CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: MikeDeTiger on March 03, 2025, 11:10:10 AM
-
Today's world is crazy. Connectivity is everywhere and we hear more stuff from more sources than probably any time in history. The signal to noise ratio is dizzying. We all know not every opinion is a sound one, or even every claimed fact is a real one. But how can we tell?
We can get info from news networks or articles, but how do we know they're telling the truth? What justifies skepticism and what is tin-foil-hat-wearing lunacy?
Obviously I, like many others, believe I've latched on to an ecosystem of reliable information. Still, other intelligent people see things differently. Some of that will always be there due to varying values and worldview underpinnings. But at the least we can try to operate from the same set of facts.
I'm in the process of writing out and articulating a basic guideline for epistemological principles. Trying to force myself to account for why I think the things I trust are in fact trustworthy, and why the things I think are bunk are not worth believing.
But I'm interested in your ideas on this as well. If you've never thought about it, think about it. And get back to me and post your thoughts here. I won't argue with or bash anything offered here, even if I don't agree with it. I'm looking for the things which have not occurred to me that make sense and need to be added/incorporated/considered.
I expect I can learn something I haven't learned before, a buncha y'all are smart folks. Well, everybody who's not an Aggie or Ole Miss fan, at least.
-
Everything I know, I learn on college football message boards.
-
I figure if a variety of web sites report a thing, it's probably true, but the details may differ. I figure things like stock market prices are accurate.
I figure the 20 someodd "natural laws" are true, F = ma etc. They work, we don't know why. Major theories are probably largely true, maybe they get nuanced at times.
Social media "advice" obviously is ... erratic. And often amusing.
I try and get "news" from a pretty wide variety of sources, and notice pretty large differences in how a thing is reported, the "facts" may be the same while the innuendo is quite different.
-
This helps.
AllSides | Balanced news and media bias ratings. Unbiased news doesn't exist. (https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news)
-
Everything I know, I learn on college football message boards.
Amen!
-
I'm daman skeptical of everything.
even college football message board posts
-
Everything I know, I learn on college football message boards.
Bull hockey.
If you were capable of learning from a college football message board, you would know by now chili can have beans.
-
This helps.
AllSides | Balanced news and media bias ratings. Unbiased news doesn't exist. (https://www.allsides.com/unbiased-balanced-news)
I keep seeing ads for Ground News. Is that similar?
I think classifying things into Left, Center, and Right, is interesting, but I don't know how it specifically applies to knowing if something is true. I guess it's the idea that you can see what points are included and excluded from each article and then have a more well-rounded view of how different outlets are reporting it?
That seems useful, probably.
-
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51sYBU6bfBL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)
-
I think classifying things into Left, Center, and Right, is interesting, but I don't know how it specifically applies to knowing if something is true.
It doesn't.
I chuckle when I see folks post how the NYT and WashPo and MSNBC have gone conservative, or how Fox News sold out to the liberals. Many folks simply seek the news the like, not what is accurate.
-
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51sYBU6bfBL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg)
the pattern is FULL
-
I'll add a little bit here, and it's one of those things that I believe I've acquired as I get older.
There is no shame in the words "I don't know." There is no shame in the words "I have no opinion on that."
IMHO one of the bigger problems is that we think we know things we don't/can't know, or have opinions on things we don't/can't have enough information to form an informed opinion.
The problem with claiming to know things you don't truly know, or having opinions on things that you shouldn't, is that it can create a mental lock-in based upon what you think you know. That lock-in becomes part of the structure of our identity, and [as I've talked about elsewhere] many of our opinions/knowledge are actually just manifestations of our identity.
I want the scaffolding of my identity to be based as much as possible on things that I've had the time to study so I can claim I actually do "know" things about them, and/or to develop reasonably informed and logical opinions about. Anything beyond that I'd like to keep at arm's length so I don't infect my identity with bullshit.
What that often means is that I view a lot of the world with either skepticism or apathy.
- Skepticism: The assumption that everything I see, read, am told, etc, is guilty until proven innocent. This is especially true of anything that conforms to my worldview, because of the power of confirmation bias. If I actually want to decide whether I "know" something, I should be looking for all the possible flaws in the knowledge/argument, be looking for the counterarguments from multiple sources, etc. I try to accept as little as possible at face value. Where possible, I try to go to original source material rather than what people [incl. press] tell me the source material says/means.
- Apathy: There are times when a certain topic has had two sides so completely stake out positions that I don't believe I can accurately filter through the information necessary to "know" or have an opinion. Where I can't trust the information coming from either side, and don't have the ability to view primary source material or evaluate evidence directly. To avoid directly talking about current politics (as I no longer do that), I'll use the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin example. It was a massively politicized event, where only two people actually knew what happened, and one of them was dead. Yet EVERYONE thought they needed to dig into it and argue about it and have an opinion. For me, I realized that it had truly very little impact on my life, so I actively just didn't have an opinion. Don't try to argue it with me; I just don't care.
So this is a bit of a sideways to your actual question [which I intend to write more about], but I wanted to throw this out in the world and hope that maybe more people start picking it up. You don't *HAVE* to know, or have an opinion on, everything. In fact, the world would be a better place IMHO of more of us had the humility to simply say "I don't know."
-
as all y'all know.........
I don't pretend to know very much
-
One thing that has struck me as I get older is that when considering other's viewpoints, you can both be right, and both be wrong. Sometimes there is no real right answer, until you look at things from a distance or at a different time. For instance, I'm sure we've all had viewpoints that have changed as we've aged or gained different life experiences.
(https://i.imgur.com/uVctfVp.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/zsmwi0T.png)
-
As far as trying to figure out how to know what you know is actually so...
- You don't learn anything from headlines, or articles on Facebook, if you never even click through and read the article. I feel stupid having to say this... But I see it constantly. "Did you hear about X?" "No, what happened." "Well, X did Y!" "Really? What are the details?" "Oh, I don't know, I just saw it on Facebook." (Which means that you saw someone share a story on Facebook, didn't read it or do any due diligence, but now think you're informed.)
- tl;dr are the worst 5 characters on the internet. If you can't be bothered to read something beyond 300 words, you can't claim that you're informed on anything. The world is extraordinarily complex and nuanced. Trying to understand complex issues at superficial levels is not only useless, but it makes you falsely confident in your opinion of something you don't know $#!+ about.
- So... Let's say you actually read the article, and you read a WHOLE article of >300 words. Ok... You're already ahead of most of the American population. Now... Should you believe it? NO! You should take it as ONE piece of evidence/opinion about a subject. You haven't learned the issue. You've learned what one writer thinks about the issue, what one writer wants you to know about the issue, and what you don't know is what the writer does NOT want you to know about the issue. So even if you're already ahead of most Americans... You're still at only step 1.
- Ok. So now you know a minimum. Did you agree with it? No? Good! Go find other sources that also disagree with it so you can evaluate both sides. Did you agree with it? Yes? Good! NOW GO FIND OTHER SOURCES THAT DISAGREE WITH IT SO YOU CAN EVALUATE BOTH SIDES. Don't just read sources/opinions you agree with. Don't let the sources you agree with tell you what the "other side" believes. You'll never get honesty. You have to seek out the other side yourself, so you can see if anyone is picking at the giant holes in your side's argument that confirmation bias blinded you from.
- Okay, now you've heard from both sides. Both sides have described the evidence to you. You have to ask yourself, is the evidence available for you to evaluate yourself? I.e. let's say it's descriptions of a SCOTUS decision. Or perhaps it's a discussion of a scientific study. Well, in many cases, you actually have the ability to look at the source material yourself. Some of it is long. Most of it is boring. Generally all of it is technical and full of jargon that you may need to learn just to understand what the HELL they're even talking about.
Now, does all this sound like a lot of work?
Yes.
But the question was "how do you know what you think you know?" Well, if you're not doing literally any of this???
...you don't know $#!+.
-
Even if you're doing all of that, you probably still don't know jack.
-
Even if you're doing all of that, you probably still don't know jack.
True. At best you'll get a layman's understanding, which is a far cry from expertise.
The goal is perhaps to get to a point where you can tell the difference between people who have some semblance of knowing what they're talking about, and those who are charlatans and/or actively deceptive.
And as I said above, the default position of "I don't know" always exists.
-
When I was 26 years old and just got into banking, I had an epiphany.
I realized how much I don’t know, and how much I could learn from every customer, every associate- really everyone. My career took off like lightning from that day.
-
Even if you're doing all of that, you probably still don't know jack.
It's a matter of getting some idea of "world conditions" you find important as best you can. Is everything a lie? I don't think so.
-
Humility is a fantastic trait for your own development.
-
Humility is a fantastic trait for your own development.
Yeah but it's really hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKRomaXhLAo
-
I've tried to read some French publications like Le Monde (with some help). Suffice it to say the media in France has a very very different world view, especially of the US.
If all we read was French media, I think most of us would have rather different opinions about "things".
-
The goal is perhaps to get to a point where you can tell the difference between people who have some semblance of knowing what they're talking about, and those who are charlatans and/or actively deceptive.
My point was not to interject my own thoughts, but this is a broader, key point I've come to in this process. IMO, there comes a point when applying enough other, smaller principles to a particular person or news source gets you to a point where you can justifiably feel like most of the time, they're doing the best they can, and have honest efforts at research behind the scenes. It doesn't mean I trust everything they say or am obliged to agree with their opinions. But I do think it means there is a reasonable point to reach where I'm justified in "doing less work" when it comes to something I picked up from somewhere that has repeatedly shown to be a good actor and reliable as far as facts go. By the same token, I don't 100% dismiss things that comes from places I've judged to be disreputable, but it does mean I'm justified in having a default position of heavier skepticism with it than sources that have proven more trustworthy.
-
Folks here cast a pretty wide net, I find. I've at times thought a thing and brought it up here, and folks have posed at least counter theories and sources, and at times completely shot me down.
-
This is, to me, a very interesting question. For example, on "FACEBOOK" (I know) I have been assaulted (Do you know what I mean by assaulted?) by adds demeaning "seed oils". (The sites are of course selling other kinds of oils.) OK, so I wonder, what's amiss with Canola oil etc.? I resort to ... google and the internet. I read some "experts" on authoritative sites, and conclude seed oils pretty much are OK, probably better than other kinds, but not good to ingest in excess.
Are those experts right? How can I know? I assess their arguments with what little else I think I know (which also is mostly from experts). Is HFC pure poison "one molecule away from plastic"? Well, the latter claim is bizarre and false, but then, I learned all that stuff back when "from experts".
-
I talked to a guy during happy hour yesterday that said this type of thing works for him
(https://i.imgur.com/XMIwvvr.png)
I wouldn't cornsider him an expert but, he has experience
-
How to be a better philosopher:
“It is important to learn not to be angry with opinions different from your own, but to set to work understanding how they come about. If, after you have understood them, they still seem false, you can then combat them much more effectually than if you had continued to be merely horrified. I am not suggesting that the philosopher should have no feelings; the man who has no feelings, if there be such a man, does nothing, and therefore achieves nothing.
No man can hope to become a good philosopher unless he has certain feelings which are not very common. He must have an intense desire to understand the world, as far as that is possible; and for the sake of understanding, he must be willing to overcome those narrownesses of outlook that make a correct perception impossible.
He must learn to think and feel, not as a member of this or that group, but as just a human being. If he could, he would divest himself of the limitations to which he is subject as a human being. If he could perceive the world as a Martian or an inhabitant of Sirius, if he could see it as it seems to a creature that lives for a day and also as it would seem to one that lived for a million years, he would be a better philosopher.”
— Bertrand Russell, The Art of Philosophizing and other Essays (1942), Essay I: The Art of Rational Conjecture, pp. 23-4
-
I don't consider Bertrand Russell to be a very good philosopher :)
(though he does say a few good things here in this quote)
-
This is, to me, a very interesting question. For example, on "FACEBOOK" (I know) I have been assaulted (Do you know what I mean by assaulted?) by adds demeaning "seed oils". (The sites are of course selling other kinds of oils.) OK, so I wonder, what's amiss with Canola oil etc.? I resort to ... google and the internet. I read some "experts" on authoritative sites, and conclude seed oils pretty much are OK, probably better than other kinds, but not good to ingest in excess.
Are those experts right? How can I know? I assess their arguments with what little else I think I know (which also is mostly from experts). Is HFC pure poison "one molecule away from plastic"? Well, the latter claim is bizarre and false, but then, I learned all that stuff back when "from experts".
I had a response but the site ate it :'(
Short version is you can't know in the epistemic sense. But you still have to make a decision. In this: do I continue consuming seed oils, or do I actively work to reduce/eliminate them from my diet?
To make that decision, you should use what I say above--read and evaluate both sides, and try to go to primary sources/evidence when available. Get as much information as possible, make the best decision you can, and then you have to live with the consequences.
Or you can do what most people do--pick what you actually want to do, claim the side that's on your side is right, and then claim "the science" supports what you wanted to do in the first place.
-
Short version is you can't know in the epistemic sense. But you still have to make a decision. In this: do I continue consuming seed oils, or do I actively work to reduce/eliminate them from my diet?
Further prompt for anyone participating:
Do you have any rules you think are good for testing your beliefs?
In this case, maybe it would be something like "I'll cut out seed oils for 3 months and make a log/journal of how I'm feeling" (or whatever measurable thing seed oils is supposed to be bad for).*
*drs. always want patients to do stuff like that when trying medications, dietary changes, etc. lolz, they won't.
-
fads like seed oils are a wait and see for me
If it really works, a large majority will be using them in a few years and doctors will be endorsing them and walmart will be selling them
-
Further prompt for anyone participating:
Do you have any rules you think are good for testing your beliefs?
In this case, maybe it would be something like "I'll cut out seed oils for 3 months and make a log/journal of how I'm feeling" (or whatever measurable thing seed oils is supposed to be bad for).*
*drs. always want patients to do stuff like that when trying medications, dietary changes, etc. lolz, they won't.
This is true, but it's also true that patients aren't necessarily equipped to determine if they "feel better" based on making some suggested change, they just aren't that in-tune with their body. I'm like this, and it drives my PT wife crazy. She'll suggest I make some change to posture or gait or whatever it might be, and then ask me if it feels better. I'm always like... I guess? I don't know...
This is especially true if there was no proximal acute driving function in the first place. If I'm not actively experiencing discomfort or pain or fatigue or whatever the symptom is supposed to be, from eating seed oils, then how will I know if cutting them out is producing a better outcome. Scientifically, biologically, it might very well be true. But if I can't feel a significant discernable difference, then how would I know?
Now if it's something that's going to show up in lab work over time, that's a different case.
-
This is true, but it's also true that patients aren't necessarily equipped to determine if they "feel better" based on making some suggested change, they just aren't that in-tune with their body. I'm like this, and it drives my PT wife crazy. She'll suggest I make some change to posture or gait or whatever it might be, and then ask me if it feels better. I'm always like... I guess? I don't know...
This is especially true if there was no proximal acute driving function in the first place. If I'm not actively experiencing discomfort or pain or fatigue or whatever the symptom is supposed to be, from eating seed oils, then how will I know if cutting them out is producing a better outcome. Scientifically, biologically, it might very well be true. But if I can't feel a significant discernable difference, then how would I know?
Now if it's something that's going to show up in lab work over time, that's a different case.
I don't know, that was probably a bad example. I have no idea in what way seed oils are supposed to be bad for me, and frankly I don't really know what they are. Just an example to illustrate my question that probably went awry.
Also, I should be clear that drs. mainly want patients to keep logs of their blood pressure, heart rate, and weight. Totally agree and can tell you from experience, patients suck at evaluating almost everything, even when they're hurting. Wife asks people stuff like "where are you hurting?" and the number of people is staggering who say stuff like "Um....well, I'm not sure. Just....kinda.....'round here somewhere, I guess." *waves hand frantically over half their body* Even on the objectively measurable stuff, they have......problems. People come in with their "logs" and stuff like "10:50 a.m., HR 270/150." I'm like um....okay, so you exploded, died, and now you're back. Would you a) like to try that again, or B) tell me how the afterlife was? They're like "Well....that's what my BP cuff said....." Get a new cuff, lady, or some glasses.
-
People act in their own best interests, and sometimes they do so while acting like they're doing you a favor. It takes ideology for them to act against their own interests.
Money is usually the "why" with most everything.
Genuine innocence is so rare that it's not statistically significant.
News isn't news anymore. It's an ad revenue vehicle, designed to get as many clicks and eyeballs as possible (same as most other things nowadays).
The "pick a side" crowd is stupid and making others stupid. They're largely the aforementioned crowd allergic to saying, "I don't know." Aka most religious types. I'm interjecting that here because it fits, not as a dig.
I seek out as many real, prudent people as I can. People who treat each interaction as an individual thing, and not just a generic thing to do. A verbal tennis partner is fun and sexy. Someone who isn't just waiting for their turn to talk is nice. They're rare.
I don't care for the masses. I irks me when people are set in their ways. I'm really not a fan of someone who has a strong opinion, but hasn't spent much time pondering the issue. That's a dull mind. 2-dimensional thinking.
I'm not some better-than-thou genius person or anything, I just feel like I take things as they are, not as I might assume they may be.
I'm pretty well-versed in philosophy and really align with genuine Epicureanism (not Hedonism) and some stoicism. Religion is a silly, historical crutch to fill in the ever-decreasing gaps in our understanding. I find this obvious and am bewildered why we cling to it.
Idk what else to include. I doubt any of the above surprises anyone.
-
OAM, let me preface that I'm saying this with all due respect, because I actually think you're a pretty intelligent guy...
But you might be the poster child for spouting off things that you "know" that just ain't so.
I.e. I would sincerely seek your input on things like the educational system since you live and work in it daily, and on things related to college football history as you've immersed yourself in it. But at the same time your thoughts on things like technology or what companies should do, etc, is just so far off base that it's not even funny.
Case in point--to avoid politics--our previous discussions about EVs and battery swaps. You behaved in a tremendously confident manner that battery swaps were what the industry absolutely needed and they were the future. You were dismissive of every engineering-based objection to your opinion.
And when finally cornered, you retreated to "well when battery technology progresses enough that batteries are small enough to be easily swapped, it'll work." Which is also questionable, because by the time that happens--if ever, as it's probably decades away in the best case--the fast charging infrastructure and ability for people to charge where they reside will likely be so ubiquitous that battery swaps won't be necessary.
Perhaps, a little more humility about your knowledge on topics that AREN'T within your area of expertise would go a long way on this board.
-
I like to travel, obviously, I usually read up on some place we're going to visit, especially if it's "exotic", like stuff in Asia. Things are obviously different from here, while also many things are remarkably the same. So, I read up on say, Seoul, and find my readings in general to be pretty accurate. I won't read that it's warm and balmy in March for example and be shocked when it's freezing. So, this sort of stuff, travel information, seems to me to be pretty reliable.
The "news" about quantative items is reliable, the stock market, baseball scores, we all trust these things. We know the weather is a projection and may be wrong, but it's usually pretty close. I think most of the news from any half way credible source is pretty accurate, the parts that are not are because of exclusion (they ignore something), or obvious bias (the throw in "analysis" or take a quote out of context). Anything "political" obviously can be highly biased. I adjust for this personally by reading from a number of different news sites, not just some place that highlights what I want to read.
We had some discussion about the "measles outbreak", one person saying it's not really an anything, I looked into it a bit and realize, IMHO, it is a thing, worth reporting. The term "outbreak" has a specific definition in this case, and the disease is SO contagious that a few cases warrant "news". It is useful, I think, to add some "context", as in, "We have seen outbreaks similar to this in 201x, so it is not unprecedented."
It's very useful to be able to spot "bias", or possible bias, and read from another source or explore further.
-
This has been helpful so far, so thanks for participating.
It's useful to me in that I wanted to see if other intelligent people would say things I haven't thought of, and if so, do they make sense or not?
Not too much here I haven't thought of, but like I say, that still holds value for me, AND, several of you have elaborated in helpful ways that were good to better organize my thoughts about it all.
Feel free to carry on. Soon, hopefully, I'll get around to organizing my thoughts into an outline, which so far, are just jotted down notes I've written with a few clarifications/elaborations based on something I picked up here.
Forcing myself to articulate and consider my thought process has been useful. Next step will be to develop habits, maybe an intentional process, whereby I make sure I'm adhering to my own methods. Some of this stuff happens internally and automatically as I've unconsciously developed the ideas over time. Sometimes, it does not, and I wind up thinking I know something about something when really I've just ignored my own suggestions.
I swear, the older I get, the dumber I am. When I was a teenager I knew frickin everything. It's only been downhill from there.
-
wait till ya git to be my age
-
I swear, the older I get, the dumber I am. When I was a teenager I knew frickin everything. It's only been downhill from there.
I think for many who gain an advanced degree, an important part of the learning is "I don't know S."
You may learn a whole lot about vanishingly little.
-
When I was 26 years old and just got into banking, I had an epiphany.
I realized how much I don’t know, and how much I could learn from every customer, every associate- really everyone. My career took off like lightning from that day.
Not only that it's where the money is.
-
This is, to me, a very interesting question. For example, on "FACEBOOK" (I know) I have been assaulted (Do you know what I mean by assaulted?)
Ya know Moriarty they'd never do a remake,it would be forordained to fail.
-
I'm not some better-than-thou genius person or anything
That's just crazy talk
-
OAM, let me preface that I'm saying this with all due respect, because I actually think you're a pretty intelligent guy...
But you might be the poster child for spouting off things that you "know" that just ain't so.
Perhaps, a little more humility about your knowledge on topics that AREN'T within your area of expertise would go a long way on this board.
Oh Boy,we're going to put him and Mdot together on a slow boat to china - tickets now on sale. Or in the booth with me next fall calling CFB - I can only envy our inevitable success in the matter
-
OAM, let me preface that I'm saying this with all due respect, because I actually think you're a pretty intelligent guy...
But you might be the poster child for spouting off things that you "know" that just ain't so.
I.e. I would sincerely seek your input on things like the educational system since you live and work in it daily, and on things related to college football history as you've immersed yourself in it. But at the same time your thoughts on things like technology or what companies should do, etc, is just so far off base that it's not even funny.
Case in point--to avoid politics--our previous discussions about EVs and battery swaps. You behaved in a tremendously confident manner that battery swaps were what the industry absolutely needed and they were the future. You were dismissive of every engineering-based objection to your opinion.
And when finally cornered, you retreated to "well when battery technology progresses enough that batteries are small enough to be easily swapped, it'll work." Which is also questionable, because by the time that happens--if ever, as it's probably decades away in the best case--the fast charging infrastructure and ability for people to charge where they reside will likely be so ubiquitous that battery swaps won't be necessary.
Perhaps, a little more humility about your knowledge on topics that AREN'T within your area of expertise would go a long way on this board.
But I don't see it as a humility issue at all.
How can I be convinced if I'm not convinced?
Here's the thing, say about the EV discussion....I may absolutely be wrong. No big deal. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, my opinion is what it is. I happen to deem my idea more likely than what you or others think. Time will tell, and it's fun to watch it play out.
We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe. I find it odd to criticize someone not being convinced of something. I agree that in its infancy, charging stations are the thing. And over time, they'll be more plentiful and charge quicker. I just don't deem it the best/most likely long-term outcome. I don't know WHY I feel battery exchanges will be the way, ultimately, but I do. It's not an ego thing or a lack of humility thing, I'm simply not convinced by the opposing opinion.
So I'm not sure what to say about it. It's like criticizing someone for their favorite color being purple. I don't know what to tell you.
-
That's just crazy talk
Needed to clarify for some posters here.
-
Oh Boy,we're going to put him and Mdot together on a slow boat to china - tickets now on sale. Or in the booth with me next fall calling CFB - I can only envy our inevitable success in the matter
mdot tends to froth at the mouth. I just get frustrated by inefficiencies. And invisible deities who never seem to heal amputees.
-
mdot tends to froth at the mouth. I just get frustrated by inefficiencies. And invisible deities who never seem to heel amputees.
What's an amputee going to do with a heel, if he doesn't have a leg to attach it to?
-
Thanks for focusing on the important part. Avoiding the point. Good for you. I fixed it before reading your post.
Sigh.
-
We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe. I find it odd to criticize someone not being convinced of something.
I believe what I believe based on what I understand relating to facts, perspectives, insights, data, etc. If I assert a thing, and someone points out an issue with it, I either try and confront the issue, or if I can't, change my mind (if it's important). One good thing about this place is "we" discuss various topics, and at times I will think a thing has utility, and someone will point out something I hadn't considered (see discussion on EVs using two cables).
I don't just say "Well, I believe what I believe and that's that.".
-
If I ever wanted to know Fro's opinion, I'd simply look it up myself on the CNN website, where it might actually have a puncher's chance of being written out in a concise and legible manner.
-
Most of "us", I think, will alter our opinion (perspective) if given useful and correct counterinformation. This comes often from discussion and debate.
I'd hope few of us "believe what we believe" and that's it, no matter what issues are raised with what we have asserted. But, it is easier to just believe something no matter what, without thinking through any counterfactual issues with the belief.
-
But I don't see it as a humility issue at all.
How can I be convinced if I'm not convinced?
Here's the thing, say about the EV discussion....I may absolutely be wrong. No big deal. It doesn't matter if I'm right or not, my opinion is what it is. I happen to deem my idea more likely than what you or others think. Time will tell, and it's fun to watch it play out.
We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe. I find it odd to criticize someone not being convinced of something. I agree that in its infancy, charging stations are the thing. And over time, they'll be more plentiful and charge quicker. I just don't deem it the best/most likely long-term outcome. I don't know WHY I feel battery exchanges will be the way, ultimately, but I do. It's not an ego thing or a lack of humility thing, I'm simply not convinced by the opposing opinion.
So I'm not sure what to say about it. It's like criticizing someone for their favorite color being purple. I don't know what to tell you.
But think of the title of this thread. "How do you know what you think you know?" In essence this is a philosophical thread about epistemology. How much should you trust that the things you know, and the things you believe, are either true (in the case of knowledge) or correct/likely (in the case of belief)?
And you responded with a list of things you think you know/believe. You really didn't engage with the topic, which is how you came to those pearls of knowledge/belief and how you know whether you should actually stand behind them.
Which makes your final admission a perfect example of why I singled you out for criticism in this particular thread:
I don't know WHY I feel battery exchanges will be the way, ultimately, but I do.
I guess trying to explain using logic and evidence that a position you've taken is pointless. Because as the old saw states, "You can't reason a man out of a position that he hasn't reasoned himself into."
You believe things without using logic or evidence, and refuse to even entertain the idea that your belief is in error, even when confronted by sound arguments the opposite direction. Isn't that the exact same thing you criticize in the religious?
-
We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe.
With that, you've undercut your right to criticize others' opinions with which you disagree, along with any hope for efficacy when you do. According to this, there's nothing we can do about our opinions, and it's pointless to denounce them.
I look forward to the kinder, more genteel, less confrontational OAM. It's a new era.
-
If none of us have ever changed our minds about a belief, well, that would be very very sad indeed.
-
It is rational and reasonable to adjust your views when given access to more detailed and better information. This is the very basis of the scientific method.
It is interesting to me, that OAM freely admits he is a science denier.
-
It is interesting to me, that OAM freely admits he is a science denier.
I'm guessing he will deny he ever wrote anything like that, it isn't at all what he meant, nobody here understands him ....
-
Relating this back to the OT, this is a good example of something in contrast to exactly what we're talking about. Epistemic principles are of no consequence and no value if anything like hard determinism is true. (i.e., we don't choose to believe things.)
If my thoughts are a brute equation of neurobiology + circumstances = Me, and my biology is ultimately pre-determined by the laws of chemistry, and the laws of chemistry are governed by the laws physics, and physics is blind, unaltering, and immutable, then free will and thought are illusory and I've never made a libertarian free-will decision or formed a genuine opinion in my life.
Which means, it's self-refuting. If I believe in determinism, I only "believe" it because it was decided for me by the laws of nature, and not because it's a logically sound principle I could accept or reject. Believing determinism ultimately undercuts believing in determinism (or anything). Beliefs would have no correlation with truth, being only products of pre-set, exhaustive external variables. Epistemology has no place in that world.
This is, in fact, the stated position of many deterministic philosophers.
They are idiots.
I shouldn't insult them like that, but arguably, in the deterministic view, I couldn't help myself.
-
Quantum mechanics, discuss.
-
Quantum mechanics, discuss.
My head hurts.
-
Quantum mechanics, discuss.
Doesn't play well with the extraordinarily established and well-supported theory of general relativity.
Is also well-supported itself.
He (or she) who reconciles the two will probably get a Nobel prize or something like that, and maybe make a lot of money.
It won't be me.
-
String theory with a framework involving quantum entanglement clearly resolves all of the issues.
Next topic?
-
Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it at all.
Feynman - Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ZRLllWgHI)
On religion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Qdl6Gbx0k)
-
It's a brief video that is pertinent to this original topic and question.
-
Anyone who thinks they understand quantum mechanics doesn't understand it at all.
Feynman - Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ZRLllWgHI)
Correct.
-
I believe that someday humans will understand it. But I'll be long gone when it happens.
-
Relating this back to the OT, this is a good example of something in contrast to exactly what we're talking about. Epistemic principles are of no consequence and no value if anything like hard determinism is true. (i.e., we don't choose to believe things.)
If my thoughts are a brute equation of neurobiology + circumstances = Me, and my biology is ultimately pre-determined by the laws of chemistry, and the laws of chemistry are governed by the laws physics, and physics is blind, unaltering, and immutable, then free will and thought are illusory and I've never made a libertarian free-will decision or formed a genuine opinion in my life.
Which means, it's self-refuting. If I believe in determinism, I only "believe" it because it was decided for me by the laws of nature, and not because it's a logically sound principle I could accept or reject. Believing determinism ultimately undercuts believing in determinism (or anything). Beliefs would have no correlation with truth, being only products of pre-set, exhaustive external variables. Epistemology has no place in that world.
This is, in fact, the stated position of many deterministic philosophers.
They are idiots.
I shouldn't insult them like that, but arguably, in the deterministic view, I couldn't help myself.
Yeah, the IMHO this gets to one of the core conflicts of religion, as it relates to the concept of perfect omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence of a supreme being and humanity's free will. God created the universe with perfect knowledge, therefore God is responsible for everyone's actions because God knew what they would be long before creating us. Therefore God punishing anyone for said actions is immoral and cruel, because he's subjecting beings he created to punishment for what they had no choice in doing. Therefore our God is not a benevolent God; we have an asshole God. However, if humans DO have free will, that means God doesn't know what we will choose, because if God knows we have no ability to choose differently and prove God wrong. Therefore God is not omniscient [and therefore not perfect].
It can also be used in the concept of any belief that our universe is Godless and yet based on completely deterministic physics. In this case, there can be no such thing as free will as everything we do/think/know is purely the result of physical laws over which we have no control. The only difference between this and the religious concepts being that this doesn't have any ethical/moral implications about an afterlife and how we're treated there.
I grappled with this in college and still haven't come to a reasonable way out of it. Because even if you take door #2, and further stipulate that there are deterministic laws of physics that are simply unknowable to us--if they're deterministic, then free will doesn't exist. We're all just robots, and not the AI kind.
But this gets back to the epistemic question of what we are capable of knowing/believing, and how that relates to what we DO. I choose to live my life as if my actions/thoughts/beliefs are not predetermined, even if that is merely an illusion. My lived experience is that I am driving this meat puppet around the world of my own volition, so that's how I'm going to continue to do it. Maybe it's deterministic; maybe it's not. Knowing that either way is beyond my capability, so I have to proceed as if it is not.
-
I have a notion that many things "in Nature" are beyond the understandings of even the smartest humans.
-
I have a notion that many things "in Nature" are beyond the understandings of even the smartest humans.
Which is actually a lot of the reason we have religion.
-
I have a notion that many things "in Nature" are beyond the understandings of even the smartest humans.
That could certainly be true.
-
Yeah, the IMHO this gets to one of the core conflicts of religion, as it relates to the concept of perfect omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence of a supreme being and humanity's free will. God created the universe with perfect knowledge, therefore God is responsible for everyone's actions because God knew what they would be long before creating us. Therefore God punishing anyone for said actions is immoral and cruel, because he's subjecting beings he created to punishment for what they had no choice in doing. Therefore our God is not a benevolent God; we have an asshole God. However, if humans DO have free will, that means God doesn't know what we will choose, because if God knows we have no ability to choose differently and prove God wrong. Therefore God is not omniscient [and therefore not perfect].
Kudos to you for even thinking that hard about it. Most people don't ever do that much.
You're close, but you're conflating foreknowledge and causation. It could be argued that the two things necessarily go together, but it's crucial to distinguish them as two separate things.
This grappling with reconciling God's sovereignty and foreknowledge with human free will is a rich, fascinating, old, and ongoing discussion. It's a key component of one of the major areas of Christian theology called soteriology.
The main competitors in the Protestant world have been Calvinism and Arminianism, both of which seek to reconcile the potential contradiction of divine sovereignty and foreknowledge with free will. I wouldn't say they don't succeed, but.....they don't succeed, imo. Both systems leave themselves open to criticisms of either contradiction, or unsatisfactory explanations. Calvinism ultimately doesn't leave room for libertarian free will, and its more scholarly proponents admit that, but they think (erroneously, imo) that their compatibilist version of free will is fine (it isn't). Arminianism also tries to solve your objection above, but ultimately undermines God's sovereignty, or, as you might say, the combination of attributes of omniscience and omnipotence. So the short version of the critiques is that while both views try to resolve the tension, Calvinism ultimately shortchanges free will and Arminianism ultimately shortchanges attributes Christians want to assign to God.
One of the less common alternatives which has recently come back into fashion somewhat, is Molinism, and I think it withstands every objection with flying colors. It solves the apparent contradiction between divine sovereignty and human free will and doesn't contradict any historic Christian notions about the two. It's not rocket science, but it's not simple either, and it deserves more than a Google search and some internet summaries. (Actually, they all do.) If someone told me "I just looked it up and it's crap" or "I just looked it up and it's sound," my response would be "You know nothing."
Roman Catholocism relies heavily on Thomism, which is an entire systematic hodge-podge of Aristotelian meta-physics and is kind of its own thing. It's also a vast, wide-ranging system of belief that encapsulates way more than just soteriology, so a lot of it doesn't even apply here. It's not bad but I'm ultimately unsatisfied with it alone as an answer to the problem you've posed. IMO, Molinism with a healthy dose of Thomism mixed in is quite compelling.
Orthodox branches.....I don't even know what they're thinking. Literally. I'm not overly familiar with their theology, and it can be very bizarre to my western mind. They ain't western, and things that appear untenable as contradictions to me may be just fine in their way of looking at things.
If you wanted to know more about any of that, I'm happy to talk about it, but I admit that it's lengthy and it would be hard to do any of the views justice here. Despite my fast typing, I do have limits. For now, suffice it to say that I think Molinism is a good solution to the problem you outlined. I can't say that the matter is settled, because so many people don't think Molinism is sound for one reason or another. For me, I've found people's objections to reveal they don't actually understand it, or else they have definitions I find unreasonable. The former can be overcome, the latter can't, necessarily, so I don't drop the mic and act like it's Game Over. This is just to say, the quagmire you outlined is a real one, that I think it has a good solution, and that other solutions I've found to be lacking.
-
I know I’m right, so I’m set.
-
Somewhere I saw an interesting discussion about some quantum event where some entity is either going to go A or B, with equal probability. In one instant, it will be, say, "A". What decides that? Anything? An electron confronts two slits and can pass through either Slit A or Slit B. How does it decide?
Of course, it doesn't, apparently, it goes through both, because it's not really a particle.
A "single electron double slit experiment" is a quantum physics experiment where a single electron is fired at a barrier with two slits, demonstrating that even though an electron is considered a particle, it can exhibit wave-like behavior by creating an interference pattern on a detector screen, suggesting that the electron is in a superposition state and "passes through both slits at once" until observed; this highlights the wave-particle duality of quantum particles like electrons.
-
I would tell my physics joke, but I think I've already told it here.
-
Nubbz has a thread for that
-
Kudos to you for even thinking that hard about it. Most people don't ever do that much.
You're close, but you're conflating foreknowledge and causation. It could be argued that the two things necessarily go together, but it's crucial to distinguish them as two separate things.
This grappling with reconciling God's sovereignty and foreknowledge with human free will is a rich, fascinating, old, and ongoing discussion. It's a key component of one of the major areas of Christian theology called soteriology.
The main competitors in the Protestant world have been Calvinism and Arminianism, both of which seek to reconcile the potential contradiction of divine sovereignty and foreknowledge with free will. I wouldn't say they don't succeed, but.....they don't succeed, imo. Both systems leave themselves open to criticisms of either contradiction, or unsatisfactory explanations. Calvinism ultimately doesn't leave room for libertarian free will, and its more scholarly proponents admit that, but they think (erroneously, imo) that their compatibilist version of free will is fine (it isn't). Arminianism also tries to solve your objection above, but ultimately undermines God's sovereignty, or, as you might say, the combination of attributes of omniscience and omnipotence. So the short version of the critiques is that while both views try to resolve the tension, Calvinism ultimately shortchanges free will and Arminianism ultimately shortchanges attributes Christians want to assign to God.
One of the less common alternatives which has recently come back into fashion somewhat, is Molinism, and I think it withstands every objection with flying colors. It solves the apparent contradiction between divine sovereignty and human free will and doesn't contradict any historic Christian notions about the two. It's not rocket science, but it's not simple either, and it deserves more than a Google search and some internet summaries. (Actually, they all do.) If someone told me "I just looked it up and it's crap" or "I just looked it up and it's sound," my response would be "You know nothing."
Roman Catholocism relies heavily on Thomism, which is an entire systematic hodge-podge of Aristotelian meta-physics and is kind of its own thing. It's also a vast, wide-ranging system of belief that encapsulates way more than just soteriology, so a lot of it doesn't even apply here. It's not bad but I'm ultimately unsatisfied with it alone as an answer to the problem you've posed. IMO, Molinism with a healthy dose of Thomism mixed in is quite compelling.
Orthodox branches.....I don't even know what they're thinking. Literally. I'm not overly familiar with their theology, and it can be very bizarre to my western mind. They ain't western, and things that appear untenable as contradictions to me may be just fine in their way of looking at things.
If you wanted to know more about any of that, I'm happy to talk about it, but I admit that it's lengthy and it would be hard to do any of the views justice here. Despite my fast typing, I do have limits. For now, suffice it to say that I think Molinism is a good solution to the problem you outlined. I can't say that the matter is settled, because so many people don't think Molinism is sound for one reason or another. For me, I've found people's objections to reveal they don't actually understand it, or else they have definitions I find unreasonable. The former can be overcome, the latter can't, necessarily, so I don't drop the mic and act like it's Game Over. This is just to say, the quagmire you outlined is a real one, that I think it has a good solution, and that other solutions I've found to be lacking.
Thanks for the detailed response. I'd be happy to discuss Molinism over a beer (or, it sounds like, quite a few beers :singing: ) at some point should the opportunity ever arise. Likewise, if you are aware of any good links or even books on it, I might just put it on my reading list. I don't necessarily want to go TOO deep, but as you can tell I'm interested in the philosophical aspects of this.
One of the difficulties between foreknowledge and causation as it relates to free will is that God, theoretically, could have created a universe in many different ways. He set the initial conditions and could have run his computer "God-simulation" program to identify all the different ways that the universe could have developed. So even if it's true that there is some way to square the circle of his foreknowledge such that I have the free will not to believe in his existence, my contention would be the HE also had the ability to create a universe in which I never existed. Would it not be cruel to create a universe in which I'd freely not believe in him and punish me for it, if he could have created a universe in which I never existed and never have to punish me at all?
-
I would tell my physics joke, but I think I've already told it here.
Heisenberg gets pulled over?
-
My own vague notions is that a Supreme Being and Creator would not be bounded by Time. They would exist something like we would seem to a "Flatlander" living in 2-D space. So, this being would have access to our future and our past at will, as easily as we can go up or down.
-
I think the problem is we are defining word and God by human understanding. I am a presuppositionalist. By presuppositional God is good and as such by definition anything God does is good. By presupposition God is benvolent so anything God does is benevolent by definition. The problem is we are not God, so we an not presuppose that anything God has done, we can also do because it was good. We are not God and therefore do not have the preoragtive. Personally I believe that Micah 6:8 establishes as basis for us to live. Paraphrased, He has shown us what is good, seek justice, love mercy walk humbly. I actually have it tattooed on my arm.
BTW I love Flatlands. I think it does a good job of giving an explanation of the supernatural and showing that it could be just natural, but we cannot see beyond our own 3 dimensions.
-
Thanks for the detailed response. I'd be happy to discuss Molinism over a beer (or, it sounds like, quite a few beers :singing: ) at some point should the opportunity ever arise. Likewise, if you are aware of any good links or even books on it, I might just put it on my reading list. I don't necessarily want to go TOO deep, but as you can tell I'm interested in the philosophical aspects of this.
One of the difficulties between foreknowledge and causation as it relates to free will is that God, theoretically, could have created a universe in many different ways. He set the initial conditions and could have run his computer "God-simulation" program to identify all the different ways that the universe could have developed. So even if it's true that there is some way to square the circle of his foreknowledge such that I have the free will not to believe in his existence, my contention would be the HE also had the ability to create a universe in which I never existed. Would it not be cruel to create a universe in which I'd freely not believe in him and punish me for it, if he could have created a universe in which I never existed and never have to punish me at all?
I recently got a pretty short book on Molinism by a philosopher who's written many books I own. He's brilliant and clear in his writing, so I expect it's good, but I won't recommend it just yet because I still haven't read it. There is a lecture on YouTube that's about an hour, of him explaining the position which is a pretty good run-down. I can't look for it at work but I'll check later and send you the link if I can still find it.
With the second paragraph, you've butted up against the broader subject of God's moral perfection. Man, there's so much there.....let me see how much nothing I can do while I pretend to work. Again, good job on the question in the first place. I don't think most people ever think that hard about it.
The most basic element of this discussion would be the proposition that God is what he is, not what we think he is or what we want him to be. You'd think that'd be uncontroversial but it's amazing how much that idea is not adhered to and trips up opinions. So many objections against God are effectively straw men that people erect based on assigning him incorrect or inadequate qualities compared to his actual nature, knock down said straw men, and then say "Look, your God doesn't pass this test as expected." When the reality is, no, we don't get to make stuff up willy-nilly about the Christian God and charge him with no evidence when he fails to meet an arbitrary standard. Christianity makes a basic set of claims about God which I won't detail here, and which, according our own belief system, we did not make up but rather these are attributes which God himself revealed in one way or another. So to start with, we have to consider God on his terms, not ours.
I mention this because one proposed answer to what you're talking about is to first consider the definition of omnipotence. Christian belief has historically held that none of God's characteristics can violate any other of his characteristics. In fact, most schools of thought have held to the idea of Divine Simplicity--of which there are many versions--which is just the idea that God is not made up of parts, and so his characteristics are not separable in some ways (there is definite variation in how far to take that idea, and it gets so philosophically complex that my head explodes....I'm learning, but I'm not all the way there yet with that one). All this means God's omnipotence can't be divorced from other characteristics, one of which is the idea that logic and reason are grounded ontologically in his nature. So when we say God is omnipotent, that actually has a limitation of only being able to do what is logically possible. i.e., can God make a square circle? No. Can he make a married bachelor? No. If someone wanted to say God should be able to do those things or else it's not omnipotence, fine, but if he can do the logically impossible, then he can both exist and not exist, or do any horrible thing imaginable no matter what and yet also be perfectly moral. Because, once logic goes.....why not?
See Alvin Plantinga's work (just to name one prominent philosopher) which expounds that notion and critiques the idea God could make any world. Rather, his omnipotence allows him to make any world that's logically possible.
But wait, there's also his moral perfection. God is "bound," in a sense, to act only according to his nature. I think the idea here is anything else would be a logical contradiction. (And if you really want your head to explode, look into the literature on whether or not God actually has free will.) But at least potentially, God is obligated by his own nature to create the best possible world which he logically could create. On the surface, that's a harrowing idea. This? This place? Out of the gazillions of worlds he could create, he picked this one? With all the pain, suffering, misery, spite, war, hunger, and flat-out evil? We're supposed to believe this is the best he could do?
Now we've wandered off into the objection for the existence of God due to the problem of evil and suffering, which I won't get into too deeply here, but as briefly as I can, I'll say philosophers have broadly divided it into two categories: The logical problem of suffering, and the probabilistic problem of suffering. The answer to the former is actually relatively simple and has widespread agreement amongst philosophers that it fails to disprove God's existence. The reason being that they recognize that if there is even any possibility that God could have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evil and suffering that he does, then the objection fails. Does he have morally sufficient reasons? Well, that's irrelevant, as long as it's even possible. And the burden of proof placed on the detractor to show that God could not have morally sufficient reasons for allowing this much evil and suffering is obviously so high than it cannot be met. That is, as I say, widely recognized, and uncontroversial. The latter I won't get into because it doesn't exactly apply to your question. I'll only mention quickly that due to the widely agreed-upon recognition of the failure of the logical problem of suffering, most atheist philosophers retreat to some version of the probabilistic version (and I'll note that, for example, when OAM voices his objections to the idea of God regarding evil/suffering/crap, he's giving various examples of the probabilistic problem of suffering).
The importance of recognizing how the logical problem of evil and suffering fails is in the understanding that God could have morally sufficient reasons for having created this world. We don't have the perfect moral scales, by which I mean, for example, what's more "good".....helping an old lady across the street, or helping a kid who fell down on the sidewalk and scraped his knee? I'm sure that's not a good example, but hopefully you get what I'm saying. Suppose you can only do one of those things. Which is "better?" Heck if I know. The greatest amount of good is hard to know even when we clearly understand limited alternatives. Imagine the actual world, with quintillions of decisions having been made, producing outcomes, for however long we've been here. Then add on top of that, we don't know the counterfactuals. We don't know what would happen in the overall arc of history if people chose differently than they did. (This is where Molinism comes in, which posits the idea of God's "Middle Knowledge" as part of his omniscience.)
At this point, if you're still with me, you might be saying "Ok, but you haven't proven any of that." True, I haven't, and I haven't intended to. I went through all that to hopefully show there is coherence to the idea that God may in fact produce the best possible world, and that we are in no position to say this isn't it. Love, for example, has often been held up as one of the greatest goods, if not the greatest. How many loving acts does it take to justify the amount of crap in the world? Well, I'd argue that to know that, we'd have to understand the moral scales, which we don't. I don't know how much suffering is worth the good the history of the world has seen. What I do know is that it's at least plausible that God wants the best possible world, and that he created it.
How does that answer your question about God creating people he knows will reject him? Well, assuming there's no incoherence between his sovereignty and our free will (Molinism gets my vote, but there are other options), then if people freely reject him, he's not morally culpable for whatever consequences they incur. And while he may foreknow their free choice, he can be justified in creating them anyway if their free choices in the world contribute to the greatest amount of possible good. Which is to say, to answer your question directly about why not create a world where an unbeliever is never born? Because it's not just about them. Their actions and presence in the world may bring about circumstances and conditions that cause the overall arc of history of free creatures to be the best it could be. They had free will. They used it. God had a world to bring about. He used them.
Is that how it is? I don't know. I suspect it's something like that. But I'd note this all comes strictly from philosophy, and is not taught in any texts Christians consider sacred or divinely inspired. The important thing there is, it doesn't contradict those writings either.
This was hella-long and I don't know if I do a good job of staying on topic when I do this. It's hard to type that much and not lose sight of the original question I'm trying to answer. And, if on a first consideration, you looked at it and said "that sounds like a buncha bullshit," I confess I wouldn't blame you. I'm not sure what it would look like to me if I weren't a Christian. And even for me, the first time I realized that maybe this world is actually the one God wanted, it just about made me turn white and faint. I think it did not square with what I thought about God, but back then, I confess I knew so very little about theology, or had read any great philosophers or theologians, which is back to my first point. I was still trying to fit things into what I thought about God, not looking for what he actually is and going from there. I also realize it may strike you as immoral. I think.....I get that impulse....even if I ultimately don't agree with it. It certainly doesn't feel good to say God wanted this exact world, or that he created people he knew would reject him. But two things: 1) this is just one solution to the question you asked. There are others. This just happens to be the solution that makes the most sense out of the nature of God as I understand it. 2) The distinction to remember, even if it doesn't convince you, is that it's not that God wanted the amount of crap we have or people to not believe in him, per se, it's that the crap and the people were necessary to bring about the best possible world.....and that a world where free creatures do good in ways we can't measure, and then go on to live in an eternity of undefiled good with him and each other, is totally worth it, if we could just see the infinite picture with our finite minds.
-
That got MedinaBuckeye-long.
Medina ain't got nothing on me :72:
-
Heisenberg gets pulled over?
Heisenberg and Schroedinger
-
@Riffraft (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=33) @MikeDeTiger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588) thanks for the response. And Mike, if you find that YT video, let me know.
To me, and I'm not trying to sound like OAM here... It just brings up a lot of questions...
So we're not supposed to understand God. Yet, it's claimed he made man in his image. So we should have at least SOME natural inkling of his nature, right? But hey, he's supernatural. I can definitely accept that our conception of his nature is... Limited. I will say that looking at humanity, I sure as shit see a lot more of the reflection of the Old Testament angry spiteful god than the love & kumbaya of Jesus...
So then we should base our limited understanding of him on the nature of what he's revealed to us. And that, of course, is the Christian god only. Because the Greek & Roman gods were just stories. And the Zoroastrian god, well, I guess I don't know much. And the Jewish god and the Christian god and the Muslim god are all supposedly the same one, but he seemed to change his nature of what he did and didn't reveal to us across time. And then of course there's the Buddha, and all of the Hindu gods... And let's not bring up the Mormons, who know Jesus was in New York after the resurrection where the golden plates were found by Joseph Smith. It's confusing why we should ONLY trust the Christian god, and believe that everything there in the Bible is what He revealed to us.
The idea that we can't understand the parts of God that are problematic to human morality/ethics but yet we have to follow one book's account of the things we do know about him (but not the various other books/accounts that also claim to be the truth) is, well, difficult.
I've kinda come to the opposite conclusion. That we invented God in our own image, as a way to explain all the difficult and scary things that the world offers us that we don't understand, and as a way to give us comfort from the existential despair that is inherent in facing our own mortality. And we invented organized religion as a shared community in which we can cement social values (and social control) for a more harmonious society. Is that cynical? Yes. I'm a cynic.
---------------
But on a personal level is where it gets me. The Bible says that we are saved ONLY through faith. Now, I'm an unbeliever and don't have that. Yet, at the same time, I try to sincerely be kind and loving. I try to behave in the most ethical way that I can. I pride myself on trying to do the right thing not because I have to, but because it's the right thing. Am I perfect? Of course not. Nobody is. But IMHO I act more ethically than a lot of people who consider themselves Christians. What Jesus preached is pretty damn remarkable, and I feel like my principles are actually pretty similar to what he prescribed. Yet the Bible tells me I'm going to burn in hell for eternity because I haven't accepted Jesus as my savior.
The idea that a God will punish me for eternity, despite trying to live up to as many of the principles of Jesus as I can, just because I rationally can't see direct evidence of his existence that will make me a believer? Again, that doesn't sound like a God I want to believe in...
-
I'm late to this party, but I'll throw my $.03 in.
1) I know what I know based on the totality of my personal experience. I'm reasonably smart, reasonably inquisitive, and reasonably skeptical.
2) I don't know nearly as much as I think I do because my memory is a frail thing. My memory isn't that great, but I'm also aware that my brain creates memories that are false. Pretty sure all of us do that. But some of those false memories feel very, very real. I'll give you a recent example. I have been convinced for years that on January 1, 1994, the day I was at the Rose Bowl watching the Badgers, it was 80 degrees in Pasadena and 140 degrees colder (with wind chill) in Madison, i.e., -60 with wind chill. I have said that many, many times. And I recently looked at the data and it just isn't true. The temperature was in the teens at its coldest in Madison, and while wind chill may have gotten it lower than that, it wasn't 70 degrees lower than that. No way. And Pasadena was in the low 70s. Now, how did I come up with that mistaken idea? I have no idea, but I know I wasn't lying about it. There was some data set that got in my head that somehow my brain manipulated into that memory--one that I've been sure of for a long time (until just recently). There are probably a lot of things like that bouncing around in my head that I'm not aware of. And there are plenty of other things that people tell me about that I was involved in--sometimes apparently very involved in--that I have no memory of. The human brain is a weird place.
PS it did get to -60 wind chill in Madison when I was there. It got down to -30 (real temp) the winter of my senior year, and there was a nasty wind to go with it. Very, very cold. But not on January 1, 1994. Not close.
-
I believe what I believe based on what I understand relating to facts, perspectives, insights, data, etc. If I assert a thing, and someone points out an issue with it, I either try and confront the issue, or if I can't, change my mind (if it's important). One good thing about this place is "we" discuss various topics, and at times I will think a thing has utility, and someone will point out something I hadn't considered (see discussion on EVs using two cables).
I don't just say "Well, I believe what I believe and that's that.".
I read the posts. I consider them. I'm simply unconvinced by them. Why is this such a crime?
-
You believe things without using logic or evidence, and refuse to even entertain the idea that your belief is in error, even when confronted by sound arguments the opposite direction. Isn't that the exact same thing you criticize in the religious?
Why are you suggesting I don't even entrtain the idea that my belief is in error? We're discussing what will be the norm in EV powering 2 decades in the future, and because my view runs counter to yours and others, I'm wrong AND guilty of holding my view despite "sound arguments?"
LOL
I guess your crystal ball is better than mine.
None of us KNOWS what will be the outcome. And you definitely don't KNOW that I refuse to entertain my belief could be in error. It certainly may be more unlikely today, but 2044 or 2032 or whatever future date you want to pick will be very different than today.
But shit, at least you're having a conversation, which I appreciate. Most here just jab at me. And with them, it's hard not to feel holier than thou.
We'll never have to worry about a shortage of dipshits.
-
With that, you've undercut your right to criticize others' opinions with which you disagree, along with any hope for efficacy when you do. According to this, there's nothing we can do about our opinions, and it's pointless to denounce them.
I look forward to the kinder, more genteel, less confrontational OAM. It's a new era.
yeah, no.
One can be exposed to new information and evidence. One can change an opinion based on a preponderance of facts or ideas or experiences.
I believe what I believe about future EV charging for whatever reason, and since the future isn't today, none of us is "right."
I'm honestly quite underwhelmed by all of these different people so poorly rewording my thoughts on the matter. So eager to dig my grave, but with a dull shovel and in the wrong spot, it seems.
-
It is rational and reasonable to adjust your views when given access to more detailed and better information. This is the very basis of the scientific method.
It is interesting to me, that OAM freely admits he is a science denier.
I agree with you. Not sure why you incorrectly describe me, though.
Again, your crystal ball must be better than mine. But pile on, I can take it.
-
I'm guessing he will deny he ever wrote anything like that, it isn't at all what he meant, nobody here understands him ....
Indeed.
I'm being maligned for a prediction that hasn't happened nor not happened yet.
Excuse me if I find it odd.
-
I think the problem is we are defining word and God by human understanding. I am a presuppositionalist. By presuppositional God is good and as such by definition anything God does is good. By presupposition God is benvolent so anything God does is benevolent by definition. The problem is we are not God, so we an not presuppose that anything God has done, we can also do because it was good. We are not God and therefore do not have the preoragtive. Personally I believe that Micah 6:8 establishes as basis for us to live. Paraphrased, He has shown us what is good, seek justice, love mercy walk humbly. I actually have it tattooed on my arm.
...and I'm the one facing all the criticism? LOL
-
Anyone's next thought about a god is a wasted thought. This claim is based solely on the evidence of any god existing.
Do it for fun or mental masturbation? Sure. There's no crime in wasted thoughts.
But none of it is warranted.
Still waiting for that first shred of evidence.
-
He septupled down.
-
In an echo chamber, one cannot simply just double down. :57:
-
"We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe. I find it odd to criticize someone not being convinced of something. " - OAM.
He's just being misunderstood. Again. By nearly everyone here. It's our fault.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/0FHDUx4.png)
-
well, here is a rare post from me when i'm not just trying to stir the pot:
an aspect of living I rely on heavily, and I'm just being honest, is giving power over my opinions to the Spirit of God, aka the Holy Spirit. I fully expect to catch flak for that, especially here. It's all good, though, as it has served me well.
there is curiosity in this function, dynamic, practice, or whatever you want to call it. It requires several adjustments before it works- the first two are accepting "there is something far larger than me or you" and the second being "there is something else calling the shots". In my opinion there is no argument with either of those conditions, though there is argument, and fairly, with the nature of such a condition existing- as in "what does 'it' want with me or you if it even notices we're here?'... THAT is the argument, not if there is design and guidance.
Part of these wanderings and wonderings brings the question (a few layers deep, and how I have come to accept from another angle altogether there is absolutely a higher being and that is does know i'm here) is the data storage quandary or maybe data storage enigma... it goes like this, in it's basic form and interjecting analogy:
- It took a quantum computer, a year or so ago, almost a month to exhaust the possibilities of combinations and arrange the most likely and functional one on a chromosome/full strand of DNA for a single cell bacteria.
- When that bacteria reproduces, it does it by splitting in have, literally. It's different in this function than complex organisms, but we're only talking about the bacteria here... be my guest to introduce the more complex life forms as it furthers the point I'm going to (try) to make.
where is the data stored?
for one single misapplication or out of sequence event, life doesn't happen - things change significantly enough that shot was a 'dud'... that happens, but that is the exception not the rule. where is the source code for triggering that single cell bacteria's preparation and then execution of splitting itself in half and providing equal resources to it's duplicate? For just that single cell bacteria the data processing is monstrously heavy and that is focused solely on its reproduction - where does the information come from that carries out other functions required for it's lifecycle? JUST the reproduction alone required to arrange in the proper order a duplicate and functional chromosome took the very best of our creations a month to solve - but this tiny thing just 'knows'?
the questions, not discovered but highlighted, by that analogy is (the basic two)
- is this information stored within the walls of that single cell?
or
- is there something of a 'cloud' transmitting directives we've not yet detected (through scientific effort)?
now I get y'all are scratching your heads wondering where I get the license to introduce this subject to this thread in this manner, but there is relationship, here, by my reckoning...
The difference with Faith than any other single thing i've encountered is that I had to put faith in it first before all the pieces aligned and it... revealed?.. its value. It's been my observation a person deriving their positions based on tangible things alone and dismissing Faith are ignoring what may be the greater splash. This isn't to say a person of Faith has better insight, and because- frankly- i think that's more often faked than actual... it IS to say that a person collecting whatever evidence about a subject worthy enough of the effort, pondering them, and then seeking guidance from outside the walls of our skin may be taking better advantage of how this world actually operates though is unproven by science... and a 'science' that purposely and intently dismisses exploring that possibility.
it's in that spirit^ i've come to trust in that 'cloud', as it has served me well... and it wouldn't exist without exploring it in good 'faith' (lowercase, faith is a different sort than uppercase Faith).
On matters that matter, I try to arm myself with as much information as possible- from any vantage... i'm a firm believer that "though someone or something is often wrong, it doesn't mean they're always wrong and likewise because someone is always right .....'... and once i've done my part, i listen closely to the Movement of the Holy Spirit to direct me.
never forget a chicken in south carolina out picked all but a handful of people a few years ago in a march madness bracket... your randomness is no more powerful than my means of arrangement... I just choose to believe in something far larger than me or you, and that it knows we're here, and that it has a means of communication between us- if you just listen.
-
I believe what I believe about future EV charging for whatever reason, and since the future isn't today, none of us is "right."
Again, epistemology. The thread title: "How do you know what you think you know?"
I'm basing my prediction on knowledge of engineering, physics, economics, and my history of working in a corporate environment and observing how competitive companies in the same industry operate. I also base it on nearly a decade of observance of how the EV / charging industry has developed thus far, and from discussions with EV owners about what they primarily do and don't care about. The market is already moving away from the "fast charging / gas station" model outside of long-distance trips, which already means that the one time EV users would want/need battery swaps is something most people do maybe 0-3 times per year, so it's the exception not the rule.
You state you're basing your prediction on "whatever reason". You simply think it's what the industry wants/needs, and they'll just "figure it out". And because of the weight of batteries, you're basing it on the development future battery technology which doesn't today, and may never, exist.
It's true that because it's a future prediction, none of us is "right". But from the standpoint of this thread, would you not agree that I have a more sound basis for my prediction than you yours?
Again, you said:
I'm really not a fan of someone who has a strong opinion, but hasn't spent much time pondering the issue.
In the case of this discussion, you seem to have a strong opinion based on "whatever reason". If you had spent much time pondering the issue, you would have met my arguments with counterarguments, not "well I just think this will happen."
The answer to "How do you know what you think you know?" shouldn't, IMHO, be "for whatever reason".
-
yeah, no.
One can be exposed to new information and evidence. One can change an opinion based on a preponderance of facts or ideas or experiences.
I believe what I believe about future EV charging for whatever reason, and since the future isn't today, none of us is "right."
I'm honestly quite underwhelmed by all of these different people so poorly rewording my thoughts on the matter. So eager to dig my grave, but with a dull shovel and in the wrong spot, it seems.
You said "We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe." You didn't say we rarely, if ever, choose to be convinced of something about EVs.
You were clearly making a generalized statement, and now you're acting like you were making a statement just about your stance on EVs, and adding to the discussion after our responses that people can change their opinion based on a preponderance of facts or ideas or experiences.
Fine. Fair enough. I hate when people try to tell me what I'm thinking, and I won't do that to you.
But if you were misunderstood, blame your poor writing and not my "dull shovel." And don't act like I "reworded your thoughts on the matter."
You conveyed your thoughts poorly and got criticized for it. Man up, do better, and stop acting persecuted.
-
@Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) where was your quoted text from? In particular, this:
- It took a quantum computer, a year or so ago, almost a month to exhaust the possibilities of combinations and arrange the most likely and functional one on a chromosome/full strand of DNA for a single cell bacteria.
Googling that specific sentence in quotes didn't reveal any hits as to the source. Googling any mixture of the words "quantum computer bacteria DNA" or similar didn't come up with any link to anything where a quantum computer was used to exhaust the possibilities of combinations and arrange the most likely and functional bacterial DNA strand.
Quantum computing is admittedly not my field of expertise, but the little I do know about it makes me question that that specific problem, was placed before a specific quantum computer, and solved, and that it took almost a month.
But the writer was pretty strident about this. So I'm assuming the writer has some sort of a link to a research paper, an abstract, a news article, or SOMETHING that can lead the reader back to evaluate the source material?
-
I'd guess someone tried to compute the odds somehow of "self assembly" of some complex structure and got a very large number.
One item to note, the odds of a one in a billion occurence are near certainty if the attempt it made a billion times.
We do have many specific examples of "self assembly" or entities going from more random associations to fairly highly ordered. (And no, this isn't something against the Second Law, as some have claimed, it's quite real.)
-
@Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) where was your quoted text from? In particular, this:
Googling that specific sentence in quotes didn't reveal any hits as to the source. Googling any mixture of the words "quantum computer bacteria DNA" or similar didn't come up with any link to anything where a quantum computer was used to exhaust the possibilities of combinations and arrange the most likely and functional bacterial DNA strand.
Quantum computing is admittedly not my field of expertise, but the little I do know about it makes me question that that specific problem, was placed before a specific quantum computer, and solved, and that it took almost a month.
But the writer was pretty strident about this. So I'm assuming the writer has some sort of a link to a research paper, an abstract, a news article, or SOMETHING that can lead the reader back to evaluate the source material?
the quoted text was me just setting that part of my post aside from the rest. I can go back and look using the search feature of a post made by @Volbrigade/oU (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1836) in a51 a year or so ago where he posted this info, and that info was what sent me into the concept i shared. he was a sharp dude, volbrigade, who passed in October... he was also ornery and hard to get through to sometimes... :)
i think the effort was intending to demonstrate the efficiency of the quantum computer over other devices- the question posed to it being extravagantly complicated... basically, putting a puzzle together of many, many, parts that would mimic the process of evolving - and the 'odds' and time it would take for what would seem a simple process of nature, suggesting a single cell bacteria is less complex biologically than say, you or me... or even a worm.
-
Deep Thoughts, by CFB 51 Crew.
Some of you young'uns won't get the reference.
-
i think the effort was intending to demonstrate the efficiency of the quantum computer over other devices- the question posed to it being extravagantly complicated... basically, putting a puzzle together of many, many, parts that would mimic the process of evolving - and the 'odds' and time it would take for what would seem a simple process of nature, suggesting a single cell bacteria is less complex biologically than say, you or me... or even a worm.
Yeah, I got that it was basically a specific restatement of the argument from design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument).
-
he was a sharp dude, volbrigade, who passed in October... he was also ornery and hard to get through to sometimes... :)
Didn't have any exchanges with him but must have been decent to make the move RIP Volbrigade
-
Deep Thoughts, by CFB 51 Crew.
Some of you young'uns won't get the reference.
How about old'uns who don't have a klew?
-
Jack Handey
-
How about old'uns who don't have a klew?
Old SNL bit.
-
@Riffraft (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=33) @MikeDeTiger (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1588) thanks for the response. And Mike, if you find that YT video, let me know.
To me, and I'm not trying to sound like OAM here... It just brings up a lot of questions...
So we're not supposed to understand God. Yet, it's claimed he made man in his image. So we should have at least SOME natural inkling of his nature, right? But hey, he's supernatural. I can definitely accept that our conception of his nature is... Limited. I will say that looking at humanity, I sure as shit see a lot more of the reflection of the Old Testament angry spiteful god than the love & kumbaya of Jesus...
So then we should base our limited understanding of him on the nature of what he's revealed to us. And that, of course, is the Christian god only. Because the Greek & Roman gods were just stories. And the Zoroastrian god, well, I guess I don't know much. And the Jewish god and the Christian god and the Muslim god are all supposedly the same one, but he seemed to change his nature of what he did and didn't reveal to us across time. And then of course there's the Buddha, and all of the Hindu gods... And let's not bring up the Mormons, who know Jesus was in New York after the resurrection where the golden plates were found by Joseph Smith. It's confusing why we should ONLY trust the Christian god, and believe that everything there in the Bible is what He revealed to us.
The idea that we can't understand the parts of God that are problematic to human morality/ethics but yet we have to follow one book's account of the things we do know about him (but not the various other books/accounts that also claim to be the truth) is, well, difficult.
I've kinda come to the opposite conclusion. That we invented God in our own image, as a way to explain all the difficult and scary things that the world offers us that we don't understand, and as a way to give us comfort from the existential despair that is inherent in facing our own mortality. And we invented organized religion as a shared community in which we can cement social values (and social control) for a more harmonious society. Is that cynical? Yes. I'm a cynic.
---------------
But on a personal level is where it gets me. The Bible says that we are saved ONLY through faith. Now, I'm an unbeliever and don't have that. Yet, at the same time, I try to sincerely be kind and loving. I try to behave in the most ethical way that I can. I pride myself on trying to do the right thing not because I have to, but because it's the right thing. Am I perfect? Of course not. Nobody is. But IMHO I act more ethically than a lot of people who consider themselves Christians. What Jesus preached is pretty damn remarkable, and I feel like my principles are actually pretty similar to what he prescribed. Yet the Bible tells me I'm going to burn in hell for eternity because I haven't accepted Jesus as my savior.
The idea that a God will punish me for eternity, despite trying to live up to as many of the principles of Jesus as I can, just because I rationally can't see direct evidence of his existence that will make me a believer? Again, that doesn't sound like a God I want to believe in...
You've said a metric ton here, so below I've tried to summarize your objections (if "objections" is the right word).
- Are we supposed to be able to understand God or not?
- There's an apparent difference/contradiction in the Old Testament God and the Jesus of the New Testament
- Why believe in the Christian god and not other religions' gods?
- The god of the monotheistic religions seems to "change his nature of what he did and didn't reveal to us across time" (I admit I'm a bit confused by that one, but maybe it's just a wording thing.
- Why trust the Bible is a reliable book about God and not other holy texts?
- The idea of following one book about God is hard because of how we can't understand parts of God in light of human morality/ethics.
- Faith is required, but some people just don't have it (in good faith, as it were). What's up with that?
- Someone may live a good, moral life, and the idea that God would still punish them for lack of faith is problematic
- These problems, either individually, or taken together, indicate a God one may not want to believe in.
I could spend gobs of time trying to answer these for you, and I'd be happy to do it, because they're all great questions, and they deserve answers and have answers.
The problem, I've found, when conversations go this direction, is that often a person isn't really asking me to answer those things. They're voicing frustration about things that seem unfair and hard to understand. Generally, if I proceed to answer a bunch of things it comes off like I'm a disingenuous, arrogant, know-it-all who thinks he has the answers to everything, or it totally misses the point, which was not the questions, but really a statement of "I think your worldview has too many problems."
People who aren't believers either have logical objections, or emotional objections (or some combination of both). Answering questions like those mentioned above might get me somewhere with a person with logical objections. Emotional objections are a whole different story. Those folks don't want Christianity to be true, and data shows that evidence and arguments don't move their needle. You've told me two very key things. First, that it's a very personal level that gets you. Second, that some things don't sound like a God you would want to believe in. Pardon my frankness, but as someone who is not new to this discussion, these are indicators--if I've understood you correctly--that the main problem is not the questions about God you don't understand, rather it's what you think you do know, and don't like.
I don't want to make assumptions, so I'd ask you to carefully consider that and then tell me what you want next. Do you want me to try to make a case for Christianity, or at least point you to some resources you can dive into for yourself? Or do you want me to know that the whole thing falls short based on what you already know, and leave it there? Because I have no interest in annoying you, or spending time writing a bunch of stuff when you've already earnestly told me it's not what you're after.
There's a simple question that's always worth asking people when they more or less challenge me to defend my faith and prove it to them (I don't think that's what you're doing, btw....challenging me, that is). "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" It's so simple it's almost dumb, but you'd be amazed how many people will say "No." At which point, why bother? They already said they don't care what kind of evidence there is or what points they haven't considered.....they ain't moving. Let's just go get a pizza and talk about football.
Just so there's no bait-and-switch, I'll tell you right now: if you wanted to know more, I won't start with the questions above. Not that they're not good questions--they are, and as I say, they deserve answers. But they're not central, they're peripheral. The two central questions that have to be answered in this case are 1) does God exist? 2) did Jesus rise from the dead? If those two things are true, then I submit to you Christianity is true, no matter what other warts, objections, or lack of understanding goes with it. Those are the central claims of Christianity, and whatever we do or don't like about God, whatever other questions we do or don't have answers to, is all theological icing on the cake. Suppose I didn't have an answer or any elaboration on why God would still punish someone who lives a good life? (There is a world of answers, I'm just saying, "suppose.") It still wouldn't change whether or not Christianity were true. And the central truth-claims necessarily come first. Without them, answers to the other questions are just studs in a failed architecture with no foundation or support beams.
I'd probably PM you from here on out, lest @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) boot me for proselytizing.
-
I heard all about God/Jesus at Cleveland-Pittsburgh Games and at the Race Track
-
I find religion and beliefs difficult to discuss on line.
I've had some interesting discussions with Muslims before, they appear to fully believe in their religion also. They even believe Mary was a Virgin Jesus was a great prophet.
Their beliefs are not that far from Judaism.
-
Their beliefs are not that far from Judaism.
Yeah....no.
-
Egad. One thing I'm fairly certain of is that no one here will convince anyone else here to make a significant change about their religious beliefs, whatever they may be. And that trying or criticizing is even more likely to blow things up than whether to run someone down in your car. But I will note that BRAD and MDT seemed to have a nice exchange on the topic. Kudos.
-
I suppose it's a qualitative statement, but Muslims believe in many of the same things as are in the Old Testament. They have modified some of course to fit their heritage, like who was the son of Abraham that was the father of their people, so to speak. I see quite a bit of overlap. And quite a few major differences.
Prophets Ishmael and Isaac are the sons of Prophet Abraham (https://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/understanding-islam/the-story-of-prophet-abraham-in-the-bible-and-quran/). They, along with their father, form the link between the world’s three major monotheistic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Together these religions are often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths.
Ishmael is identified as the father of the Arabs, an ancestor of Prophet Muhammad, and his half-brother Isaac is the ancestor of both Prophet Moses and Prophet Jesus.
The stories (https://aboutislam.net/reading-islam/understanding-islam/stories-quran-biblical-figures-reimagined/) of these two great founding fathers, Ishmael and Isaac are remarkably similar in both Islam and in the Judeo-Christian traditions. However, having said that, significant differences exist.
Prophet Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice (https://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-about-islam/ishmael-isaac-sacrificed/) his son for his faith is the story that looms large in the religious consciousness of Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
The biblical story of Abraham’s sacrifice is told in the Old Testament, in the 22nd Chapter of Genesis. God tests Abraham by instructing him to “take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love” to a mountain where he will be slayed, burned, and offered to God.
On the journey, Isaac wonders about the purpose of the kindling wood and is told that God will provide a lamb to be sacrificed. Then he is tied to the wood and his father raises the knife. At that moment an angel tells Prophet Abraham to stop and that he can slaughter a ram instead.
In the Quran, the name of the child is not mentioned, but other Islamic traditions tell us distinctly that the child to be slaughtered is Ishmael.
Islamic scholars also stress that Ishmael understood and was willing to comply with God’s commandment.
-
Again, epistemology. The thread title: "How do you know what you think you know?"
I'm basing my prediction on knowledge of engineering, physics, economics, and my history of working in a corporate environment and observing how competitive companies in the same industry operate. I also base it on nearly a decade of observance of how the EV / charging industry has developed thus far, and from discussions with EV owners about what they primarily do and don't care about. The market is already moving away from the "fast charging / gas station" model outside of long-distance trips, which already means that the one time EV users would want/need battery swaps is something most people do maybe 0-3 times per year, so it's the exception not the rule.
You state you're basing your prediction on "whatever reason". You simply think it's what the industry wants/needs, and they'll just "figure it out". And because of the weight of batteries, you're basing it on the development future battery technology which doesn't today, and may never, exist.
It's true that because it's a future prediction, none of us is "right". But from the standpoint of this thread, would you not agree that I have a more sound basis for my prediction than you yours?
Again, you said:
In the case of this discussion, you seem to have a strong opinion based on "whatever reason". If you had spent much time pondering the issue, you would have met my arguments with counterarguments, not "well I just think this will happen."
The answer to "How do you know what you think you know?" shouldn't, IMHO, be "for whatever reason".
Word up. Can't help but make me laugh and remind me of...
(https://preview.redd.it/whats-the-most-relatable-simpsons-quote-v0-g39911rukn1d1.jpeg?width=400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5d1b6e14209c39c4d28bcee0f68a0e8c26bcdc4b)
-
Thanks. And honestly I don't want to get too deep into religion. I spent enough time being the "angry atheist" online in the BBS world 30 years ago when I lost my faith. Rehashing it now is silly.
I'll add a few points, and then we can table it.
The god of the monotheistic religions seems to "change his nature of what he did and didn't reveal to us across time" (I admit I'm a bit confused by that one, but maybe it's just a wording thing.
This was just a statement about--as I understand it--the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all being the same God. Just that during the pre-Jesus time the texts understand him one way, Jesus changed the Covenant and thus God should be understood another way, and then Islam declared that Jesus was just a prophet (false prophet?) and the understanding of God should now be superseded by the prophecies of Mohammed. (Oh, and then the Mormons came along--same God, dismissed Islam, added a bunch of malarkey).
I don't want to get into the specifics, but that was what the statement was trying to convey. Not so much that God is changing the revelations over time, but that as time passes new people seem to keep coming up with new versions of the same god. And oddly those new versions always seem self-serving.
The problem, I've found, when conversations go this direction, is that often a person isn't really asking me to answer those things. They're voicing frustration about things that seem unfair and hard to understand.
Yes. And not so much "unfair and hard to understand", but I've reached a point where I'm not really asking you to answer those things. They are things I find frustrating about religion, yes. But I'm not asking for an answer, because I don't believe the existence or nonexistence of God can be logically proven. Therefore sometimes when I ask questions it's about learning something new because I'm a nerd (i.e. Molinism), but hashing this out in detail with the goal of changing my mind on the question of god's existence is not something I'm really interested in doing. No proselytizing needed.
People who aren't believers either have logical objections, or emotional objections (or some combination of both). Answering questions like those mentioned above might get me somewhere with a person with logical objections. Emotional objections are a whole different story. Those folks don't want Christianity to be true, and data shows that evidence and arguments don't move their needle. You've told me two very key things. First, that it's a very personal level that gets you. Second, that some things don't sound like a God you would want to believe in. Pardon my frankness, but as someone who is not new to this discussion, these are indicators--if I've understood you correctly--that the main problem is not the questions about God you don't understand, rather it's what you think you do know, and don't like.
I'm over the emotional portion. As mentioned, I think most people who lose their faith go through the "angry atheist" phase. It's a natural reaction to getting to a point where you come to the conclusion that what a bunch of people have been shoving down your throat for [in my case] the first 13 or so years of your life is something that you think is BS.
The most annoying person in the world is the recent convert. Whether that's the recent convert to religion, away from religion, to CrossFit, to becoming vegetarian/vegan, etc. My "conversion" was 30+ years ago, and I've made my peace with it. I'll keep my annoyingness to proselytizing for Peloton, not to my atheism, tyvm :57:
I don't want to make assumptions, so I'd ask you to carefully consider that and then tell me what you want next. Do you want me to try to make a case for Christianity, or at least point you to some resources you can dive into for yourself? Or do you want me to know that the whole thing falls short based on what you already know, and leave it there?
Yes, and we should leave it where it is, because I'm not really trying to get you to make a case for Christianity. About the only thing I can think of that would change my mind on the existence of god would be direct revelation.
There's a simple question that's always worth asking people when they more or less challenge me to defend my faith and prove it to them (I don't think that's what you're doing, btw....challenging me, that is).
Yeah, and again it's a reason we should leave it where it is.
Because I don't really want to challenge you, but in the context of this thread, i.e. "How do you know what you think you know?", it's probably impossible not to challenge you.
Because essentially I think you'd say at this point that you "know" that both tenets are true: God exists (the Christian one) and Jesus rose from the dead. However my experience in past discussions of this type is that often so much of the justification for both tenets come from the book that is itself asserting both tenets. And that's not evidence that I would allow to be inserted into evidence lol...
For me, I don't have any direct evidence of God that I consider compelling, and I don't consider accounts--even if they were firsthand accounts--of a resurrection >2000 years ago to be compelling.
So if we continue, it will probably be both ugly and pointless. I've had enough of those debates in my life. No need to bring them up here. Especially since I don't think either of us are moving from our position on the matter.
I might be interested in the Molinism thing you bring up, from a philosophical perspective. Sometimes I do have interest in philosophy of religion, even if I don't adhere to any religion.
What I will say is this: I know that there are a LOT of really really smart people who believe things I don't believe. Unlike OAM, I'm not going to sit here and belittle them or claim they're morons just because we don't believe the same thing. I might be the one who is wrong... And if so, I sincerely hope your god is merciful.
-
That's a very interesting point made above, a LOT of very very smart people believe things I don't. I'd guess SOME very smart people believe things I find incredible (literally). I know a lot of very smart people are politically liberal, and others are conservative. Some are Muslim, some Christian, some Jewish, quite a few believe in some higher power in a vaguer sense, "the god of Spinoza" for example. Quite a few very smart people are socialists in the more exact sense of the term. Some very smart people buy Chevrolets, others buy Fords, etc.
It's abundantly clear that we can't really "know things" by canvassing the smartest among us and distilling down their belief set.
-
Egad. One thing I'm fairly certain of is that no one here will convince anyone else here to make a significant change about their religious beliefs, whatever they may be. And that trying or criticizing is even more likely to blow things up than whether to run someone down in your car. But I will note that BRAD and MDT seemed to have a nice exchange on the topic. Kudos.
Yes, that has a high probability of being true. I'm obviously speaking in Bayesian terms of probability, not frequentist. To my knowledge, I've never changed someone's mind online, on any platform. And I'm under no illusion I'd change BRAD's. Like Cincydawg said, it's exceedingly difficult to talk about stuff like that online.
But you have to realize that's not my goal. What I am mainly trying to accomplish in these situations is just to put a stone in someone's shoe. Just hopefully say even one thing that sticks with them, over time, that they wrestle with and muddle over in their head....something that's hard to ignore, even if they don't know where to place it, what to do with it, or how much it even matters to them.
Data certainly suggests that most people who change their mind about something like that don't do it through arguments that convinced them. Due to the way different personalities work, this type of thing might get somewhere with about 20% of the population. Out of those, the number that actually become convinced to change their mind about something is even smaller. Of those, it's rare for anyone to do it quickly. i.e., most people don't get into a discussion with someone and suddenly decide "Hey, you're right. I hereby rewire my worldview here and now, and I'll be *insert religion* from here on out." If their holdup was honest, logical objections, and they deem a set of facts worth changing their mind over, it's typically over a period of time whereby they chew on something and attack it skeptically from every angle until they believe it holds up according to whatever standard they have.
Really, the most mileage I get out of stuff like this is 1) showing non-Christians that the Christian faith is rational, and plausible, even if they never agree with it. That, I've succeeded in a number of times. 2) teaching it to other Christians to help them have a stronger, more robust, reasonable faith....one which stands up to scrutiny and doesn't collapse into doubt and disillusionment the second they go off to college and hear a professor say something they never thought of before.
-
...and I'm the one facing all the criticism? LOL
.
Ultimately we are all presuppositionalist. We all have certain, unproveable to an absolute fact, beliefs that we build our worldview on and how we live. It is why in logic and mathematics with have postules. When we assume these postales are true, we are able to develop systems in which to operate. We can't prove them, but our systems fall apart if they were not. I don't have the inclination to write a disertation (as some of you like to do), my days of academic pursuit are over. It is too much work to lay out a complete presentation on presuppositionalism.
Personally I feel sorry for you OAM, in may not be true in "real" life, but you present yourself as a pretty unhappy person on this site. Life is too short.
-
Ultimately we are all presuppositionalist. We all have certain, unproveable to an absolute fact, beliefs that we build our worldview on and how we live. It is why in logic and mathematics with have postules. When we assume these postales are true, we are able to develop systems in which to operate. We can't prove them, but our systems fall apart if they were not. I don't have the inclination to write a disertation (as some of you like to do), my days of academic pursuit are over. It is too much work to lay out a complete presentation on presuppositionalism.
I have to admit, when I first discovered presuppositionalism some years ago, I was appalled. I thought it was circular reasoning. The way it kept being presented to me came off like "The Bible is true, and the Bible says that the Bible is true, so since the Bible is true, we can know that the Bible is true."
It wasn't until way later that I actually met a trained, academic philosopher who is a presuppositionalist, and he explained it to me much better, and I realized I had shortchanged their system. tbf, though, I have to say, many of them didn't explain their system very well and imo, represented themselves poorly.
Anyway, these days I'm not hostile to it anymore, and in fact I no longer see it as a competitor to classical and evidential apologetics. I used to think their foundational differences made them exclusive. As I now understand it, it seems like a tool anyone can use if a situation calls for it. I don't, but it's because I have very little experience or understanding of any specifics.
-
I used to think their foundational differences made them exclusive. As I now understand it, it seems like a tool anyone can use if a situation calls for it.
The theological background of many if not most presuppositionalist makes them tend to be elitist and exclusionary of those not from their demonimations and particular beliefs. Which is a shame since they have something to say to Christianity in general.
-
But I'm not asking for an answer, because I don't believe the existence or nonexistence of God can be logically proven.
I'm in agreement with you there. I try to never use the word "prove," because it really only applies in math. Everything else is a reasonably justifiable belief based on some judgement calls. That's the distinction I always want to highlight. I don't "know" God exists, but I "believe" it based on evidence I find reasonable. I don't "know" my wife is at the grocery store right now, but I'm justified in "believing" it and acting and behaving accordingly, based on evidence. But I certainly can't prove it.
Yes, and we should leave it where it is, because I'm not really trying to get you to make a case for Christianity. About the only thing I can think of that would change my mind on the existence of god would be direct revelation.
Well, I admit, that's unfortunate for me, because I think there's a ton of that to get into that you may have never considered. But at your request, I'm tabling it, and only trying to explain myself from here on out so that you don't misunderstand me or my views. I also find the desire for direct revelation reasonable, and take no qualms with anyone for wanting it. Quite the contrary.
Because essentially I think you'd say at this point that you "know" that both tenets are true: God exists (the Christian one) and Jesus rose from the dead. However my experience in past discussions of this type is that often so much of the justification for both tenets come from the book that is itself asserting both tenets. And that's not evidence that I would allow to be inserted into evidence lol...
For me, I don't have any direct evidence of God that I consider compelling, and I don't consider accounts--even if they were firsthand accounts--of a resurrection >2000 years ago to be compelling.
No, although from RiffRaft's presuppositional approach, that might be the route someone from that branch of philosophy would take. I would not. I'm a combination of an evidentialist/classicist, and if someone wants me to give a defense of my faith, I do it completely from outside the Bible. I wouldn't ask someone to just simply trust what they already object to in the first place. I start from things that we can both agree on and work from there. The Bible comes way later, and in fact, in the classes I teach, I never use the Bible. Not because I don't value it, but because it doesn't apply to how I go about making a case for Christianity. Again, it's a shame for me, because this only increases my suspicion that I may have been exposed to things you may not have come across before, and who knows where it would go, but I said it was tabled and it will be.
Second paragraph, again, there's a ton of fascinating academia on how historians view firsthand accounts of old documents, including the Gospels, but ones even older than that. I'm talking about all historians, atheists, agnostics, other religions....not just historians who are also Christians. Learning how historians "know" history was a great study for me, and I'm glad I did it, because it very much plays into my original topic here, how we know what we know.
I might be interested in the Molinism thing you bring up, from a philosophical perspective. Sometimes I do have interest in philosophy of religion, even if I don't adhere to any religion.
I think this is the video I was thinking of. A pretty good run-down with a Q&A. I've enjoyed our portion of the conversation and am sad to see it end. If you ever want to nerd out about any of this stuff academically, I'm up for it, though I have to tell you there is a lot of theology I have not yet mastered. I mean, honestly, I'm dealing with 2000 years of history and tradition and it's a near-certainty that I never will master the overall stream of it. But I am aiming to be able to understand the basics of all the different categories, and how they have been viewed by different major theologians throughout the AD era.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWly0PlaTMI
-
Learning how historians "know" history was a great study for me, and I'm glad I did it, because it very much plays into my original topic here, how we know what we know.
Now that could be a fun topic.
I was first exposed to this in my high school AP US History class. One of our first assignments was to take numerous firsthand accounts [that contradicted each other, of course] and derive from them who shot first at Lexington & Concord. And then of course to write a paper justifying our conclusions. Instead of someone teaching us who shot first, someone asking us to look at primary sources and figure it out...
It was the first time in my life that I came across the idea that history is not something that you "know", but rather something that you can "do". Mind-blowing for a HS sophomore.
And it dovetails really well into the topic of this thread. In that case, it was "eyewitness #1 says the Americans shot first, eyewitness #2 says the British shot first, eyewitnesses 3-10 say one or the other." When you have multiple conflicting accountings of a historical fact, you have to figure out from multiple different perspectives what really happened.
And as it relates to modern knowledge, we frequently come across this. We have a topic. We have two people who are both legitimate, respected, experts in said topic. One expert says "X". The other expert says "not X". We are not experts, but we perhaps (for whatever reason) need to form an opinion or take action (or inaction) based on the topic. How do we decide?
-
whatever reason) need to form an opinion or take action (or inaction) based on the topic. How do we decide?
Ya pray, brother.:)
..... couldn't resist...
-
I was first exposed to this in my high school AP US History class. One of our first assignments was to take numerous firsthand accounts [that contradicted each other, of course] and derive from them who shot first at Lexington & Concord. And then of course to write a paper justifying our conclusions. Instead of someone teaching us who shot first, someone asking us to look at primary sources and figure it out...
It was the first time in my life that I came across the idea that history is not something that you "know", but rather something that you can "do". Mind-blowing for a HS sophomore.
And it dovetails really well into the topic of this thread. In that case, it was "eyewitness #1 says the Americans shot first, eyewitness #2 says the British shot first, eyewitnesses 3-10 say one or the other." When you have multiple conflicting accountings of a historical fact, you have to figure out from multiple different perspectives what really happened.
I don't think we ever did anything that interesting or useful in either high school or undergrad. Unfortunately. I might have been a better critical thinker earlier. I've always been decently skeptical, but developing critical thinking tools came way later.
The eyewitnesses thing.....I learned from a former LAPD homicide detective that conflicting accounts are one of the hallmarks of legit eyewitnesses. He says if he interviews four people and he gets the same four stories, it's a solid indicator they've talked and gotten their stories straight with each other, as opposed to recounting things as best as they can recall them. That's not particular to him, it's a common tool for detectives and historians....I just happened to first learn it from him.
-
This thread has tuckered me out.
Going to visit St. Mattress.
-
I don't think we ever did anything that interesting or useful in either high school or undergrad. Unfortunately. I might have been a better critical thinker earlier. I've always been decently skeptical, but developing critical thinking tools came way later.
The eyewitnesses thing.....I learned from a former LAPD homicide detective that conflicting accounts are one of the hallmarks of legit eyewitnesses. He says if he interviews four people and he gets the same four stories, it's a solid indicator they've talked and gotten their stories straight with each other, as opposed to recounting things as best as they can recall them. That's not particular to him, it's a common tool for detectives and historians....I just happened to first learn it from him.
Makes sense. In my work I have a lot more faith in contemporaneous documents than I do in peoples' memories.
-
This was just a statement about--as I understand it--the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all being the same God. Just that during the pre-Jesus time the texts understand him one way, Jesus changed the Covenant and thus God should be understood another way, and then Islam declared that Jesus was just a prophet (false prophet?) and the understanding of God should now be superseded by the prophecies of Mohammed. (Oh, and then the Mormons came along--same God, dismissed Islam, added a bunch of malarkey).
Christians believe that Jesus is God, while Jews and Muslims don't, so they clearly don't worship the same God. (The Mormons are straight up polytheistic, and the various denominations of Mormonism even disagree with each other on the identity of their Gods, so you really fowl things up when you toss them in.) To say that they all worship the same God based on the Abraham connection is vague and misleading.
At that point you might as well just say that all religions worship the same God, the one that created mankind.
-
I'd say that they share history. I don't think I'd say that they share beliefs, at least not the primary most important ones.
-
So... Another thing about working through various sources.
It's VERY common to talk about something with a certain level of spin, and to talk about the portions that you want to call attention to, while omitting the things that aren't so flattering to the point you're making.
This is something you should always look at whenever someone is obviously trying to persuade. You can say things that are completely true, but by leaving out key parts of the story, a reader doesn't know what they don't know... And thus the narrative can be what you want, while you're not lying, but you're not exactly telling the whole truth.
So you should approach things defensively. "What aren't they telling me, and does it matter?"
This is why you should read people on both sides of an issue. Because usually the other side will tell you what your side isn't telling you. Your own side never will.
I have a couple of things that are currently happening in my day job that are perfectly dealing with this--the other side is saying something to attract attention ONLY to the areas in which they have an advantage. And I'm in the process (already published one thing, but moving farther) of getting ready to highlight what they aren't saying. But only Mike and utee would be interested in that, so I won't bore y'all here :57:
-
I see that a lot here. 😂
-
Grandaddy nailed it with these three fine observations he shared with me when I was young.
1. If someone is trying to get an emotional response from you, they're trying to manipulate you.
2. If it takes more than a breath to explain something in essence, there is a fair amount of bull shit present.
3. Pussy is like a snowstorm. You never know when it's coming for sure, or how long it'll be around.
He was a character.
-
I'd say that they share history. I don't think I'd say that they share beliefs, at least not the primary most important ones.
Of course not, but there is overlap.
-
Again, epistemology. The thread title: "How do you know what you think you know?"
I'm basing my prediction on knowledge of engineering, physics, economics, and my history of working in a corporate environment and observing how competitive companies in the same industry operate. I also base it on nearly a decade of observance of how the EV / charging industry has developed thus far, and from discussions with EV owners about what they primarily do and don't care about. The market is already moving away from the "fast charging / gas station" model outside of long-distance trips, which already means that the one time EV users would want/need battery swaps is something most people do maybe 0-3 times per year, so it's the exception not the rule.
You state you're basing your prediction on "whatever reason". You simply think it's what the industry wants/needs, and they'll just "figure it out". And because of the weight of batteries, you're basing it on the development future battery technology which doesn't today, and may never, exist.
It's true that because it's a future prediction, none of us is "right". But from the standpoint of this thread, would you not agree that I have a more sound basis for my prediction than you yours?
Again, you said:
In the case of this discussion, you seem to have a strong opinion based on "whatever reason". If you had spent much time pondering the issue, you would have met my arguments with counterarguments, not "well I just think this will happen."
The answer to "How do you know what you think you know?" shouldn't, IMHO, be "for whatever reason".
Bold 1: I think we could say your prediction is based on a continued, linear progression based on the past. This is a great foundation for making predictions. I do it all the time. It's sound in baseball predictions and such. I have nothing disparaging to say about it.
But I just view the EV battery thing as an unexplored paradigm shift, and so that unknown makes a prudent, linear progression prediction perhaps a little more wonky or unlikely (ultimately perhaps not, again, time will tell).
Bold 2: Sure, but sometimes.....it IS "for whatever reason." More specifically, we may think something and not know why we think it. We may prefer something, yet not know why we prefer it. I'm afraid your comment here is related to the "we can't say we don't know, so we have to come up with something" ideology. It may not be, and that's fine.
But if I am unable to pinpoint the WHY I think something, I should not guess or pull something out of my ass. Agreed?
-
You said "We rarely if ever CHOOSE to be convinced of something, we just believe what we believe." You didn't say we rarely, if ever, choose to be convinced of something about EVs.
You were clearly making a generalized statement, and now you're acting like you were making a statement just about your stance on EVs, and adding to the discussion after our responses that people can change their opinion based on a preponderance of facts or ideas or experiences.
Fine. Fair enough. I hate when people try to tell me what I'm thinking, and I won't do that to you.
But if you were misunderstood, blame your poor writing and not my "dull shovel." And don't act like I "reworded your thoughts on the matter."
You conveyed your thoughts poorly and got criticized for it. Man up, do better, and stop acting persecuted.
I am very likely guilty of often skipping over things I deem to be common knowledge/assumed when I shouldn't. And not in a smarty-pants way, either. I just do a poor job of realizing the mental path people take from a start to an end is often very different.
-
On the journey, Isaac wonders about the purpose of the kindling wood and is told that God will provide a lamb to be sacrificed. Then he is tied to the wood and his father raises the knife. At that moment an angel tells Prophet Abraham to stop and that he can slaughter a ram instead.
In the Quran, the name of the child is not mentioned, but other Islamic traditions tell us distinctly that the child to be slaughtered is Ishmael.
Islamic scholars also stress that Ishmael understood and was willing to comply with God’s commandment.
I love how these religious stories are studied, shared, and rehashed, all through the centuries when the real focus should be that slaughtering a ram doesn't do anything.
Silliness.
-
What I will say is this: I know that there are a LOT of really really smart people who believe things I don't believe. Unlike OAM, I'm not going to sit here and belittle them or claim they're morons just because we don't believe the same thing. I might be the one who is wrong... And if so, I sincerely hope your god is merciful.
Where did I do this?
Believing a religion has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. I think it's silly, sure. Absurd. A colossal waste of man-hours. But not stupid.
You're not very precise when you mention me. I forgive you.
-
Personally I feel sorry for you OAM, in may not be true in "real" life, but you present yourself as a pretty unhappy person on this site. Life is too short.
I live a frustrating life. Teaching poor kids sucks more often than not.
Many/most/some people tend to look at humanity with awe and consider how awesome we are. I can't help but focus on how razor thin we are beyond being shaved chimps.
We're REALLY good at taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back as a species. But yet we remain, somehow.
-
I'm in agreement with you there. I try to never use the word "prove," because it really only applies in math. Everything else is a reasonably justifiable belief based on some judgement calls. That's the distinction I always want to highlight. I don't "know" God exists, but I "believe" it based on evidence I find reasonable. I don't "know" my wife is at the grocery store right now, but I'm justified in "believing" it and acting and behaving accordingly, based on evidence. But I certainly can't prove it.
Perhaps we could discuss the infinite difference in the amount of evidence for the god claim vs the wife-at-the-store claim?
-
Bold 1: I think we could say your prediction is based on a continued, linear progression based on the past. This is a great foundation for making predictions. I do it all the time. It's sound in baseball predictions and such. I have nothing disparaging to say about it.
But I just view the EV battery thing as an unexplored paradigm shift, and so that unknown makes a prudent, linear progression prediction perhaps a little more wonky or unlikely (ultimately perhaps not, again, time will tell).
Not just based on linearity, although that's important. I think that the actual battery energy density is not going to progress fast enough, even including the idea of solid state batteries. Batteries for BEVs today frequently weigh upwards of 1000 lbs. IMHO the infrastructure needed for battery swaps would make things infeasible until you get that down to an order of magnitude less weight or so, and the engineering of making a car frame that can accommodate battery swaps requires the same improvement.
In most industries, you hear researchers talking about the future of their technology. I'm not hearing researchers even speculating about what gets us an order of magnitude advance in energy density. Which makes me think that it's much farther out than a decade.
There are bigger reasons I don't think it'll happen, not least because I've talked to a lot of BEV owners and not a single one has expressed a desire for battery swaps. In fact, turning basic external belief about the industry on its head, one of the biggest lifestyle changes to going BEV isn't dealing with range anxiety... It's the relief at basically never even having to think about "filling up". If you charge at home, every morning your car is ready to go and it might only be a handful of times per year that you drive far enough in one day that you exhaust what you have in the morning. One of the guys I know with a BEV was talking about the annoyance driving his wife's car (ICEV) because for the first time in months he had to actually pay attention to the fuel level.
IMHO it's a solution in search of a problem.
Bold 2: Sure, but sometimes.....it IS "for whatever reason." More specifically, we may think something and not know why we think it. We may prefer something, yet not know why we prefer it. I'm afraid your comment here is related to the "we can't say we don't know, so we have to come up with something" ideology. It may not be, and that's fine.
But if I am unable to pinpoint the WHY I think something, I should not guess or pull something out of my ass. Agreed?
The biggest issue that I had with the EV thing--and it's a pattern with you--is not just the guess or pulling something out of your ass. We all do that. It was the seeming level of commitment and confidence you had in a guess you pulled out of your ass.
And this goes to the first post I wrote in this thread. There's no shame in saying "I don't know" or "I have no opinion on that". There's also no shame in saying "I'm just speculating here, but I think a lot of the slowness with BEV adoption would be solved if we could figure out battery swaps." Then we would have had a nice cordial conversation about the market evolution, the assumptions needed for your speculation to be true, etc. Instead of you saying "well it's going to happen" and starting a debate where I'm throwing facts at you and you're responding with "nah, I just believe it's the future."
Perhaps it's just your communication style, but you typically do the opposite. You present your opinion is the one and only truth, and then dig into your trench when challenged. And that's usually a bad thing when your opinion is a guess or something you pulled out of your ass.
-
Where did I do this?
Believing a religion has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. I think it's silly, sure. Absurd. A colossal waste of man-hours. But not stupid.
You're not very precise when you mention me. I forgive you.
"belittle them or claim they're morons"
I'd bet if I did enough searching, I could find somewhere on this board where you've linked belief with lack of intelligence. But to claim you don't belittle believers for their belief is laughable. You wear your derision for them like a badge of honor.
-
A lot of humans live lives "convinced of a thing", and they simply don't countenance any contrary information. They watch whatever news channel caters to their belief set. The surround themselves with people of like mind who nod their heads at whatever is said. They live in a comfortable bubble, and it IS comfortable.
This is why confirmation bias is so prevalent. It's hard work to challenge one's own beliefs. And most of us dislike being wrong.
That's odd to me, being shown to be wrong to me means I learned something different, new, better, whatever.
-
I would opine that believing in something that is silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours would qualify as being "stupid".
-
stupid is as stoopid does
-
I could easily argue that posting here is stupid, relative to other things we COULD be doing.
-
I would opine that believing in something that is silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours would qualify as being "stupid".
I believe in you, Cincy... but don't get too excited as I believe in Bigfoot, too.
I guess we all exercise our brains differently. As many here know I love a well presented conspiracy... im a sucker for them... I'll spend hours, sometimes, poking around within the structure of one and make more stuff up and include that in the telling. At the end of the day, when it's polished and ready for presentation- I toss it away or store it away, depending on how sound it is... sound, of course, being relative measure within a construct of BS to begin with...
The flat earth folks are hilarious. I think it's drawn some truly loony people who actually believe it or at least have convinced themselves at some level there is some sort of truth in it, but that isn't how it started out (the more recent version of this thing, anyway)... it started out making fun of people who invest heavily in things they can't personally verify- such as climate change...
We're supposed to accept mmcc as absolute fact beyond reproach else be arrested and mistreated as a climate denier... but who among us has collected the data and analyzed it? Who has compiled their own findings?
That ^ doesnt makenit untrue, by the way... its just a poke at it just like the flat earthers and their ice wall is.
And that presents the question at the pillars of this discussion and question prompting it: who or what do you grant authority to that has dominion over your opinion?
-
"belittle them or claim they're morons"
I'd bet if I did enough searching, I could find somewhere on this board where you've linked belief with lack of intelligence. But to claim you don't belittle believers for their belief is laughable. You wear your derision for them like a badge of honor.
Hmm. As if you can only look down on someone for being stupid? Nope. Of course I belittle people for their belief in something that lacks any evidence at all. That has nothing to do with their overall intelligence. Obviously.
-
I would opine that believing in something that is silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours would qualify as being "stupid".
This is incorrect.
Here: when someone goes from being convinced of a god to unconvinced, they didn't become smarter. Imagine one of those drawings where it's one thing and another thing.....when you see the image you didn't initially see, is it because your IQ grew 10 points? Of course not.
-
I could easily argue that posting here is stupid, relative to other things we COULD be doing.
Agreed. :88:
-
I'm interested in WHY people believe things more than that they believe things. I often have heard "Well, I just believe that.", end of discussion. OK, fine with me. No reason to discuss, but I do wonder whatever caused them to cement that belief.
We all believe things we can't really prove, some are just opinions, like "My favorite color is blue."
I've known some very very smart people who were evangelical Christians. I known plenty who were agnostic or atheists. As I said before, it's not realistic to assemble a bunch of "really smart people" and get their opinions on things and presume they are correct.
Why are some folks conservates, and other liberals?
-
And most of us dislike being wrong.
That's odd to me, being shown to be wrong to me means I learned something different, new, better, whatever.
I very much dislike being wrong.
However, being wrong and not knowing it is worse. When I've been shown to be wrong I have the opportunity to correct it. So I'd rather suffer the humbling experience of being proven wrong and correct it than just continuing to be wrong.
-
This is incorrect.
Here: when someone goes from being convinced of a god to unconvinced, they didn't become smarter. Imagine one of those drawings where it's one thing and another thing.....when you see the image you didn't initially see, is it because your IQ grew 10 points? Of course not.
In my OPINION, believing in a thing that is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours" qualifies as being stupid.
-
Hmm. As if you can only look down on someone for being stupid? Nope. Of course I belittle people for their belief in something that lacks any evidence at all. That has nothing to do with their overall intelligence. Obviously.
Love ya, brother, but that^ is funny.
All of us here love CFB, no? We admire the components working in concert accomplishing the moving of a oblong ball up and down a field, or, trying to stop the opponent from doing so... we can all, mostly, agree on the individual components and their skill and talent.
But a team?
'Fro, you hate the vols. That's fair, as i hate the gayturds. Who is the better team? Program? What measure are you utilizing to make that determination? How do you complile it? Did you determine who was best before seeking answers and argue to that ends or were you led by discovery?
Brother, et al, we're human. We pretty much all suffer from the same nature of being such. We're mighty critical of elements we believe we have domination over, and respectful of things we also hold dear... and stomp over others and still yet embrace others... and it can turn on a dime.
...... hate is the issue. Why allow an irrational emotion rule over our lives? Yet, we all hate something or have I'll will toward something enough to approximate hate. That one element, removed, and things are Glorious. Everywhere.
-
Not just based on linearity, although that's important. I think that the actual battery energy density is not going to progress fast enough, even including the idea of solid state batteries. Batteries for BEVs today frequently weigh upwards of 1000 lbs. IMHO the infrastructure needed for battery swaps would make things infeasible until you get that down to an order of magnitude less weight or so, and the engineering of making a car frame that can accommodate battery swaps requires the same improvement.
In most industries, you hear researchers talking about the future of their technology. I'm not hearing researchers even speculating about what gets us an order of magnitude advance in energy density. Which makes me think that it's much farther out than a decade.
There are bigger reasons I don't think it'll happen, not least because I've talked to a lot of BEV owners and not a single one has expressed a desire for battery swaps. In fact, turning basic external belief about the industry on its head, one of the biggest lifestyle changes to going BEV isn't dealing with range anxiety... It's the relief at basically never even having to think about "filling up". If you charge at home, every morning your car is ready to go and it might only be a handful of times per year that you drive far enough in one day that you exhaust what you have in the morning. One of the guys I know with a BEV was talking about the annoyance driving his wife's car (ICEV) because for the first time in months he had to actually pay attention to the fuel level.
IMHO it's a solution in search of a problem.
The biggest issue that I had with the EV thing--and it's a pattern with you--is not just the guess or pulling something out of your ass. We all do that. It was the seeming level of commitment and confidence you had in a guess you pulled out of your ass.
And this goes to the first post I wrote in this thread. There's no shame in saying "I don't know" or "I have no opinion on that". There's also no shame in saying "I'm just speculating here, but I think a lot of the slowness with BEV adoption would be solved if we could figure out battery swaps." Then we would have had a nice cordial conversation about the market evolution, the assumptions needed for your speculation to be true, etc. Instead of you saying "well it's going to happen" and starting a debate where I'm throwing facts at you and you're responding with "nah, I just believe it's the future."
Perhaps it's just your communication style, but you typically do the opposite. You present your opinion is the one and only truth, and then dig into your trench when challenged. And that's usually a bad thing when your opinion is a guess or something you pulled out of your ass.
We're all speculating, though.
I think what you've said about the EV battery future is akin to normal evolution taking place. While mine is perhaps the random mutations that influence evolution as well (they don't all do so, most are irrelevant, but the fact that they influence things is certain). It's also a low-stakes debate, as time will tell and there are no ramifications for either of us being wrong.
If I'm wrong about every single prediction I post on this board...so what?
And besides, maybe the most convenient future will win out, while the other (wrong?) idea doesn't pan out, despite being the "better" way (like the QWERT keyboard winning out over much more efficient layouts). Again, shrug.
.
On the 'stating my opinions as fact,' that's just a wording issue that many of you here seem to be bothered by. But it's simply cutting out the part where I say "IMO" or something to that effect.....you already know it's my opinion, because I'm the one giving it.
It's a 'speech' efficiency thing. I'm simply not being redundant. I don't know why it irks everyone so much. You all could do it and everything would be fine and basically the same. This isn't a research paper, there's no real need for hemming and hawing. Meh.
-
In my OPINION, believing in a thing that is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours" qualifies as being stupid.
Then almost everyone is stupid, according to you. How rude.
-
False. Christians and those who believe in God do not think that it is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours".
-
Love ya, brother, but that^ is funny.
All of us here love CFB, no? We admire the components working in concert accomplishing the moving of a oblong ball up and down a field, or, trying to stop the opponent from doing so... we can all, mostly, agree on the individual components and their skill and talent.
But a team?
'Fro, you hate the vols. That's fair, as i hate the gayturds. Who is the better team? Program? What measure are you utilizing to make that determination? How do you complile it? Did you determine who was best before seeking answers and argue to that ends or were you led by discovery?
Brother, et al, we're human. We pretty much all suffer from the same nature of being such. We're mighty critical of elements we believe we have domination over, and respectful of things we also hold dear... and stomp over others and still yet embrace others... and it can turn on a dime.
...... hate is the issue. Why allow an irrational emotion rule over our lives? Yet, we all hate something or have I'll will toward something enough to approximate hate. That one element, removed, and things are Glorious. Everywhere.
I sort of agree, as my last reply to Cincy shows. :72:
-
False. Christians and those who believe in God do not think that it is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours".
I surely hope not, because THAT would be stupid.
-
If I assert that your belief in "X" is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours", I'm clearly suggesting your intelligence is highly suspect.
If you are a flat earther, and go around trying to convince others of it, I'd say you are stupid.
-
I live a frustrating life. Teaching poor kids sucks more often than not.
Many/most/some people tend to look at humanity with awe and consider how awesome we are. I can't help but focus on how razor thin we are beyond being shaved chimps.
We're REALLY good at taking 1 step forward and 2 steps back as a species. But yet we remain, somehow.
Time to change your circumstances. While humanity may be flawed and heading to disaster, no reason you shouldn't find some happiness along the way. As I said life is too short.
-
But a team?
'Fro, you hate the vols. That's fair, as i hate the gayturds. Who is the better team? Program? What measure are you utilizing to make that determination? How do you complile it? Did you determine who was best before seeking answers and argue to that ends or were you led by discovery?
Well, this. :57:
(https://i.imgur.com/mv3IcDz.jpeg)
And all 3 are close wins for you. The blowouts and the overall one-sidedness is ours. Cheers!!
-
If I assert that your belief in "X" is "silly, absurd, and a colossal waste of man hours", I'm clearly suggesting your intelligence is highly suspect.
If you are a flat earther, and go around trying to convince others of it, I'd say you are stupid.
You are much meaner than I am. Yet I get all the flack.
We probably all waste time on stupid shit. Hell, we post here. I love this place, and you guys are all great, even the religious ones. But that doesn't make us stupid. It means we have leisure time on our hands and are fortunate.
Flat earthers can be called stupid because humanity has known the earth is spherical for thousands of years. Here's the key: they make a falsifiable claim. It can be proven false. God can't. So religious people get to parade around making UNfalsifiable claims, pretending like it makes it more likely or true, when it's just so 'out there' that we cannot prove it false. Because it's impossible to do so.
Yet the utter lack of any evidence at all is a problem. At least for me it is. Silly me. Stupid me?
-
I doubt anyone here could usefully declare another poster "meaner than I am" with any confidence. We all might be quite different here than in "real life". And, as I've explained before, I come from an environment where expressing different opinions was highly valued, making arguments coherently was highly valued, trying to point out flaws in another's reasoning was highly valued.
Since I embrace "diversity", I find this approach useful.
-
not sure about how mean I am - probably not too mean
but, I'm relatively Fearless regarding my peers
-
Why don’t Engineers Use Grates on Jet Engines to Stop Bird Strikes? – Engineerine (https://engineerine.com/why-dont-engineers-use-grates-on-jet-engines-to-stop-bird-strikes/?fbclid=IwY2xjawI5eRRleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHXWgRQ-1LdSxjc_EutXLNDXs0UoeMpG5ujahvNMdOB4dcdY282GZXKgC2g_aem_vpy7B6Nqg7yShypiCS-dFw)
(https://i.imgur.com/xIoDkI8.png)
-
As for religious belief, obviously many humans find it compelling, and useful, not a waste of time. It's their choice, just as ours is to post here. I obviously support their right to believe in whatever they choose, there are a lot of options out there. I know friends of mine who were pretty devout Christians found religion to be a critical part of their lives, something which they would not like to give up clearly. Most are pretty smart folks, it's not for me to decide what is silly and wasteful in their lives.
-
What sort of scares me is how many believers think their belief is what keeps them ethical. A large % of them seem to think without the invisible man in the sky, they'd go around murdering and pillaging for some reason. Just a clear lack of confidence in one's self to simply act ethically, for the sake of it...
-
The folks I know would be ethical regardless of course. They believe their faith is a kind of guiding light in their lives, a useful and positive influence.
They wouldn't have been bad people had they grown up and lived without any religion.
-
The difference between pay for women and men is another example of how false information gets "interpreted". And obviously a lot of folks believe this is prevalent.
-
The folks I know would be ethical regardless of course. They believe their faith is a kind of guiding light in their lives, a useful and positive influence.
They wouldn't have been bad people had they grown up and lived without any religion.
Agreed, but many seem to think otherwise.
-
Here's how retirees can get the biggest tax break for charitable gifts (https://www.cnbc.com/2024/11/27/retirees-biggest-tax-break-charitable-gifts.html)
-
What would you say...you do here? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4OvQIGDg4I)
-
The folks I know would be ethical regardless of course. They believe their faith is a kind of guiding light in their lives, a useful and positive influence.
They wouldn't have been bad people had they grown up and lived without any religion.
My question is by what standard. What is the basis of what is ethical. Am I the basis. Is the majority the standard. How do we decide what is good and ethical? What is a bad person what is a good person. How do we decide.
This is why we have classes and books on ethics but still can't agrees by what standard.
-
There are many opinions of course, I think they mostly are "in the weeds". Human societies share certain standards, as do groups of other social animals. If we didn't, we wouldn't survive very well. A single human "in the wild" is not very likely to succeed, while a human group is likely. we collaborate, we don't kill each other in our own group (usually), we have sympathy for those less fortunately.
One paleontologist says she realized humans were civilized when we encountered a human fossil with a clear bone break that had knitted.
-
I find it amusing how most children scoff when I say people are animals.
Let me drop your naked ass in the middle of a jungle, you will feel like an animal real quick. And not anywhere near the top of the chain, either.
-
Your point wouldn't be weakened by allowing the children to remain clothed while you drop them into the middle of the jungle.
Kind of odd, and frankly a little unsettling, that you feel the need to strip them down first.
-
Brutus,
He said, "your naked ass"
you have every right to feel Kind of odd, and a little unsettling
-
It's open mic nite in Area 51
-
I really dislike Karaoke night
-
I find it amusing how most children scoff when I say people are animals.
Children scoff at a lot of things, and take what they are told as being true all too often as well.
If one studies any social animal group, one will find "norms" and "rules" that if disobeyed results in punishment.
(https://i.imgur.com/ya4w0sX.png)
-
I don't know about children, but I had a vegan girlfriend in college who got upset when I told her that people are just animals, we're part of the food chain, and that's why it's okay to eat meat.
But I drank plenty of pineapple juice so she was still cool with it.
-
I don't know about children, but I had a vegan girlfriend in college who got upset when I told her that people are just animals, we're part of the food chain, and that's why it's okay to eat meat.
But I drank plenty of pineapple juice so she was still cool with it.
😂😂😂
-
I briefly had a veggie GF who took me to a veggie restaurant. I told the waiter there was deuterium in ths water and got this long assertion from him about how pure the water was. She was kicking me under the table.
But, there was deuterium in the water, and it didn't taste like pure water either.
-
Your point wouldn't be weakened by allowing the children to remain clothed while you drop them into the middle of the jungle.
Kind of odd, and frankly a little unsettling, that you feel the need to strip them down first.
Odd of you to dwell on that, but okay. The point of the nakedness is the lack of shoes. So even if you know what to do, you have to creep around slowly. Try to keep on-point and stop interjecting creepiness where it doesn't exist.
-
I used to run barefoot most of the summer outside as a kid, I was actually surprised how tough the soles of my feet would get. I could step on almost anything and not feel any pain or get cut. But, the point really is that a single human "in the wild" won't last long, while a group of us are very dangerous.
This is often true for other mammals, and insects, and fish, as well. Animals often fare a lot better in a group, with group rules.
-
Not a lot of acclimating to the lack of climate control, permanent shelter, food excess, and indoor plumbing, though. And none of them seem to miss wifi.
-
I used to look outside in a Cincy winter day with deer out there surviving, somehow.
-
I used to look outside in a Cincy winter day with deer out there surviving, somehow.
Uhh, yeah. That's the point.
I bet the campgrounds were empty, though.
-
Not a lot of acclimating to the lack of climate control, permanent shelter, food excess, and indoor plumbing, though. And none of them seem to miss wifi.
you lived with the indians/natives not that long ago
and not that long ago, the natives lived a decent life w/o those things
-
you lived with the indians/natives not that long ago
and not that long ago, the natives lived a decent life w/o those things
And were called savages for it.
It's not that we never could live on the razor's edge of survival, just that we don't anymore.
The smartest animal is still an animal, though.
-
there are many people in the world that live w/o many luxuries today and will be tomorrow
-
Yup.
And none of them are reading this.
-
The smartest animal is still an animal, though.
Is anyone here debating this point?
I've seen it argued we might not be the smartest animal on Earth. We have the most advanced technology of course.
-
We're not smart enough to live in harmony with nature, just try to dominate it and then call it a tragedy when it goes wrong, lol.
-
We, as in human beings, are certainly smart enough to "live in harmony with nature", we just don't often as not. "We" recognize we need to preserve many aspects of our environment and have made expensive and lengthy attempts to do so.
Our environment in the US today is a good deal better than it was in 1970.
-
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/xmC1iQzAOX-HTxX6N-niHzIrfW6proSQ2gE9v23za_MeWC59APAeBIKg6UFZ-Hrr1g)
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/proxy/NRZ0kvKocikUkBH7OWae8_MS-HrbeGr94fBQ5ZZ-v8j5YmRKJ8oMxjzgirvhPq-_1g)
-
We, as in human beings, are certainly smart enough to "live in harmony with nature", we just don't often as not. "We" recognize we need to preserve many aspects of our environment and have made expensive and lengthy attempts to do so.
Our environment in the US today is a good deal better than it was in 1970.
It has nothing to do with "the environment."
We damn rivers. We produce infinite trash. We flatten swaths of land to build homes. We fill in swamps and marshes. We do whatever the fuck we want.
We build below sea level. We build multi-million person cities in the desert. Our most populace state is prone to wildfires, earthquakes, and mudslides.
So if we're smart enough to live in harmony with nature, we're dumb enough not to.
-
It has nothing to do with "the environment."
We damn rivers. We produce infinite trash. We flatten swaths of land to build homes. We fill in swamps and marshes. We do whatever the fuck we want.
We build below sea level. We build multi-million person cities in the desert. Our most populace state is prone to wildfires, earthquakes, and mudslides.
I tend to think of damning rivers and producing trash and other feats of engineering as having environmental impacts and being part of the environment.
I also think our environment has improved overall since 1970. That is of course debateable, it has not improved in all respects. This "living with nature" notion, and it just a vague notion, is not possible with a population of 8+ billion.
-
120 billion other mammals seem to do it just fine.
-
How many are even half as large as a human being?
Food is an obvious core issue with larger mammals. A vole can get by with a tiny amount. We can't.
I'm sure humanity could do better, but it's not clear to me how, exactly, beyond some vague notional aspirations.
-
120 billion other mammals seem to do it just fine.
some of those mammals live in Our most populace state and are prone to wildfires, earthquakes, and mudslides.
-
My question is by what standard. What is the basis of what is ethical. Am I the basis. Is the majority the standard. How do we decide what is good and ethical? What is a bad person what is a good person. How do we decide.
This is why we have classes and books on ethics but still can't agrees by what standard.
Well, that's a REALLY interesting question... The way I see it there are two possibilities:
- Ethics / morality are objectively defined by some source outside of us as humans. Our goal is to understand from the revelations of that source what is ethical.
- Ethics / morality are a construct that we must create based on our nature to serve us. Our goal is to deduce and promulgate an ethical structure the works to further the interests of a successful society.
Obviously I think you were leading to #1 for obvious reasons, and for obvious reasons I reject that. So let's table it... If there's a God who defines what is ethical and moral, then that option is satisfied and all we need to do is figure out what God wants.
The second option, IMHO, is a much richer area for philosophical discussion. If we have to dig it out of the dirt ourselves, the question becomes... How?
I think we need to think about a couple of things. First is that humans are social animals. As discussed in this thread, it's not like we've got vicious teeth or claws. We have a significant limitation in that the period of childhood and adolescence is quite extended, which means that to further the species we need to have a structure where you can be safely raised at least into teenaged years, which also means that a single parent cannot both raise children and also leave those children to hunt for food. So we organize into groups... We wouldn't survive otherwise. So a part of "ethics" has to involve how we behave within a group.
We also have a lot of traits that may serve us well in some areas but not in others. For example, we are omnivores and we needed to have a capacity for violence (hunting) in order to provide sustenance. But violence within the group harms the group. As another, we have a natural capability of attachment to our mate and our children that makes us want to provide for them. But that can also lead to jealousy and division if someone else wants to copulate with our mate or we want to copulate with someone else's. As a third, we have a VERY natural and IMHO innate value in ownership and property. But we likewise have a tendency towards jealousy and comparison and to organize ourselves in groups where a certain level of "status" might involve said property--which makes us want more property than others, and could again lead to division/violence in the case of jealousy and or outright stealing.
So... We need an ethics which harnesses all the good stuff in our nature to promote a peaceful and prosperous society, and restrains the bad stuff to avoid things which have the capability to interfere with same.
If there's interest in talking further about what properties that ethical system could/should have, we can. If I've bored the shit out of everyone, then we can table that...
-
Heinlein in one of his books wrote something like this. A man loves the dam that the beaver makes for the beaver's purposes, but hates the dam that a man makes for man's purposes. Ultimately this is just a form of self-hatred and the hatred of humanity.
-
Heinlein knew OAM!
-
There can also be large difference between what is good for an individual, what is good for a family, what is good for a community, what is good for society, and what is good for "all mankind."
If the goal is to promote the species, then there is a conceivable ethical space where the active elimination of weakness, either physical or mental or both, is the proper and "good" thing to do, for homo sapiens at large.
I could go on about how natural selection once took care of this for us, but the establishment of "civilization" has effectively defeated it... but that's another post and another topic. :)
-
Well, that's a REALLY interesting question... The way I see it there are two possibilities:
- Ethics / morality are objectively defined by some source outside of us as humans. Our goal is to understand from the revelations of that source what is ethical.
- Ethics / morality are a construct that we must create based on our nature to serve us. Our goal is to deduce and promulgate an ethical structure the works to further the interests of a successful society.
Obviously I think you were leading to #1 for obvious reasons, and for obvious reasons I reject that. So let's table it... If there's a God who defines what is ethical and moral, then that option is satisfied and all we need to do is figure out what God wants.
The second option, IMHO, is a much richer area for philosophical discussion. If we have to dig it out of the dirt ourselves, the question becomes... How?
I think we need to think about a couple of things. First is that humans are social animals. As discussed in this thread, it's not like we've got vicious teeth or claws. We have a significant limitation in that the period of childhood and adolescence is quite extended, which means that to further the species we need to have a structure where you can be safely raised at least into teenaged years, which also means that a single parent cannot both raise children and also leave those children to hunt for food. So we organize into groups... We wouldn't survive otherwise. So a part of "ethics" has to involve how we behave within a group.
We also have a lot of traits that may serve us well in some areas but not in others. For example, we are omnivores and we needed to have a capacity for violence (hunting) in order to provide sustenance. But violence within the group harms the group. As another, we have a natural capability of attachment to our mate and our children that makes us want to provide for them. But that can also lead to jealousy and division if someone else wants to copulate with our mate or we want to copulate with someone else's. As a third, we have a VERY natural and IMHO innate value in ownership and property. But we likewise have a tendency towards jealousy and comparison and to organize ourselves in groups where a certain level of "status" might involve said property--which makes us want more property than others, and could again lead to division/violence in the case of jealousy and or outright stealing.
So... We need an ethics which harnesses all the good stuff in our nature to promote a peaceful and prosperous society, and restrains the bad stuff to avoid things which have the capability to interfere with same.
If there's interest in talking further about what properties that ethical system could/should have, we can. If I've bored the shit out of everyone, then we can table that...
My days of writing disertations on subject such as this are long over. You seem to be advocating for the "greater good" basis. THe problem with the greater good is why should I accept that the greater good is what is good, particularly if it doesn't help me and in fact might hurt me. Trying to remember terminology from my ethics courses but it has been over 40 years.
Ultimately greater good can and does result in the tyranny of the majority. As aregued in Star Trek II, does the need of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one. Is it right when I have 2 pigs and you have no pigs for you to take one of my pigs because it is for the greater good. We would say no, unless there is a government and have society take it from me. Which is why libertarians would say that most forms of taxation are legalized theft.
Obviously there is most to that model than that, but as I said my days of writing novels are over.
The other thing to look is saying that you taking my pig is wrong in the first place has no basis for it being wrong, if there is no objective standard. You need to eat, you have the "right" to life so how can it be wrong? Do you know the story of "Alive" the rugby team thalt crashed in the Andes and lived off the dead people flesh. Most would say that there was nothing wrong with what they did. But what if no one had died and instead one of them actually killed one of them to eat, so the rest could live. Is that wrong? How about if they took a vote to decide who to kill? How about if they held a lottery?
BTW you are right I am arguing for an objective (as much as possible) to determine how we should live.
-
My days of writing disertations on subject such as this are long over. You seem to be advocating for the "greater good" basis. THe problem with the greater good is why should I accept that the greater good is what is good, particularly if it doesn't help me and in fact might hurt me. Trying to remember terminology from my ethics courses but it has been over 40 years.
Ultimately greater good can and does result in the tyranny of the majority. As aregued in Star Trek II, does the need of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one. Is it right when I have 2 pigs and you have no pigs for you to take one of my pigs because it is for the greater good. We would say no, unless there is a government and have society take it from me. Which is why libertarians would say that most forms of taxation are legalized theft.
Obviously there is most to that model than that, but as I said my days of writing novels are over.
The other thing to look is saying that you taking my pig is wrong in the first place has no basis for it being wrong, if there is no objective standard. You need to eat, you have the "right" to life so how can it be wrong? Do you know the story of "Alive" the rugby team thalt crashed in the Andes and lived off the dead people flesh. Most would say that there was nothing wrong with what they did. But what if no one had died and instead one of them actually killed one of them to eat, so the rest could live. Is that wrong? How about if they took a vote to decide who to kill? How about if they held a lottery?
BTW you are right I am arguing for an objective (as much as possible) to determine how we should live.
I'm not advocating for the "greater good" basis, per se. IMHO I'm looking for an ethical system that is most consistent with human nature.
I don't think we want to devolve into a pure utilitarianism society. I don't think THAT fits human nature, because I think humanity works best when we build a structure that believes in the existence of, and the protection of, human rights and civil liberties. Many of our biggest failings as a species occurred either before we really started to do that, or in countries which don't do that now. (Which isn't to say that we're not failing, in many ways, every day now.) In pure utilitarianism, individual rights are held in lower esteem than "the greater good", and I think that leads to dark places.
So it's more of a thought experiment. Assuming that there is no true "objective" standard, but that we have the mirror of human nature to reflect against:
- Where, ethically, are we doing things right in the modern era?
- Where, ethically, are we at risk of going off the rails in the modern era?
For example, I would argue that we're at risk of going off the rails with divisive identity politics. We seem, as a society, to be segmenting across various identities (race, class, religion, sex, orientation/gender, political party, etc) and to spend a tremendous amount of time and effort both highlighting our differences and trying to compete for which group is most oppressed/aggrieved. We've invented the concept of "micro-aggressions" for when you're actually not oppressed in any actual way but you're supposed to feel aggrieved.
Ergo, I think we took the concept of being different and respecting our differences in the wrong direction. Instead of acknowledging and celebrating our differences while focusing on the many things that we share, we've increasingly used it to "other" anyone who isn't exactly like ourselves.
And that's a human nature thing. Going back to our earliest societies there was always "us" and the "out-group/other". That is something that was perhaps necessary back in the days when we were small bands of hunter-gatherer tribes. Anyone outside of your tribe could not be trusted and it was probably useful to "other" them. But IMHO "othering" in modern society is one of the "bad things" in human nature that we should be trying to restrain. Instead, we seem to increasingly be leaning into encouraging it.
-
Heinlein in one of his books wrote something like this. A man loves the dam that the beaver makes for the beaver's purposes, but hates the dam that a man makes for man's purposes. Ultimately this is just a form of self-hatred and the hatred of humanity.
lol
Yes, let's compare something small and temporary with what we do.
You guys can just post something like "nana nana boo boo" instead of these absurdly stupid counterpoints. It'll save you time.
-
the difference is quite obvious
Beavers are innocent and good
Humans are evil and corrupt, seeking power and $$$ by taking advantage of others
especially anyone successful enough to become a billionaire
-
Sorry I'm not the caricature you think I am. I don't hate humanity, it's just really frustrating that the oblivious lack mirrors.
-
It has nothing to do with "the environment."
We damn rivers. We produce infinite trash. We flatten swaths of land to build homes. We fill in swamps and marshes. We do whatever the fuck we want.
We build below sea level. We build multi-million person cities in the desert. Our most populace state is prone to wildfires, earthquakes, and mudslides.
So if we're smart enough to live in harmony with nature, we're dumb enough not to.
1. Not anymore. Clean water act says so.
2. Not anymore. In most places, you must build at least 2' above the BFE.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/cYn4xOO.jpeg)
-
lol
Yes, let's compare something small and temporary with what we do.
You guys can just post something like "nana nana boo boo" instead of these absurdly stupid counterpoints. It'll save you time.
That really wasn't direct at you. Sorry that you thought it was an attack. I think there is a general disconnect between nature is good and development is bad way of thinking which many fall into.
-
1. Not anymore. Clean water act says so.
2. Not anymore. In most places, you must build at least 2' above the BFE.
In the US, we’ve removed more dams than building new ones.
-
could be the same for beavers
-
In the US, we’ve removed more dams than building new ones.
As we should. Levees too.
-
Can y'all move your discussions of water management to the politics thread, or the weather climate & environment thread, or literally anywhere else?
I think Mike had intended this to be a bit of a philosophical thread, and while it might drift here or there, sniping at each other about damn dams is not really the idea here.
-
Can y'all move your discussions of water management to the politics thread, or the weather climate & environment thread, or literally anywhere else?
I think Mike had intended this to be a bit of a philosophical thread, and while it might drift here or there, sniping at each other about damn dams is not really the idea here.
I didn't start the shit.
-
and you don't have to finish it either
-
That really wasn't direct at you. Sorry that you thought it was an attack. I think there is a general disconnect between nature is good and development is bad way of thinking which many fall into.
Okay.
I do like the argument that whatever we do, it's still natural, because we're animals. So maybe the Hoover Dam is natural. Maybe Europe having no forests is natural. That argument can be made, I guess. It doesn't help anything, but it can be made.
-
Can y'all move your discussions of water management to the politics thread, or the weather climate & environment thread, or literally anywhere else?
I think Mike had intended this to be a bit of a philosophical thread, and while it might drift here or there, sniping at each other about damn dams is not really the idea here.
I thought this, too. But someone started criticizing my posts for multiple pages instead of sharing their philosophical word salad.
Dam him!
-
How ya suppose to feel at 96
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/e8lCfM7zMns?feature=share
-
Europe has plenty of forests.
-
Yep.
I'm not having this conversation for free, so yeah.
-
But I drank plenty of pineapple juice so she was still cool with it.
We hear you loud and clear. :111:
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTg6PQv0ccWQZCndbKp6xE6spWBF36i5Zppg&s)
-
https://apple.news/A5PfvyfaFSji0Kqed5hXFng
A good, short read.
-
Can y'all move your discussions of water management to the politics thread, or the weather climate & environment thread, or literally anywhere else?
I think Mike had intended this to be a bit of a philosophical thread, and while it might drift here or there, sniping at each other about damn dams is not really the idea here.
I missed a bunch of pages last week. Is it worth my time to catch up or not?
-
With this crew jibber jabbering? Definitely not worth your time. :)
-
I've finally got my quick list of principles I think are reasonable written down in a vaguely organized fashion. The formatting doesn't translate here so I'll have to type it all out again, sans some of the nice formatting. Oh well. This was a good exercise that forced me to articulate some things that were happening on auto-pilot without much direct consideration, and to re-examine some other things that needed to be factored in. But overall, this is more or less how I've been operating for a long time. You'll see in spots this leans into the political/news sphere because that's what I was thinking of when I started the thread, but I think this can be adapted to other areas.
Next, I'm going to try to deliberately refer back to this in the future and periodically rate myself on my own standards. I think overall, I probably give myself a C+ or B- thus far, as far as committing myself to something "I know." Not bad, could be better.
_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ __
- Is your opinion falsifiable? Do you know what that principle means, and if so, what's your standard of falsifiability? What would you need to see, or what facts taken in context would make you say "What I thought is wrong?" Is there a valid and reliable way to test your belief? (Validity and reliability are two of the most important metrics in statistical analysis, and I think there's carry-over in this area.) If so, have you done it?
- Do multiple sources report a fact? (obvious, no explanation needed)
- Do you at least spot-check primary sources? If so, did the news report's claim hold up? For history stuff, this could be original letters, ancient "primary" history accounts, or other primary documents. For legal stories it could be reviewing court cases or executive orders. (I'm lucky....my years as a landman taught me to read lawyer-speak pretty well without being a lawyer). If a particular source has proven, over time and over multiple spot-checks, to have accurately relayed what they claim from other, primary sources, you're justified in loosening up on your skepticism of that source. i.e., there are people whose word I take a lot more readily now, without "doing my own research," more than I once would've, because they hardly ever miss, that I can tell.
- Have you sought to develop critical thinking skills? Are you good at philosophy, logical thinking, and spotting logical fallacies? Do you interrogate a story as it's being told to you? (skepticism)
That was more or less for ingesting facts. Moving on to listening to opinions(podcasts, reports, opinion articles, news shows, etc.)
- Do you read or listen to sources that have opposing viewpoints to your own?
- When considering others' opinions, does it have good explanatory scope and good explanatory power? (two common tools for historians.) Explanatory scope = explains all the facts, explanatory power = explains the facts well.
- Does the speaker or a person being interviewed have a vested interest? Are they pushing a book? Are they suddenly making the rounds on all the news shows and podcasts and starting to act like a celebrity? Are they finding ways to stay in the spotlight? Or are they staying low-key and not trying to make a career out of being a public opinion person? (this is in no way conclusive, bear in mind, it's just one tool in the toolbox. If a person sounds credible but then I start seeing them everywhere and seeming to profit off their hot takes, I get suspicious. If a person is interviewed who comes off like they're just pleading to get their story out there, I'm inclined to view it more favorably.)
- Eye-witnesses are good evidence, but know what makes a good eye-witness. (Sorry, the further explanation for that is way longer than I'm ever going to type out.) i.e., I frequently listen to a podcast where the guy often discusses the Russia-Ukraine war. His academic training is Russo-European history, he's traveled extensively all around the globe and particularly that area, and has spent an enormous amount of time in Ukraine dealing with their government when he adopted his now-daughter from the Ukrainian orphanage system, and written books about all of it. So for example, when he comments on the Russia-Ukraine war, I'm reasonably justified in weighting what he says heavier than some desk anchor who's never been anywhere and may know nothing for themselves first-hand. It's not a free pass, I'm just saying, I am likely to be less skeptical (until enough time has passed and he shows to be reliable).
- Does a person have people on their show with different viewpoints? It's hard to trust someone who only ever has people on who agree with them. It's better, and more telling, when someone has on opposition and will spar with them and both of them let it all out there. BUT: bear in mind controlled opposition is always a possibility.
- Does a person ever say anything good about politicians they don't like? Or anything bad about politicians they do like? Chances are very slim that a person thinking for themself has no agreements or disagreements with someone else--that would be strange and statistically unlikely. If that happens, I'm inclined to regard them as shills or an antagonist for the sake of antagonizing.
- Do they ever admit they were wrong when something they've said has been widely and publicly shown to be false? You can't imagine how many people I've weeded out with this one. If they can't or won't do this, they're not honestly trying to inform you. They're hacks.
- Do they act like experts in all matters? Do they ever say "I don't know a lot about that?" Chances are uber-slim a person is really an expert in everything they talk about.
_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________ _
Anyway.....like I say, B+/C- there, I think. Room for improvement.
I wish I could say that finding info and good opinions to consider is easy and could just point to one person or web page and say "Them. They're good." In reality I find I have to gather info from a lot of different places. A lot of times I don't have the time and I should probably tread more carefully when that's the case. I do have some go-to people these days, but it's not for everything....it's more like "this person has been reliable with X, this other newspaper has been reliable with Y..." etc.
The end. Close 'er down.
-
Excellent work BTW. I'd highlight two things:
Do multiple sources report a fact? (obvious, no explanation needed)
This is something you have to be VERY careful with. If one source reports a fact and then multiple sources report what that source reported--which is AMAZINGLY common in the modern internet age--then you still truly only have one source.
1. Does a person have people on their show with different viewpoints? It's hard to trust someone who only ever has people on who agree with them. It's better, and more telling, when someone has on opposition and will spar with them and both of them let it all out there. BUT: bear in mind controlled opposition is always a possibility.
2. Does a person ever say anything good about politicians they don't like? Or anything bad about politicians they do like? Chances are very slim that a person thinking for themself has no agreements or disagreements with someone else--that would be strange and statistically unlikely. If that happens, I'm inclined to regard them as shills or an antagonist for the sake of antagonizing.
I think this is important. I really enjoy Real Time with Bill Maher. For two reasons... First, I basically know he's biased, but he's going to own that bias. So I trust he says what he truly thinks. Second, he's more interested in debate than proselytizing, so he'll bring on ANYONE even if they disagree with him. And of course he'll poke at them, but he won't shout over them like someone like Hannity... (Full disclosure; I haven't listened to Hannity in ages.)
-
Excellent work BTW. I'd highlight two things:
This is something you have to be VERY careful with. If one source reports a fact and then multiple sources report what that source reported--which is AMAZINGLY common in the modern internet age--then you still truly only have one source.
This used to be very carefully avoided, but being first became more valued/important that making sure you're right. Sigh.
-
Good one from Existential Comics (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/596) on utilitarianism.
And a good reason why utilitarianism is an incomplete philosophy, that potentially makes it incompatible with human nature.
If the sadist's enjoyment of hurting someone exceeds the victim's displeasure at being hurt, does that make hurting them justifiable? I would certainly [and strongly!] argue no.
(https://i.imgur.com/KPaHOOf.png)
-
There's that, and then there's the chaos theory aspect of it. Utilitarianism says, in a nutshell, we should do whatever leads to the best outcome in the long run. Assume for a moment we could agree on "best outcome"--which as you and this cartoon point out is not a given--it still has a major flaw. Philosophically and empirically, there's a ton of evidence that we are not in a good position to know what will lead to the best possible outcome over time. We can make some reasonable predictions on a few things in the short term. But we even get a lot of that wrong. Extend the time period, we're basically worthless as prognosticators in the face of the butterfly effect.
Utilitarianism has faced some withering critiques for those very reasons, and imo, hasn't really withstood them well. Not a great basis for a system of ethics.
-
BTW this is long-winded and doesn't really address your point, Mike. So I'm going to post it, because there's some good stuff in it, but understand that it's disjointed...
---------------------
Yes, and it brings in the question of whether we do what's best today, or whether we're also trying to satisfy the long run. And if we're trying to satisfy the long run, how much weight do we place future generations in relation to satisfying our own today.
I've mentioned a book several times, The Ministry for the Future (https://www.amazon.com/Ministry-Future-Kim-Stanley-Robinson-ebook/dp/B084FY1NXB/), by Kim Stanley Robinson. He's a hard sci-fi writer probably most well known for his Red Mars series, which is superb. This book is more of a near-future look at a world where climate change is increasingly spiraling out of control. No "spoilers", but essentially a governing body (within the UN IIRC?) called the Ministry for the Future is established which exists to advocate for the future 7 generations of the world. And as such, it obviously puts them at odds with short-term thinking institutions--which is what most governments, businesses, and people, are primarily concerned with. The book gets into some left-wing politics here or there, so if you're turned off by that, don't read it. But if you can stomach it and get through, it's a very interesting, very well-written, and believable book.
I bring it up because as I said previously, in the absence of a belief in a supreme being who will tell us what ethics we should follow, we're stuck figuring it out on our own.
For me, that's why I said an ethical system for humanity has to be consistent with two things:
- Works in accordance with human nature.
- Promotes a stable and prosperous society.
This means that it will need to encourage the good things in human nature, while discouraging the bad. But that we need to be thinking of the future of the society.
For example, I'm a proponent of free market capitalism. Is it perfect? No. Does it have warts? Yes. But overall it has been the driving force that has lifted the world out of subsistence-level poverty, created new technologies that have extended human lives, made us more healthy and nourished, given us endless ability to explore our interests rather than toiling on a farm from dawn 'til dusk, etc.
The reason it does all that? Because it harnesses the best of human greed and competition, a key aspect of human nature. Free market capitalism is an endless innovation engine where everyone is trying to get one up on everyone else. That sounds rapacious and horrific, but economic advance is driven by productivity--getting more out for equal or less put in. That productivity growth is exactly WHY we're not toiling in fields from dawn 'til dusk, and why we can feed 8B people on this planet. And if we want to take care of future generations, we have to keep that engine going. Because just as our ancestors in 1850, 175 years ago, could not even conceive of the life that we have available today, we can't probably conceive of how much better things will be in 2200 if we keep innovating.
There are some, however, who look at life and say "you know what, it's good enough--we need to distribute it more fairly". And to an extent we do; one of the other parts of human nature is our empathy, our generosity, and our desire not to see others suffer. Free market capitalism doesn't have an answer for those who can't produce, other than "starve, or hope for charity". And as someone who benefits greatly from my productive ability, but with a son with severe autism who won't ever be able to produce, it puts this into stark relief.
So when I look at systems, socialism doesn't work because it neuters that greed and competition, and therefore neuters the engine of innovation. This has been proven basically everywhere it's been tried. The purest form of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) IMHO likewise doesn't work because it neglects the human desire not to watch those around us suffer terribly, and neglecting those who cannot flourish in such a society is inhumane. Thankfully [I think], pure anarcho-capitalism hasn't been tried in the modern world.
So when we get into systems of government, we're invariably trying to find the right balance between the two. The "get as much good as you can, and help those who can't do it as much as you can, but without either killing the golden goose or shunting innovation so much that we're leaving our grandkids a much poorer world than they could have" dividing line is unknown, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Healthcare can be a good example. I found the "World Index of Healthcare Innovation (https://freopp.org/united-states-health-system-profile-4-in-the-world-index-of-healthcare-innovation/)", and the US had a score of 4th overall in developed nations. However, we're dragged down by cost and sustainability. But where we excel is the Science & Technology section. We're 1st there with a score of 75.14, and there's only one other nation over 50 (Denmark at 52.63). So we lead the pack by a VERY wide margin:
[color=var(--blue)]Science & Technology[/color]
The U.S. also ranked first in Science & Technology. Indeed, the margin between the U.S. and second-place Denmark was by far the highest recorded in any dimension of the Index, driving America’s overall ranking. The U.S. ranked first in the number of new drugs & medical devices gaining regulatory approval; first by a wide margin in Nobel prizes in chemistry or medicine per capita; and second in scientific impact as measured by citations. The U.S. also ranked fourth in R&D expenditures per capita. This leadership in scientific impact directly translates into treatments that are developed by nearby pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, especially around hubs such as Boston and the San Francisco Bay Area.
For all the warts of our healthcare system (and there are many, which I'm not going to get into), we're the nation driving more of the health care advances that our kids and grandkids will thank us for in the future.
We don't have a fully free market health care system, and we don't have a fully universal system. The political push is to make our system more universal, but we can point out that the innovation engine is probably partially funded by our NON universal system where the profit motive is stronger. The question of finding that balance line is important. If the balance line of universal healthcare materially restricts the innovation engine, we're hurting our kids. If the balance line of free market healthcare is causing unnecessary suffering of the people living today, then we're hurting them today.
-
Good one from Existential Comics (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/596) on utilitarianism.
And a good reason why utilitarianism is an incomplete philosophy, that potentially makes it incompatible with human nature.
If the sadist's enjoyment of hurting someone exceeds the victim's displeasure at being hurt, does that make hurting them justifiable? I would certainly [and strongly!] argue no.
You need to stay of NAPA or any other valley of winos
-
Good post BRAD.
-
There's that, and then there's the chaos theory aspect of it. Utilitarianism says, in a nutshell, we should do whatever leads to the best outcome in the long run. Assume for a moment we could agree on "best outcome"--which as you and this cartoon point out is not a given--it still has a major flaw. Philosophically and empirically, there's a ton of evidence that we are not in a good position to know what will lead to the best possible outcome over time. We can make some reasonable predictions on a few things in the short term. But we even get a lot of that wrong. Extend the time period, we're basically worthless as prognosticators in the face of the butterfly effect.
Utilitarianism has faced some withering critiques for those very reasons, and imo, hasn't really withstood them well. Not a great basis for a system of ethics.
BTW IMHO per the bold, there's a ton of evidence that we are not in a good position to know what will lead to the best outcome NOW.
Again, this potentially gets back to the question of free markets vs central planning. The simplest way to say it is that the free market is also a truth-discovering machine. Supply and demand sets prices, prices and costs determine profits and loss, and they they ultimately lead to a situation of water finding its level over time. I think this is often strawmanned into the "efficient market hypothesis", which is further strawmanned into the idea that markets are never wrong. Which is completely, well, wrong. The difference is that markets being wrong is usually a sort of self-correcting problem unless acted upon by outside forces allowing them to STAY wrong.
I work with many brilliant people. We're in an industry where there are only three producers of our product in the entire world. It's an industry dominated by several VERY large and very stable companies as our customers. Companies with market caps 100x our own. We work hard on demand planning 6, 8, 10 quarters out, trying to triangulate the best possible information we can to ensure that we have the right supply for market demand. And then COVID happened, which threw EVERYTHING out of whack. It led to a year+ of over-buying, followed by a 6-quarter market trough of massive demand loss that people in the company say they haven't seen for 30+ years. Lots of losses, lots of layoffs, and it was a generally depressing time. Thankfully we're past it now--and I kept my job.
But what I can say about that? Not a goddamned person exists in Washington DC that could/would have handled it better. And likely would have done worse, because they would have been all about alleviating temporary pain rather than doing the hard stuff that's necessary to adjust to market reality.
It's why I say that law is an emergent phenomenon. Politicians typically don't "make" law. They lick their finger, hold their finger up in the air, see which way the wind is blowing, and then codify that while taking credit for it.
You talk about utilitarianism being a problem because "we" are not in a position to be able to decide what's actually utilitarian, and I agree with you. Central planning doesn't work for the economy, and it doesn't work for utilitarianism, because no politician can actually know enough information to direct either with confidence--not that it impairs their confidence. But politics is, if nothing else, a reflection of the zeitgeist. Not a member of Congress exists who knows more about data storage than I do, and I'm but a mid-level cog in my machine. And there are a million people like me in a million other industries who know more about what they do than anyone in Congress. So, at best they can play in the margins and follow the wind where it blows, because they sure as shit can't change the weather.
-
Well, that's where we get lobbyists, I suppose. At least one type of them. People who know more about something than anyone in Congress hire other people to go convince Congress to do what they think ought to be done.
Which, really, is just the beginning stages of central planning. I guess the thing to do is for Congress to let the smart guys duke it out in a free market and not for the smart guys to try to make rules based on their expertise.
-
Well, that's where we get lobbyists, I suppose. At least one type of them. People who know more about something than anyone in Congress hire other people to go convince Congress to do what they think ought to be done.
Which, really, is just the beginning stages of central planning. I guess the thing to do is for Congress to let the smart guys duke it out in a free market and not for the smart guys to try to make rules based on their expertise.
Well, wouldn't you have lobbying on both sides of any given issue then? I mean I know we all piss and moan about lobbyists but a lot of things get built and done for the better because of lobbyists.
-
Well, wouldn't you have lobbying on both sides of any given issue then? I mean I know we all piss and moan about lobbyists but a lot of things get built and done for the better because of lobbyists.
The issue is that lobbyists are, well, lobbying for whoever is paying them. So by their very nature, they may not be lobbying for "sound policy that benefits all Americans", they're lobbying for "policy that benefits whoever is paying me, whether that's 'sound' policy or not".