How did you change paradigm?

[Ansiktsburk]

Was born in a christian family and I guess I was christian since there existed no option. But I just found myself wanting to leave when in church and when i 11yo fully realised the concept of eternity, well... Im not saying I cannot be a christian again but it would take paradigm shift thing to get me back.

[Iwannaplato]

An atheist. Because if I told them that I am anything other than what they already value and respect (their own philosophical position) I've already disadvantaged myself in their eyes. Atheism is the best position (they believe). If it wasn't - they wouldn't be holding it. That's how must people think about themselves.

So, you take the other (or another) position. You contrast yourself with their position. Or? Do you not have a position yourself. IOW, are you sometimes a theist when you are on your own? Do you sometimes pray and other times think there is no God?

It signifies absolutely nothing about myself other than the fact that I won't use terminology/language that's associated with theism while conversing with that person. I won't express gratitude and surprise with phrases like "Praise the Lord!"; instead I would say something like "Thank the fucking universe!"

I'm confused. I thought you would call yourself a theist when discussing with an atheist. But here you avoid using any theist language when talking to an atheist. I can see explanations for doing this, but could you explain why you take a position in the dialogue that is opposed to their position, but then in the specifics of the dialogue you avoid any theist language.

What would they know about you if you said you were a theist?

They would know absolutely nothing about me, but they would project their own understanding of "atheism" onto me. So they would assume things like I don't pray; they would assume things like I don't go to Church on sundays.

Again same issue. If you said you were a theist why would they project atheism on you?

Exactly. And even then pluralism and monism are paradigms of their own. So if I am doing Philosophy on Philosophy forums (where the objective is in fact dialectir - thesis/antithesis) then if I am talking to self-labelled pluralist - I will paint myself a monist.
If I am talking to a self-labelled monist - I will paint myself a pluralist.

The opposing ends actually enable the clash of ideas necessary for synthesis of meaning.

So, it is a tool you use to create dialogue you consider (most) useful. But in your life away from dialogue do you have your own positions?

[Iwannaplato]

It's simply about reason and evidence and a willingness to embrace skepticism., and to take nothing for granted. Also - and this is the hardest part - cultivating a personal culture of self criticism, since it is a fall back position of us all to defend what we think; it takes a lot to unpack that to jump ship to another set of ideas.

So, was there a time when this was not your paradigm/approach? IOW you answered more or less with a methodology. I would say that you are presenting a kind of empiricism as your paradigm (perhaps with some attendant ontology like physicalism, perhaps not). Was there a time when you did not have this methodology (and if there is an attendant ontology that also)?
If you did change to a new approach, what led to that?

I did read the rest and saw that you were a Christian for a while, but then after analysis/self-analysis you stopped that.

One could use your methodology but have no committment to any ontology (except some general one about one being able to learn about reality and that there are patterns in it). So someone with your approach could even try a religiont, test it more or less, then reflect and either continue or stop.

OR perhaps you completely changed paradigm during that Christian phase. And perhaps you have other methodologies when you were younger which you gave up and took on the new one.

I am interested in what leads to these changes.

Your answer was around evidence, etc. Was this always your approach?

[Iwannaplato]

Was born in a christian family and I guess I was christian since there existed no option. But I just found myself wanting to leave when in church and when i 11yo fully realised the concept of eternity, well... Im not saying I cannot be a christian again but it would take paradigm shift thing to get me back.

What do you mean by when i 11yo fully realised the concept of eternity,?
What was your new paradigm worldview after realising this?
How did realising this change you?

[Skepdick]

So, you take the other (or another) position. You contrast yourself with their position. Or?

I think we missed each other. The choice to contrast or resemble myself is always available to me. The context will dictate which choice I act upon.

In a philosophical setting more often than not I'll default to dialectic - so I will contrast myself.
In a social setting more often than not I'll default to casual dialogue - so I will resemble myself.

Do you not have a position yourself. IOW, are you sometimes a theist when you are on your own? Do you sometimes pray and other times think there is no God?

No. The question isn't even interesting to me. The day I realised I can't answer that question in its entirety; I can't answer "What am I?" without leaving stuff out and reducing myself to some marketing slogan is the day I stopped asking it.

The answer to the question "What am I?" is always "I am myself". All of me. Whatever I am. No label or index or paradigm required.

I'm confused. I thought you would call yourself a theist when discussing with an atheist. wBut here you avoid using any theist language when talking to an atheist. I can see explanations for doing this, but could you explain why you take a position in the dialogue that is opposed to their position, but then in the specifics of the dialogue you avoid any theist language.

In a philosophical setting - yes; I take an opposing view. In a social setting - no; I take an allied view.

Opposition is never conducive to cooperation unless the other side has the maturity for dialectic. Until you establish that it's better to be friendly - dialectic triggers people.

Again same issue. If you said you were a theist why would they project atheism on you?

They would project onto me whatever their understanding of the label I have ascribed to myeslf.

If I say I am a "theist" - they will project their understanding of theism onto me.
If I say I am a "atheist" - they will prject their understanding of atheism onto me.

Knowing that some label will be projected onto me - I'd prefer they projected the label they most admire and respect. And that's (usually) the exact same label they ascribe to themselves. Humans and their tribes...

So, it is a tool you use to create dialogue you consider (most) useful.

Pretty much.

But in your life away from dialogue do you have your own positions?

If I do - I can't tell you what they are. Because I can't choose which language/paradigm to express my understanding in. My audience determines that.

This is why I find it excruciatingly painful to write for the sake of writing. If I don't know who the message is for; or why I am messaging them - I have a really hard time choosing my words.

The worst is when I have to write for a "general audience". Well, what's their background? Doctors? Physicists? Musicians? Philosophers? Finding words that land "just right" with a diverse audience is a superpower I do not posess.

[Skepdick]

Was born in a christian family and I guess I was christian since there existed no option. But I just found myself wanting to leave when in church and when i 11yo fully realised the concept of eternity, well... Im not saying I cannot be a christian again but it would take paradigm shift thing to get me back.

The journey of theism to atheism to theism again is what I call Philosophy.

In that context the way I use the word "theist" is somebody who hasn't commenced the journey yet. They've merely inherited their beliefs and ideas but haven't yet examined them at depth.

What I call an "atheist" is somebody half way through the journey. They want to have their cake and eat it to. They want to abolish social constructions and focus on truth/science/realism entirely with minimal concern for social norms, but there comes a time where they realise that they want murder to be objectively wrong, but they have no grounding for this belief whatsoever. And there is no grounding for the belief, except by appealing to some moral authority (which the atheist abolished too hastily).

And what I call a "Phlosopher" is someone who has completed the journey. They want all the subjective moral and socially aesthetic stuff to remain. They also want all that sciencey/pragmatic stuff to remain. They want to integrate the two, but ontologically speaking the Philosopher is still a theist for one simple reason alone!

The Philosopher is unable to ground; or justify ANY of their values or norms. They can't justify their principles, they can't justify their metaphysic, they can't justify why they insist on "good arguments" (why not bad ones?); and yet - they still hold onto all of that! The philosopher knows that their entire framework for discourse is itself a religion. More so - the Philosopher wants; or needs those religious beliefs to remain social norms. He needs to persuade; and prosletyse without getting caught with their pants down on the origin/justification of those moral attitudes!

The difference between a theist and a Philosopher (with respect to their moral code) is such that a theist has been told to practice those morals or go to hell;
whereas a Philosopher understands that the reason we are practicing those moral attitudes (despite knowing their subjective nature) is to avoid living in hell.

Of course God is just an idea. An idealization. SO what? That doesn't preclude one from believing in it. You believe in justice, morality, democracy. And you believe in God (the ultimate Good) in the exact same way.

"A little knowledge of science make a man an atheist, but an in depth study of science makes him a believer in God."--Francis Bacon

[Iwannaplato]

I think we missed each other. The choice to contrast or resemble myself is always available to me. The context will dictate which choice I act upon.

In a philosophical setting more often than not I'll default to dialectic - so I will contrast myself.
In a social setting more often than not I'll default to casual dialogue - so I will resemble myself.

So, 'resemble myself'. Does that mean you express your true/main belief in those situations?

No. The question isn't even interesting to me. The day I realised I can't answer that question in its entirety; I can't answer "What am I?" without leaving stuff out and reducing myself to some marketing slogan is the day I stopped asking it.

Sure. Parts will get left out. But is there a main position? I think in many ways we are similar on this. I used to joke that I had to take a vote to get out of bed some days. IOW I can also see myself as a lot of parts and some days there was no strong majority about getting up and going out. Was there perhaps a bare majority or at least some abstains and I could find a reason to do something. But on most days there's a clear majority for getting out of bed, either desire or need or both driving. For me it is like this with beliefs. Yes, there is a diversity, but I approach life from certain models and assumptions, however much they are open to revision. I am simply not, for example, an orthodox jew. I am not a solipsist. Though I can have moments, nearly always when I am alone, when it seems to have some merit, or at least can't be ruled out. I am not in some positions much or at all. I am never an orthodox jew in some way that is particular to that group's worldview and not others.

For things like monism, dualism, rationalism, empiricism...I suspect I am a bit like you. I may take on, as you say, a position in a philosophical context, but otherwise, I don't care, really, and whatever seems to be working, I'll use. And I don't worry, wait a minute, it seems like my model is dualism and I'm against that.


I do think some views are pernicious to what I care about, and I tend to react to them. Totalizing belief systems that are problematic in relation to what I want.

The answer to the question "What am I?" is always "I am myself". All of me. Whatever I am. No label or index or paradigm required.

Imagine someone studied you (someone else that is), might they over time be able to say things like...
he has a tendency to disagree with theists more than atheists
his actions fit best with worldview X and not others
and be accurate?

In a philosophical setting - yes; I take an opposing view. In a social setting - no; I take an allied view.

So if two other people are disagreeing online...they have differing positions and are arguing, you would disagree with both of them, at least at different times.

They would project onto me whatever their understanding of the label I have ascribed to myeslf.

If I say I am a "theist" - they will project their understanding of theism onto me.
If I say I am a "atheist" - they will prject their understanding of atheism onto me.

And if you take on the position of theist, I would bet they tend to assume you are a Christian (certainly an Abrahamist) and begin to attack what they perceive as the weaknesses of that particular theism. If you are against the democrats you are a republican (for USAers). There's a very binary spirit in the world right now, much more so than 20 years ago. It was always there, but these days pick A or B and agree always with your team and always disagree with the other and never acknowledge C or D as being independent and real.

Knowing that some label will be projected onto me - I'd prefer they projected the label they most admire and respect. And that's (usually) the exact same label they ascribe to themselves. Humans and their tribes...

I can see that for social situations. But what about where there are non-social consequences, for example at work, or anywhere you might have a disagreement with consequences beyond the social.

OK, all interesting. Not quite my focus for this thread, but interesting enough for me to ask more questions above.

I understood the parts, I think, that I did not quote and respond to here.

[Skepdick]

I think we missed each other. The choice to contrast or resemble myself is always available to me. The context will dictate which choice I act upon.

In a philosophical setting more often than not I'll default to dialectic - so I will contrast myself.
In a social setting more often than not I'll default to casual dialogue - so I will resemble myself.

So, 'resemble myself'. Does that mean you express your true/main belief in those situations?

No. I don't have such thing as "true/main belief".

When I said "I will contrast myself" the part missing at the end was "relative to my interlocutor"
When I said "I will resemble myself" the part missing at the end was "relative to my interlocutor".

Sure. Parts will get left out.

Parts? No. The vast majority will get left out. There's no way in hell I cap capture my entire history, my experiences my influences, my all and capture it in a paragraph; a book or an encyclopedia.

Language simply doesn't work like that. Without a context to restrict expression - you can say EVERYTHING. And everything is a lot.

But is there a main position?

Yes. I am the main position. All of me exactly where I sit as I sit in relation to everything else. That's the part I can't put in language.

I think in many ways we are similar on this. I used to joke that I had to take a vote to get out of bed some days. IOW I can also see myself as a lot of parts and some days there was no strong majority about getting up and going out.

That stuff is on autopilot. I don't have to constantly argue myself into "But why get out of bed?". I don't have to argue with myself about the infinitude of choices/possibilities at every instant in time.

Was there perhaps a bare majority or at least some abstains and I could find a reason to do something.

I take my motivations and pleasures wherever I can find them. There are times when I can practice stoicism, and times where the procrastinator is in total control. What I have is tools and means to break each cycle; or encourage it. But total control? Hah! What a dumb idea.

But on most days there's a clear majority for getting out of bed, either desire or need or both driving. For me it is like this with beliefs. Yes, there is a diversity, but I approach life from certain models and assumptions, however much they are open to revision. I am simply not, for example, an orthodox jew. I am not a solipsist.

Only because you think those terms carry some implications/presuppositions of behaviour more than mere mental attitudes.

Though I can have moments, nearly always when I am alone, when it seems to have some merit, or at least can't be ruled out. I am not in some positions much or at all. I am never an orthodox jew in some way that is particular to that group's worldview and not others.

I used to get invited to Shabbos dinner by my orthodox jewish friends. Wore the yarmulke. Learned some of the tradition. So much so that I wish to carry it over to my family setting. It's nice. Does it make me (in some part) an orthodox jew? I have no idea.

For things like monism, dualism, rationalism, empiricism...I suspect I am a bit like you. I may take on, as you say, a position in a philosophical context, but otherwise, I don't care, really, and whatever seems to be working, I'll use. And I don't worry, wait a minute, it seems like my model is dualism and I'm against that.

My favourite way to attack monism is to point out that it amounts to solipsism. If there's a single ontology then your mind - my mind. What's the difference?

I do think some views are pernicious to what I care about, and I tend to react to them. Totalizing belief systems that are problematic in relation to what I want.

If there's one thing that postmodermism got right is the vicious attack against totalising grand narratives. Fuck that shit!

Imagine someone studied you (someone else that is), might they over time be able to say things like...
he has a tendency to disagree with theists more than atheists
his actions fit best with worldview X and not others
and be accurate?

Who would be appraising/scoring that person's "accuracy" and how? Is it possible that they fell victim to a sampling bias?

There simply are more theists than atheists in this Philosophical setting - it's only natural I will disagree with them.

The crux of the matter is that any time such a person makes such a statement they are telling you far more about themselves and their undertanding of those categores and terms than they are telling you about me.

So if two other people are disagreeing online...they have differing positions and are arguing, you would disagree with both of them, at least at different times.

I tend to play the consensus game in that setting and I tend to guide both parties to consent/understanding. This actually what I do for a living - integration/bridging communication gaps/finding common ground so that cooperation can ensue.

It's just that I do it with computers instead of humans. Distributed consensus is a science.

And if you take on the position of theist, I would bet they tend to assume you are a Christian (certainly an Abrahamist) and begin to attack what they perceive as the weaknesses of that particular theism. If you are against the democrats you are a republican (for USAers). There's a very binary spirit in the world right now, much more so than 20 years ago. It was always there, but these days pick A or B and agree always with your team and always disagree with the other and never acknowledge C or D as being independent and real.

Yeah, I abhor categorical reasoning. I see dialectic in the spirit of thinking along continuums and nuance. If categories are a necessary evil and we have to have them - lets synthesize them from scratch.

I can see that for social situations. But what about where there are non-social consequences, for example at work, or anywhere you might have a disagreement with consequences beyond the social.

I present my argument/reasons. Let the chips fall how they may. Either I'll persuade everyone and they'll agree with me, or I won't and I'll have to disagree and commit. Distributed consensus... it doesn't always have to go my way. But it has to go some way.

If the disagreement is so vehement that it undermines my moral code - time to go work elsewhere.

[Sculptor]

It's simply about reason and evidence and a willingness to embrace skepticism., and to take nothing for granted. Also - and this is the hardest part - cultivating a personal culture of self criticism, since it is a fall back position of us all to defend what we think; it takes a lot to unpack that to jump ship to another set of ideas.

So, was there a time when this was not your paradigm/approach? IOW you answered more or less with a methodology. I would say that you are presenting a kind of empiricism as your paradigm (perhaps with some attendant ontology like physicalism, perhaps not). Was there a time when you did not have this methodology (and if there is an attendant ontology that also)?
If you did change to a new approach, what led to that?

The two examples I gave date from the 1970s and the 2020s. My methodology evolved over that time.
FOr the religion example applying the juvenile version of the methodology was easy enough since religion really has no argument. It's faith based. Following religion and not following religion, that is to say believe and disbelief made absolutely zero difference to my lived experience, and daily life, except to free me from unfounded worries.
On the matter of diets and metabolism, I'd been getting results from the bad advice; counting calories does work - to a point. Why did such diets fail? I think the cultural tendency to blame fat people for being greedy and lazy I had inwardly absorbed, and religion-like, I had accepted the blame and shame, rather than the thinking about poor science. In this science was a much more powerful "priesthood" since their dogma was more than just faith but based on empiricism. It was just not very well thought through.
Metabolism is not as straightforward as "calories in calories out". And what the paradigm required for me was a series of expert opinions which I understood in relationship to decades of experience with the old paradigm.
Unpacking a science paradigm is much harder that rejecting religion since science uses the same sort of empirical basis upon which my methodology relies.
To change the metabolic science paradigm required me having a more mature methodology developed through years of experience and academic advancement, and spending time reading books and following technical Youtube videos to understand how I could safely diet against the dietary guidelines without compromising on my heath in other ways.

I did read the rest and saw that you were a Christian for a while, but then after analysis/self-analysis you stopped that.

One could use your methodology but have no commitment to any ontology (except some general one about one being able to learn about reality and that there are patterns in it). So someone with your approach could even try a religion, test it more or less, then reflect and either continue or stop.

As I said above: it made little difference, - except I worried less about sex outside marriage, and other "sins".

OR perhaps you completely changed paradigm during that Christian phase. And perhaps you have other methodologies when you were younger which you gave up and took on the new one.

I think what is evident is a paradigm natural to all. But this does not account for a massive motivating force: desire. We are driven by primal forces from our brain stem. Most times our formal reason is little more than a dusting of icing sugar on top of the "passions" (as Hume would have said). As we mature the trick is to not let the tail of passions wag the dog of reason, but to take control, by understanding what is driving us deep down.
That monkey brain was always demanding more sweet foods. And the frightened monkey was always looking out for the sky daddy to make the scary world go away, and be safe.

I am interested in what leads to these changes.

Your answer was around evidence, etc. Was this always your approach?

Evidence alone is meaningless. In fact we tend to look at raw information and decide what is evidence. We can ignore or miss evidence. We can think some things are evidence for things which they are not. Some of this is subsconscious. Again driven by primal desires to be right, to be safe, to be sure. We can collect evidence which only supports our point of view; selective bias.

Nonetheless. If it is not evident then it is worse. It is invention, fantasy, wish fulfilment.
Evidence is all we have ultimately. Reason is vital to know what to do with it. And although the desire/passion can lead us down the wrong road it is most definitely the things that drives us to learn and think in the first place.

[Iwannaplato]

EDIT: I get at this issue below, but I think I have a better way of questioning around it. People have beliefs and these often relate to larger models/worldview, etc. Thoughts in the head. That can lead to certain behaviors and actions and how the person approaches problems, etc.
But we also have behavior, as a potential starting point. You don't have a belief system, one. We can't even summarize you down to a couple in combination or three.
If we look at different people with particular worldviews, they can have very clear approaches to dealing with crises, with problem solving, with finding out more information.
You may well be a Muslim when talking to Muslims, but I would guess you don't feel any internal pressure to go to Mecca. You don't do the prayers 6 times a day. You don't regularly consult the Koran or experts in it to decide what is moral. You don't follow traditions that arise or supposedly arise out of the Koran when it comes to relations with Jews or heathens or women or children.

What you do in crisis, what you do when you want more information, the kinds of experts you consult when you want information, they ways you approach, say, making your body feel better, function better, your moral code...these may well fit with some worldviews (including epistemology, ontology, ethics and so on) and not fit well with others.

So, have you ever started acting in ways that fit better with a new worldview in a sustained way?

And what does it take for such a thing to happen?

Perhaps you started getting accupuncture treatments and throwing the Dao. This doesn't mean you are now Confucian or Daoist, but for some reason you considered it possible/likely that there might be value in something that didn't fit with the medical/pharmcological/epistemological ideas that led to what you chose when wanting a new direction or for your bad knee.

You may not have a language based, explicit belief based paradimg or mashup of a view, but it's possible that your actions reveal tendencies handed to you by paradigms you grew up in or move toward to get away from that.

If there have been changes in significant actions/approaches, let me know. And what led to them?

And my examples are just guesses. Perhaphs you've always gone to accupunturists and avoided modern medicine. Or perhaps you did for a long time and then you changed and use modern Western medicine more regularly.

I am just giving examples.

My point is partially that even if there is a kind of openness to ideas and models and no committment to any particular on, the way we live may well come out of or be biased by models and paradigms...and then by habit/acculturation. Why fix what ain't broken? type stuff also.

So if there has been a significant change of the types I am mentioning, let me know.

No. I don't have such thing as "true/main belief".

When I said "I will contrast myself" the part missing at the end was "relative to my interlocutor"
When I said "I will resemble myself" the part missing at the end was "relative to my interlocutor".

Got it. Let's look at the theist vs. atheist issue.
When you go about taking action in the world, solving problems, improving your abilities and social connections, trying to make the world better or more as you would like it....
how much do you use theist tools?
Are they any heuristics or acts that fit better with a theist model of the universe than an atheist?
Are there any heuricists or acts that fit better with magical models of causation than scientific ones?

I would guess you can see where I am heading. Even if you, perhaps, do not choose a worldview formally, might not your acts and approaches and heuristics fit one model more than others? That there is an implicit model/belief system.

Parts? No. The vast majority will get left out. There's no way in hell I cap capture my entire history, my experiences my influences, my all and capture it in a paragraph; a book or an encyclopedia.

Language simply doesn't work like that. Without a context to restrict expression - you can say EVERYTHING. And everything is a lot.

I didn't mean all of your history or influences, but more like subpersonalities. I agree with what you say as far as summing up my entire set of experiences and attitudes ever. But in general I find I have a relative small number of subpersonalities. I am using that term loosely, blackboxing if there is a real 'thing' for each of these. But it works for me, generally as a model. There are a handful of primary ones.

I think in many ways we are similar on this. I used to joke that I had to take a vote to get out of bed some days. IOW I can also see myself as a lot of parts and some days there was no strong majority about getting up and going out.

That stuff is on autopilot. I don't have to constantly argue myself into "But why get out of bed?". I don't have to argue with myself about the infinitude of choices/possibilities at every instant in time.

Me neither. That was a specific period of my life where I was calling everything into question, actively. It was also an unpleasant time.

I used to get invited to Shabbos dinner by my orthodox jewish friends. Wore the yarmulke. Learned some of the tradition. So much so that I wish to carry it over to my family setting. It's nice. Does it make me (in some part) an orthodox jew? I have no idea.

Oh, I had a lot of contact with Jewish people, some orthodox, and have had similar experiences. I didn't point my feet at people in Thailand and when I am with muslim women I never give them a friendly pat on the should as I do most anyone else I talk to a bunch. That's generally about them. It's not, for example, that I believe me touching a woman not my wife should not happen.

My favourite way to attack monism is to point out that it amounts to solipsism. If there's a single ontology then your mind - my mind. What's the difference?

I suppose monism could imply no boundaries.

If there's one thing that postmodermism got right is the vicious attack against totalising grand narratives. Fuck that shit!

Yes, but then let me propose a thought experiment.
We have two people who tend to view beliefs and narratives and worldviews like you do.
One is you.
The other person, as said, has this similar metaposition, but does believe they have experienced all sorts of things that get called supernatural. and in their daily life they pray, take seriously what they call past life memories, and so on.
If you do those things or don't see them as outside of what you would and do do, then perhaps other differences are necessary. Walk around worrying about their sins, say, whatever.

Can it be said that while you both do not identify with a particular worldview and do not, per se, rule out certain things, you still have different implicit belief systems?

If your days reflect nearly zero actions that fit with models they seem to be working from often and with regularity. And you are not drawn to them either because their interpretations, however loosely held, seem so unlikely or for some other reason.

Who would be appraising/scoring that person's "accuracy" and how? Is it possible that they fell victim to a sampling bias?

Of course.

There simply are more theists than atheists in this Philosophical setting - it's only natural I will disagree with them.

So, you would guess (or know) that if there was the same number you'd be contrasting them pretty much equally?

I tend to play the consensus game in that setting and I tend to guide both parties to consent/understanding. This actually what I do for a living - integration/bridging communication gaps/finding common ground so that cooperation can ensue.

It's just that I do it with computers instead of humans. Distributed consensus is a science

.OK

Yeah, I abhor categorical reasoning. I see dialectic in the spirit of thinking along continuums and nuance. If categories are a necessary evil and we have to have them - lets synthesize them from scratch.

How about implicit categories? What gets rejected out of hand, even if it is not formally argued against?

Dismissiveness regarding any reported anomoly.

A separate question: why wouldn't you approach social situations in the same way? I understand that the context of a philosophy forum more or less calls out for critique and questioning. But in general aren't both you and the person you are talking to, in a social situation, missing out on what could be gained through contrast (if a more gentle version)?

I present my argument/reasons. Let the chips fall how they may. Either I'll persuade everyone and they'll agree with me, or I won't and I'll have to disagree and commit.

But aren't there consistancy in your arguments and reasons. IOW would that indicate beliefs and worldview if you tend to expect employers or people to act in certain ways and use certain methodologies?

Distributed consensus... it doesn't always have to go my way. But it has to go some way.

If the disagreement is so vehement that it undermines my moral code - time to go work elsewhere.

Isn't your moral code a system of beliefs? And possbility one entailed or entailed by a main ontology and determined via some epistemology?

[Iwannaplato]

The two examples I gave date from the 1970s and the 2020s. My methodology evolved over that time.
FOr the religion example applying the juvenile version of the methodology was easy enough since religion really has no argument. It's faith based. Following religion and not following religion, that is to say believe and disbelief made absolutely zero difference to my lived experience, and daily life, except to free me from unfounded worries.

So what made you notice that it made no difference and added worries. Was there a turning point, an event, or perhaps you do regular reflection takes......?

To change the metabolic science paradigm required me having a more mature methodology developed through years of experience and academic advancement, and spending time reading books and following technical Youtube videos to understand how I could safely diet against the dietary guidelines without compromising on my heath in other ways.

I wouldn't call the diet issue an example of a worldview, though there is a greater worldview in which diets sit. That said, was there a turning point. You believed the main blather out there on diets and weight and then you did not. What you mainly described is how you went about finding a new approach? Was it simply that that the old approach wasn't working? You couldn't lose weight well enough or keep it off under the old method, so you looked for something new? Or was there some event/anomoly or other kind of learning/epipheny that led to you shifting?

[Sculptor]

The two examples I gave date from the 1970s and the 2020s. My methodology evolved over that time.
FOr the religion example applying the juvenile version of the methodology was easy enough since religion really has no argument. It's faith based. Following religion and not following religion, that is to say believe and disbelief made absolutely zero difference to my lived experience, and daily life, except to free me from unfounded worries.

So what made you notice that it made no difference and added worries. Was there a turning point, an event, or perhaps you do regular reflection takes......?

Part of it was the tension between the idea that god has created the onset of puberty; and then telling me to not be so obsessed with sex. The idea that as a teenager I woke up with a raging hard on every bloody morning yet Christian dogma was telling me that it was somehow my fault that I was thinking sinful thoughts. It was if God has made me ill but was commanding me against my nature to be well. I also had a growing love of logic - actually from Mr Spock who seem to cut through so much bullshit. There was a lot of bullshit in my direct family; my mothers obsession with her man, despite his violence to her. Logic was a oasis in the storm, and logic could not allow the absurdities of religion.

To change the metabolic science paradigm required me having a more mature methodology developed through years of experience and academic advancement, and spending time reading books and following technical Youtube videos to understand how I could safely diet against the dietary guidelines without compromising on my heath in other ways.

I wouldn't call the diet issue an example of a worldview, though there is a greater worldview in which diets sit.

Sadly the fat-heart hypothesis is a world view, a dangerous one that is killing millions. It is a cluster fuck of myths. Calories in;calories out; all calories are equal; eat more fruit; cholesterol is bad; LDL is bad; saturated fat is bad; plant based is best.

That said, was there a turning point. You believed the main blather out there on diets and weight and then you did not. What you mainly described is how you went about finding a new approach? Was it simply that that the old approach wasn't working? You couldn't lose weight well enough or keep it off under the old method, so you looked for something new? Or was there some event/anomoly or other kind of learning/epipheny that led to you shifting?

I'd tried the Atkins years before, but I had not understood the nuance of the science, and that was not really presented in the literature at the time partly because it was not understood. The discovery of Leptin changed that. but paradigms take time to grow.

I'd gone low carb with some success along the way, but the pressure of the myth "fat is the enemy" is a hard one to dispel, when you hear it everyday on TV, from your doctor and elsewhere.

But in December 2020 I got really ill following my 3rd covid jab and a cascade of other problems followed. I knew a friend that had tried fasting with keto and he gave me a book to start me off.
The Complete Guide to Fasting, by Jason Fung. Was the kickstart.

[Iwannaplato]

Part of it was the tension between the idea that god has created the onset of puberty; and then telling me to not be so obsessed with sex. The idea that as a teenager I woke up with a raging hard on every bloody morning yet Christian dogma was telling me that it was somehow my fault that I was thinking sinful thoughts. It was if God has made me ill but was commanding me against my nature to be well. I also had a growing love of logic - actually from Mr Spock who seem to cut through so much bullshit. There was a lot of bullshit in my direct family; my mothers obsession with her man, despite his violence to her. Logic was a oasis in the storm, and logic could not allow the absurdities of religion.

OK, this fits in with one of the things I think happens when paradigms change. Noticing contradictions. Noticing anomolies. You do focus on logic and I get that. There is a logic there. I think it is key that what you were logical about came in part from strong experiences. Something you could not ignore. Here you have this sex drive, not something you chose, something that is simply a part of the unfolding you, and at the same time it's not ok.

I'd tried the Atkins years before, but I had not understood the nuance of the science, and that was not really presented in the literature at the time partly because it was not understood. The discovery of Leptin changed that. but paradigms take time to grow.

I'd gone low carb with some success along the way, but the pressure of the myth "fat is the enemy" is a hard one to dispel, when you hear it everyday on TV, from your doctor and elsewhere.

But in December 2020 I got really ill following my 3rd covid jab and a cascade of other problems followed. I knew a friend that had tried fasting with keto and he gave me a book to start me off.
The Complete Guide to Fasting, by Jason Fung. Was the kickstart.

I do keto. Calmest I've been between meals, ever. Got enough stress in my life without the whole carb cycle thing. So, here it seems like you had to overcome the fear that the traditional low fat, low calorie mythology had instilled in you. You had the motivation to feel better, weigh less. And this, I am guessing, finally pushed you to research more and dispel those fears through research.

[Sculptor]

Part of it was the tension between the idea that god has created the onset of puberty; and then telling me to not be so obsessed with sex. The idea that as a teenager I woke up with a raging hard on every bloody morning yet Christian dogma was telling me that it was somehow my fault that I was thinking sinful thoughts. It was if God has made me ill but was commanding me against my nature to be well. I also had a growing love of logic - actually from Mr Spock who seem to cut through so much bullshit. There was a lot of bullshit in my direct family; my mothers obsession with her man, despite his violence to her. Logic was a oasis in the storm, and logic could not allow the absurdities of religion.

OK, this fits in with one of the things I think happens when paradigms change. Noticing contradictions. Noticing anomolies. You do focus on logic and I get that. There is a logic there. I think it is key that what you were logical about came in part from strong experiences. Something you could not ignore. Here you have this sex drive, not something you chose, something that is simply a part of the unfolding you, and at the same time it's not ok.

I'd tried the Atkins years before, but I had not understood the nuance of the science, and that was not really presented in the literature at the time partly because it was not understood. The discovery of Leptin changed that. but paradigms take time to grow.

I'd gone low carb with some success along the way, but the pressure of the myth "fat is the enemy" is a hard one to dispel, when you hear it everyday on TV, from your doctor and elsewhere.

But in December 2020 I got really ill following my 3rd covid jab and a cascade of other problems followed. I knew a friend that had tried fasting with keto and he gave me a book to start me off.
The Complete Guide to Fasting, by Jason Fung. Was the kickstart.

I do keto. Calmest I've been between meals, ever. Got enough stress in my life without the whole carb cycle thing. So, here it seems like you had to overcome the fear that the traditional low fat, low calorie mythology had instilled in you. You had the motivation to feel better, weigh less. And this, I am guessing, finally pushed you to research more and dispel those fears through research.

Yes the two went hand in had.

The problem with the calorie control model is that it works - sort of obviously. So I became the expert in how man calories a certain thing had, and could always reliably loose weight.
This became an almost annual ritual. I would lose most of what I had gained through the year; say 15- 20 lbs. But as the years progressed I learned to accept a higher normal. Each diet would end in much the same way, and I thought it was me, I would end up tired, hungry and obsessed with food. It was Gary Taubes, (Case for Keto; Why we Get Fat)who also being a fat bloke confirmed to me why this happens. And Richard Johnson (Nature wants us to be Fat) gives a more detailed metabolic rationale.

Restriction of calories when eating carbs triggers an evolutionary response in which carbs especially fruit triggers fat deposition and fructose also downgrades ATP. This preparation for the winter means that you slow down and store anything you can as fat. SInce the body is poor at fructose metabolism it can only turn that into liver fat.
I had experienced the run-down whilst dieting, and the growing hunger, as well as the daily obsession with calories that make you think of food all the time. But it was great to understand the underlying metabolic causes.

It is interesting that the best contributors to the new dietary and lipidology and diet paradigm are from outside the field of nutrition.

Taubes was an aerospace engineer, then journalist
Robert Lustig, an endocrinologist
Jason Fung, a nephrologist
David DIamond, neuroscientist has criticised the use of statins
Nina Teicholz, Latin American studies journalist.
Prof. Richard Johnson, nephrology and infectious diseases.

I wonder how long they would have lasted had their primary job been Dietetics, or nutritional science: probably would have lost their jobs for going against the government guidelines.

[Iwannaplato]

I wonder how long they would have lasted had their primary job been Dietetics, or nutritional science: probably would have lost their jobs for going against the government guidelines.

Money and pardigmatic blindness can lead to things that look like conspiracies. I mean, they can also lead to conspiracies with paradigmatic blindness and certainty aiding the people who don't give a damn about what helps. But often people who identify as scientists or science-centered have serious blind spots. It can take decades for something quite different in the history of science to get accepted. Changing paradigm is unsettling, I think, for most people. Even changing an important belief, let alone a larger model of reality. I would think it would nearly universally bring up fear. If I stop believing the calorie model and eat, actually, quite a bit of fat, am I killing myself. How can so many doctors have said something that was incorrect. These are smart people who got a lot of education and did better than their compatriots, why didn't more of them criticize the fat bad, count calories model. One may find a nagging voice in the head asking ourselves.

I am sure when qm was coming in it caused a great deal of fear whatever one thinks of some of the ontological conclusions possible around the data - or at the very least angst. IOW even without deciding that the data meant something outlandish ontologically, it might have meant that and it sure was some new types of phenomena with possible disturbing implications for things then current scientists too for granted.

And we as individuals face these about all sorts of things. And sadly, sometimes expert consensus (or what we are told is consensus) can be incorrect. It would be lovely if our local expert was always right. How easy. No responsibility but just to consult with them.