So, if that's what you're saying is 'ideologically-driven', then I agree, but I don't agree it is characteristic of science as such. — Wayfarer

Can one do science without scientism?

Vicarious atonment is an immoral doctrine and is central to Christianity. No one can do your repentence for you. — Gregory

The real problem for all Christianities is the whole eternal damnation business -- "If you don't get it right this time around and don't pick the right Christian denomination, you'll burn forever."

It's not clear why the Supreme Being would bring about such a creation a significant portion of which will suffer forever, while he watches on, apparently happily, as they failed to pick the right religion.

Catholics must believe the doctrine /.../ because it's a dogma. — BillMcEnaney

A frequently underappreciated point, yet crucial to holding that God is more than merely a product of one's imagination.

One is supposed to believe in God through divine revelation, ie. from the top down, with God revealing himself, and then a particular person coming in contact with that revelation via disciplic succession (that goes back directly to God himself).

Not from the bottom up, the way philosophers and Protestants do it, where a particular person comes up with various "reasons for believing in God".

Meh, enlightened people are a dime a dozen these days.

Silence has power. — unenlightened

Only if one already has power.
Who cares if I'm silent?

Given Boethius' definition of happiness, I was thinking that the machine would produce a rigorous training environment for the development of the virtues, since it is attaining these virtues that makes one happy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Virtues, in order to have a chance of making one happy, would also need to be attained the right way -- through blood, sweat, and tears. And this cannot be done in a machine.

It's also why fairy tales (roughly an equivalent of an "experience machine") have only a limited use for teaching people virtue: fairy tales can give people ideas of virtue, but until a person actually puts them into practice in relevant real life situations, they won't have the desired effect. One cannot wish oneself happy, but one might work oneself happy.

Present three sentences from scientific texts of your choosing that contain the word "we" and talk about mankind in general and I'll explain it on your examples.

Are you talking about the influence of positivism on science? — Joshs

It's earlier than positivism, you can see it with the ancient Greeks already. That characteristic brand of normativisim -- "It's like this and no other way".

Not all approaches in science are positivistic. There are postmodern sciences, for instance.

What/whom do you have in mind?
Surely postmodernists can go beyond the positivism that the OP likes to criticize.

But there's something else, that I'd like to get at with your quoting Thompson several times by now --

"In Buddhism, we have a case study showing that when groundlessness is embraced and followed through to its ultimate conclusions, the outcome is an unconditional sense of intrinsic goodness that manifests itself in the world as spontaneous compassion.”

You say, "But I never understood how assuming a groundless ego leads to spontaneous compassion and benevolence."

To which I replied earlier that what Thompson is stating as fact is actually Mahayana/Vajrayana doctrine; it's not even universally Buddhist (he should have named his book "Why I am not a Mahayani/Vajrayani/modernist Buddhist", because this is all that he says he isn't, as far as Buddhism goes).

I'm baffled that anyone would even try to understand specific terms from a particular Buddhist discourse in an atomistic, context-independent manner.

Would it even be possible for someone outside of Mahayana/Vajrayana to "embrace groundlessness" and "follow it through to its ultimate conclusions"? At best, such a person would have to work with whatever they think those terms mean, and the outcome would be who knows what (possibly a mental breakdown, as is not that rarely the case for "spiritual practitioners").

How does it hurt you politically to think of people as individuals?

I'm not disagreeing, but we have to get by somehow. We can't just give in to silence and let the others rule as they please.

Possibly because you don't see any meaningful difference between I-statements and you-statements.

Im not asking you for what you think their motivations are, I'm asking you what has led you to believe they are doing that. — flannel jesus

The language they use; namely, you-statements; and we-statements (which are veiled you-statements).

Pick up any scientific piece of writing, and insofar it makes claims in the form of "we humans", as if the generalizations the writer makes apply to all people.

Obviously, the texts in the hard sciences will have less of that. But those in the humanities, neuroscience, neurobiology will have plenty.

And why do you think scientists are telling you what you think so frequently? — flannel jesus

Because they want to have control over people.
It's a standard mode of operation for people anyway; scientists have just elevated it to a whole new level, much like religion/spirituality.

Disagreeing with scientists potentially comes with a cost.
— baker
Do you think that's unjust in some way? What specific examples of this unjustness have you experienced?

Well, you can always dismiss my experience on the grounds of them being a statistically irrelevant sample.
All in all, I think it makes for a waste of time to utter words without actually communicating.
You can see the downside of this mode of non-communication in medicine (as an applied science) when doctors don't listen to people describing their symptoms and instead jumping to conclusions, followed by wrong medical treatment, side-effects, wasted time, money, and missed opportunities for healing.

When scientists say "we think X", why are you interpreting that into "You think X, because you think what we tell you you think"? — flannel jesus

Where do you get that from??

I'm talking about the use of you-language, you-messages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-message

“You are such a slob. You just expect me to clean up after you.”
“You are always working. Work is more important to you than your family.”
“You are so frivolous. You just think money grows on trees.”
“You always leave your mess lying everywhere.”
“You don’t care about me or my feelings.”
“You didn’t text me like you said you would.”
“You embarrassed me at dinner the other night, like you always do.”
“You never tell me how you’re feeling.”

The speaker of such statements doesn't say, in first person singular, what he thinks, feels, intends, wants, but makes claims about the other person, esp. about their inner life.

People usually use you-language. It's a form of non-communication (while uttering words), a way of talking at the person or past the person, not to them.

Surely you can just accept that scientists think X, and you disagree - scientists in general don't imagine nobody disagrees with them.

Disagreeing with scientists potentially comes with a cost. Like the cost of disagreeing with a doctor, teacher, psychotherapist, boss, anyone who uses science in an argument against you in any way.

You're just proving my point. Non-communication for the win!

Possibly because you think like they do already. So you don't feel imposed upon. When scientists say "we", you feel included in that "we". Not everyone does, though.

The irony of you projecting your own behavior on scientists... — wonderer1

Copy-paste examples.

You have to ask yourself the following questions:
How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society. — Wolfgang

For practical purposes, an initially democratic society will eventually develop into a more homogeneous one.

It's simply not economically or socially viable to be different, unless one's kind of "different" can be monetized readily enough.

Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
/.../
They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.

Of course.

True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages.

Rather, the solution seems to be for the world to become significantly less globalized, less connected.

You think whatever I say that you think.
You feel whatever I say that you feel.
You did whatever I say that you did.
Your intentions are whatever I say that your intentions are.

Listen to pretty much any scientist, and this is what they are telling you, directly, or at best less directly.

So you're just going to let them win, without a fight, 3:0?

It's trivially true that when a person talks, they talk, and not society, or community etc.

The question is how individual(istic) can a person be, given that they do not live in a vacuum.

what claims of certainty are you actually bothered with? — Kizzy

To begin with, everyday things.
Such as an acquaintance accusing you of having done something, and ignoring evidence to the contrary. For example, an acquaintance (with whom I used to be on friendly terms years ago) accused me once that I called her. I denied, while she insisted that I was lying. Given the facts of the situation, I surmised that what happened was that her phone pocket-dialed me (she said she was backpacking and had her phone in her backpack and that it unclocked itself; this was back in the day of old Nokias that did all kinds of crazy things on their own). I wasn't around for that first call, but I returned it, and this was what she saw. It would be easy to just check the call history. But she refused to do that and instead insisted that I lied. The ease with which she accused me of lying!! And yet, who in the world would not side with her?

Things like that happen all time. One would need to have a team of lawyers and a camera crew at one's side at all times.

Secondly, metaphysical/spiritual/religious things. Like when people claim with 100% certainty that they know which religion is the right one (and how everyone who isn't a member of that religion will burn in hell for all eternity or some such).

So you looked, right? I believe you...Its clear you accept/tolerate instead of refuse or ignore and become susceptible to problems when examples are poor and used wrongly to build a weak stance upon already incredibly unstable grounds, bounds, and/or mounds. This is the mound I am talking about,

So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.
— baker
, what does this even mean?

Good luck with refusing or ignoring a claim made by someone who is in a position of power over you, like a police officer, an IRS agent, your boss, etc.

Science is based on someone's particular, ideologically driven idea of human experience (or how it should be).
It's yet another form of normativism.

I also think the "objective" attitude of stoics like Marcus Aurelius may be a form of dissociation, particularly concerning one's emotions.. seems unhealthy to me. I think it is better to address trauma rather than "objectifying" it. — NotAristotle

It seems a Stoic is unable to experience trauma in the first place, since a Stoic's outlook on life is such that it can accomodate whatever trauma-inducing hardship might come his way.

In contrast, an ordinary person whose outlook on life is sketchy at best, who doesn't have a developed philosophy of life, can readily become overwhelmed by life's challenges, thus experiencing "trauma".

It's like the difference between a well-trained person and a couch potato: if they have to run for five miles, the well-trained person will do so with ease, while the couch potato will probably collapse before he even runs a mile.

I.e. memento mori, memento vivere. — 180 Proof

Slaves live. But what does it mean to live?

Every time I see the title of this thread, I'm reminded of Oprah Winfrey and her "What I know for sure" column/book.
https://www.oprah.com/spirit/the-top-20-things-oprah-knows-for-sure

Apart from some philosophers, people in general seem to be completely sure of a whole lot of things.

We do not actually KNOW anything at 100%. — Chet Hawkins

You vs. Oprah.

The thing is that in everyday life, we mostly have to deal with Oprah-type people, people who are 100% sure of things. So far, I have not found a viable way in philosophy for dealing with such utterly and completely sure people, much to my dismay and loss.

I would normally distinguish between thinking of yourself as a person in their own right and being or becoming a person in its own right.
— kudos

This seems to me like a distinction that isn't a difference. Can you explain this further? — BC

thinking that you're x
vs.
being x

thinking that you can climb a tree
vs.
successfully climbing a tree

thinking that you're productive
vs.
being productive

thinking that you're a person in your own right
vs.
being a person in your own right


Being x requires some type of evidence, often objectively, interpersonally measurable.

No. Becoming a person in one's own right diminishes innocence. — BC

How Christian ...

What's wrong about living a simple life without worry or anxieties, supposing those questions bring with them those feelings? — kudos

What is "wrong" with such a life is that one cannot choose it; it's not the result of deliberate action, at least not always.

Anyway, where is this opposition between innocence and experience coming from? — kudos

Wishful thinking, possibly born out of incompetence.

So, I'm interested, what type of experience qualifies as anti-innocent and what does not?

It looks as if for many people, loss of innocence has to do with opposing one's elders or with the onset of sexuality of any kind.

Because the cute little innocent child has discovered something that undermines innocence: He has become aware of himself and his measly bit of power. He doesn't have much power at all, but he can wield it; he can now say, "NO" to adults. NO! I won't eat that food. NO! I won't sit on the potty. NO! I won't go to sleep. Just that awareness of self, so essential to development, undermines innocence. And that's just one thing, Learning to talk undermines innocence. Learning to walk and run undermines innocence. — BC

So not being a cute obedient robot is what diminishes a person's innocence?

Interesting. So the idea is that the essential nature of being is beneficial towards all things? — Tom Storm

But I never understood how assuming a groundless ego leads to spontaneous compassion and benevolence. — Joshs

It doesn't; it's a doctrinal claim in those schools of Buddhism that contain the concept of "Buddha nature" (or the modernized equivalent of it).

(I've replied to you about this before, but it looks like you've ignored it.)

That said, compassion and benevolence have a very specific meaning in Buddhist discourse, insofar they are understood in terms of the Four Brahmaviharas, the Four Sublime Abidings. As such, they aren't simply thought of as the emotions or attitudes that people generally think they are. Further, their definitions vary, depending on the Buddhist school.

No one knows anything about 'hate speech'. They know what makes them uncomfortable. It's a vaccuous concept that doesn't refer to anything that could be used interpersonally, unless you already agree on what Hate Speech. Which is tautological and entirely incoherent.

They obviously don't, given the number of law suits journalists and institutions get into. — AmadeusD

It seems it has a lot ot do with calculated risks. It's seems likely that editors calculate that publishing something potentially problematic will still pay off for them even if it costs them a lawsuit.

To argue that the press has a duty to provide only certain facts in order to protect democracy contradicts the idea that the freer the press, the more open the democracy. — Hanover

Actually, democracy itself rests on taking for granted that all involved will play by certain rules that protect democracy itself, which includes censoring one's own speech and behavior and those of others.

The net result of using the press as a means to promote certain viewpoints only leads to a distrust of the press even when the press has their information correct. That's exactly what you're seeing now, where no one can speak outside their echo chamber because there are no longer any accepted facts across ideological boundries.

This isn't to say there's such a thing as a view from nowhere and that objectively can be established, but balanced reporting, where competing viewpoints are presented would be the goal.

I don't recall a time when a particular media outlet wasn't associated with a particular political option. Sometimes, this association is more obvious, clearly spelled out, other times, less so, but it's always there.

Do you see the press as a legitimate political force, rightfully empowered to promote the good as the outlet sees fit, or do you see the press as having no objective other than the presentation of facts from various viewpoints, leaving to the reader the conclusions he wishes to draw?

The press likes to present itself as being "objective" and "truthful". It becomes rather ironic when you see two competing newspapers have those concepts in their slogans, and then each newspaper writes views that are directly opposed to eachother.

Would a European nation provide both sides of a Trump related issue or would that just not be necessary due to the homogenous view they might have on the topic? — Hanover

In 2020, several high politicians in EU countries congratulated Trump for winning the election and haven't recanted it since. Beyond that, there is a variety of views on the Trump issue.

That is, is Swedish and French (for example) news more accurate, or is it just more predictably consistent with the promotion of those countries' political ideologies? — Hanover

There is no homogenized "French news" or homogenized "Swedish news" or some such. In every EU country that I can think of, there are newspapers that are pro-Trump, those that are against him, and those that are somewhat aloof.

The problem is that once upon a time there were very few national news outlets, so entry into the market was difficult. You had to get your credentials and prove your worth if you wanted a microphone in front of you. Reputation was critical, so no outlet wanted to get their facts wrong or appear biased. — Hanover

We'd have to check on a case-by-case basis, but the situation probably varies by time period, country, and continent.

What you describe is just one pattern for how a news outlet may establish itself.
For example, another pattern is that the government (a monarchy or secular) provides an official news outlet which is the only one in the country, and this news outlet exists regardless of how well it does in terms of sales.

Ethical reporting was a requirement for survival in the market.

Rather, the other way around: those which survived were deemed ethical.

Now all you need is a keyboard and you can publish to the world.

Not at all. Getting heard nowadays is extremely difficult. Sure, publishing may be easy, but getting oneself heard is often impossible.

What sells is what people want to hear. The ethics exist, but it's not critical to follow them. And so we're left with people just as likely to listen to me or you, regardless of what malice lurks in our minds, as they are to listen to those who have agreed to a code of ethics.

But people, the potential readers, are not tabulae rasae, they are also not passive recipients of what they hear. They are not "the masses". They do not come to the news stand as naive little children.

Nations do need some kind of homogenization starting from being equal citizens. — ssu

Equal??
People are not only not equal, people generally despise the very idea of equality.

I think you should watch more popular culture, reality tv, commercials (such as those for beauty products).

I want to post the links to some popular commercials that will dissuade you from ever thinking about equality as something possible or desirable.
(I won't post them for fear or legal consequences.)

So why is populism something that doesn't support democracy and promotes typically strong leaders and authoritarianism? — ssu

Populism is, essentially, plebeian mentality, and plebeian mentality is antidemocratic, simplistic, black-and-white, thus authoritarian.

It's not that the elites would have become corrupted; it's that (also because of democarcy), plebeian people, ie. people from low socio-economic classes have been able to attain positions of power (in politics, economy, education, art). These people have probably accumulated wealth and obtained higher education degrees, but they still are plebeians at heart.

It just seems that there's no antidote to populism

There is: the traditional class/caste system.

Language is shared, and cannot be privatised. The thread is all about claiming the right to join the community of communicators while repudiating any responsibility or commitment to said community to put any value on honest and truthful communication. A special word has been coined for the proper community response to this immoral and illegitimate move — "de-platforming". In olden days we used to call it "sending to Coventry" presumably because Coventry was unspeakably awful. No one can, or should even try, to have a serious discourse with one who does not commit to making sense and speaking the truth as far as they are able. — unenlightened

But things have changed. We are now living in the modern age of hyperindividualism and practical solipsism.

But I still hold that the intentions and assumptions of the speaker the do not leave the speakers body and travel in the signs to be conveyed to some listener. The listener is faced with the sign only, and it is up to him to provide it some with meaning. The act of understanding a sign, considering it, giving it meaning, and so on, are very important acts in this exchange and I think they have been largely ignored (as far as I know), at least as it pertains to Speech Act Theory. — NOS4A2

No, they have not been ignored; if anything, they have been taken for granted, on account of taking for granted that people do not exist in a vacuum and that communication is not a solipsistic enterprise.

Various theories of communication assume that communicators have a shared cultural and linguistic foundation, and that they have a concept of this shared foundation.

You, on the other hand, appear to be interested in an (hyper)individualistic theory of communication in which no such assumption as above is made.

Framing it that way reminds me of Margaret Thatcher's saying, "society does not exist, only people and their families do." How does one separate such a bold claim of bourgeois supremacy over the functions of the state from the pre-linguistic space where the Sovereign Individual runs its cattle unfettered by the demands others? After all, they use many of the same words.

The word "right" is interesting because it expresses a direct or straight quality as an adjective: "Right on time", for instance. When the term is used as "rights of individuals", the use is all about the boundary between the prerogatives of a common interest and what an individual can preserve against such interests.

The thesis of the OP borrows from that latter use to deny the existence of what gave context for it. — Paine

Indeed, from other posts by the OP, I kept in mind that he thinks that society does not exist, in the Thatcherian sense.

This is relevant, because one's political and sociological outlook will also shape one's theory of communication. For a (neo)liberal hyperindividualist, when two people appear to direct utterances at eachother, something else is going on than what a more traditionalist person might think goes on in such a situation. Examples of this abound in the way the OP talks about or explains the charges against Trump in the Trump thread.

Believe it or not, I've complained in the past regarding the Philosophy of Law. I've wondered what it is, and what business it is of philosophers to attempt to explain the nature and purpose of the vast ocean of laws and the associated rituals employed in their application — Ciceronianus

Similarly, many scientists and supporters of science take a dim view of the philosophy of science.
Many religious people take a dim view of the philosophy of religion.
Etc.

A "philosophy _of_" something is a meta-analysis thereof. Obviously, there can be many meta-analyses of something, as there are many perspectives from which to look at something.

So, art evokes feelings; it doesn't explain or analyze existence, or reality, or knowledge, or indeed anything and isn't intended to do so.

On the contrary, it often does precisely that, and in a manner so concise that philosophy can't.