Sure, which is why I said "almost." Some can be reached. But it's been engineered all too well, to the point of a cult. I do pity those people, but I'm not totally convinced that they can be persuaded that they're mistaken. (Because they don't want to be.)

The division and discord we see here, with the Trump presidency the most recent example, has been building for decades. It was engineered implemented by the Republican Party to advance their particular agenda. — T Clark

When it comes to the population interested in politics, I do believe it's almost entirely hopeless. There's no longer anything rational about it, and no one is acting on good faith. There's no consistency, no principles -- it's pure tribalism. In that case, it's best not to waste our time with argumentation, and my "axioms" go right out the window. We simply must overpower them -- through force, though voting, through organizing, through greater outreach, etc.

But to the leaders in government and business who still have some semblance of reason left, I think there's still a chance -- and the only way to win is to play the game better. If the Chicago School could transform the intellectual landscape by infiltrating Harvard and Yale, corporate boardrooms and Capitol Hill, in just a decade or so, through nothing but articles, interviews, lectures, television appearances, books, etc., then there's no reason to believe the pendulum can't swing the other way.

The only question is whether it's too late. That may very well be the case -- and indeed I fear it is.

But still we should try in the meantime -- while also organizing as quickly as we can.

#1 is sisyphean. Just look at philosophy for heavens sake, we can't even agree on what consciousness or matter are, simpler notions than politics by far. — Manuel

I don't think that's true. There seems to me as much consensus about things in politics as there is about anything -- it's just deliberately been targeted for confusion and propaganda. But when the buzz words are removed -- "socialism," "communism," "capitalism," "free markets," "liberal," etc. -- it's a much different picture.

A major caveat: this isn't always true. Some people are simply too far gone to even bother with.

Yours an invitation to civil discourse, but hypocrisy is not interested, and these days doesn't even bother to disguise itself. The question becomes, when will they be subject to real punishment and under what circumstances. Because imo, many have long since earned it. . — tim wood

I agree, of course. I'm interested only in civil discourse if I believe the other side is acting on good faith, which is why I brought up Friedman, and I restrict this mostly to the domain of the intelligentsia.

You may never have to deal with Euclid's axioms, but economics and politics will deal with you whether you like it or not. — StreetlightX

We live with technology, and its basis in science and mathematics -- and don't have to understand it. Likewise we live with the decisions of those in power, both in government and in business; the basis for those decisions come from political and economic paradigms -- whether we understand them or not. The idea of the efficiency of free markets is as much taken for granted as Euclid's postulates in many minds.

When some corporation is poisoning your water supply for profit, the idea that one must hold equal in discourse what is unequal in reality is to side with said poisoners. — StreetlightX

Yes of course. But I'm not a pacifist. I fully acknowledge that rationality and civil discourse necessarily break down, righty, in many situations. Sometimes we simply have to punch back -- no more words.

What I think you're objecting to is two assumptions which I may not have made clear. One is that the other person is rational, and the second is that this person is acting on good faith -- however wrong or deluded they may be. This is why I say it's simply a waste of time to argue with anyone before at least securing this.

I like the example of games. If you and I are playing poker, and we establish we both want the same outcome (to win money), then we can discuss the best strategies. I may hold a very losing strategy and not know it, and if I'm rational I should be more than happy to be corrected. If I'm a drunken imbecile, and don't give a damn about winning money, then there's no point discussing strategy (or anything else).

What I'm trying to ultimately attack is the false dogma that the ruling class have used to maintain their power.

"The capitalist class was in a great deal of difficulty. They decided to push back real hard in the 70s. But like any ruling class, they needed ruling ideas. So the ruling ideas were that freedom of the market, privatization, entrepreneurialism of the self, individual liberty, and all the rest of it, should be the ruling ideas of a new social order. It was this order that got implemented in the 1980s and 1990s. In the course of that, certain adjustments occurred; for instance, a much stronger emphasis upon financialization and financial power -- because finance is one way in which an individual can accumulate a vast amount of wealth." -- David Harvey [Emphasis mine]

This fight may not be won with words or by changing minds -- I'm doubtful about that myself. But as long as we're here discussing things, I think my rules of thumb are generally helpful to keep in mind. Otherwise what's the point? The only alternative is physical force, and if that's the case, so be it.

You are a closed-minded fool who believes that anyone who disagrees with you deserves to be dead. — Neri

That's not what I said.

I will not wish the same for you, even though you do not agree with the freedom of speech enshrined in the First Amendment--the most basic of all human rights. — Neri

Again -- completely wrong. I believe in your right to talk harmful nonsense and promote climate denial and ignorance of science.

It’s a ridiculous system. There’s also the prospect that this loses the senate, because if Feinstein dies it’s the Republican Governor that will appoint the next one.

Warmed-over denialist garbage cribbed from notorious purveyors of science disinformation. Nothing to see here. — SophistiCat

:up:

I got about 4 sentences in. Denialists are still hanging on, the overwhelming evidence be damned. Since nothing else will change their minds, I guess we just have to hope that they die off quickly before bringing the human species down with them.

People who don't believe in God or any higher power like to say that the Big Bang was the start of the universe — HardWorker

People who BELIEVE in God (whatever that means) say the same thing, whether they call it a big bang or not, and the same problems arise.

What created god? He's uncreated? Infinite? Unknowable? So maybe the universe is uncreated, infinite, unknowable. As Carl Sagan would say, "Why not save a step?"

Let's not pretend there's any principles involved on which most people base their judgments. The people screaming about authoritarianism because of the "big government" shutting things down or requiring masks are the same ones who will defend the government when it's the party they prefer.

The people screaming about corporations restricting their "freedoms" concerning vaccines and free speech are the same ones who have been telling us for years that private enterprise should be free to conduct their private businesses how they see fit -- including discriminating against minorities.

We just had four years under a man who wanted to undermine a free election and incited an insurrection when he lost, but now we're asking about authoritarianism? The timing the question itself seems politically motivated. Seems to me we just barely escaped a descent into authoritarianism.

Got to narrow the question a little: are the people who have power (i.e., who make the major decisions and control the political and economic institutions) becoming more authoritarian?

No more than they've always been.

West Virginia creates jobs farming lavender at former coal mines

No reason this can't happen elsewhere.

Without 100% electricity sourced from wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro, electric vehicles is business as usual. — Bitter Crank

Sure, but that doesn't happen overnight. I think it's good to transition to that, get the infrastructure up, and then work on sourcing electricity only from renewables. If we don't start getting that going, nothing will happen.

I'd rather there be a push for public transportation, but if that "can't" happen for political reasons, this is the only way I can see of transitioning.

We are failing at limiting global warming, which isn't just an inconvenience, it will eventually be an existential threat. — Bitter Crank

Agreed.

Too big of an idiot, I see. That’s fine. Save your simplistic comments for elsewhere.

I don't think switching to electric autos (140 million of them in the us alone) is a good idea, — Bitter Crank

Why?

You know it's interesting how people only seem to get upset when you accuse them of something they are guilty of.... — Cheshire

You quoted me out of context. Please don't quote me again.

Certainly the capitalist driven industrial revolution bears the major responsibility for global warming. No doubt, the coal barons, oil barons, lumber barons, steel barons, railroad barons, auto barons, air travel barons, plastic junk barons, etc. barons of Europe, North America, and now Asia didn't intend to cause global warming. But had they known of global warming in 1800 it is doubtful they would have behaved any differently. If it is man's nature to use resources, capitalists are manic blind resource exhausters, who never have a reason to moderate until something is gone, and not even then. — Bitter Crank

We could blame capitalism. I'm happy to do that, but there is another cause: Humans are just not very good at wide-ranging, long-term consequence-calculating. — Bitter Crank

:clap: