Dogmatism

[FlashDangerpants]

Language games are what they are, they are what we use, and we use them so long as they are useful. They aren't right or wrong, true or false, in any other respect. But belief as a language game is distinct from knowledge as a language game and it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference that you object to this. You can opt out of the whole thing if you really want, but the cost of that is that you can kind of only talk to yourself once you've made that decision.

I can talk to humans just fine. It's just philosophers that I struggle with.

Well, I suppose you tried your best. Everyone will understand if you give up and walk away in disgust.

[Skepdick]

Well, I suppose you tried your best. Everyone will understand if you give up and walk away in disgust.

And let you ensnare other poor souls in the spiderwebs of Philosophical bullshit?

No way!

[FlashDangerpants]

Are you banned from everywhere that discusses subjects you are actually interested in?

[Skepdick]

Are you banned from everywhere that discusses subjects you are actually interested in?

No, just places which encourage sophistry

[FlashDangerpants]

That comic reminds me of the time you were trying to persuade me that it was impossible to decide which of two machines was reporting the spin of an atom incorrectly.

[Skepdick]

That comic reminds me of the time you were trying to persuade me that it was impossible to decide which of two machines was reporting the spin of an atom incorrectly.

That entire thought experiment went over your head. So deeply did you misunderstand the problem (producing different answers when measuring same thing) that you didn't even grok that you don't need atoms and spin.

Two scales in your house that report different weight when you step on them.
Two thermometers which report different body temperature.
One test says you have COVID, another test says you don't.
One test which determines you are a logical positivist, and another that determines you aren't.

What scientists call "correct" is a machine which consistently returns the same answer given the same circumstances. Irrespective of what that answer is. As long as it agrees with itself over and over again - it's "accurate". Even if it disagrees with other machines which agree with themselves.

But you don't want to be bored with the technical details of mutual information and the engineering trade-offs that go into choosing whether to bias the measurement apparatus towards Type I or Type II errors. You just want to do Philosophy.

[FlashDangerpants]

Two scales in your house that report different weight when you step on them.
Two thermometers which report different body temperature.
One test says you have COVID, another test says you don't.
One test which determines you are a logical positivist, and another that determines you aren't.

The one that gets the weight right.
The one that gets the temperature correctly.
The one that is correct about the COVID.
And I'm clearly not so that test.

Man that was easy, you got any harder ones?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.

Everyone??

In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities.[4][5]
More generally, it is applied to some strong belief which its adherents are not willing to discuss rationally.
This attitude is named as a dogmatic one, or as dogmatism; and is often used to refer to matters related to religion, but is not limited to theistic attitudes alone and is often used with respect to political or philosophical dogmas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

What I have stated is merely I have an encompassing Moral Theory, but I have not presented the details of that theory or beliefs and thus did not insist that is THE truth nor THE way.

Also, it is not that I do not want to discuss the above rationally with EVERYONE in the philosophical community.
It is just that I don't, for various reasons, want [my perogative] to discuss my overall thesis in this particular forum especially with posters like Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin and you.
As such this has nothing to do with dogmatism.

However, note I am seriously engaging rationally in discussing the active topic, i.e. the point that morality is objective, i.e. moral realism and there are moral facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Now, it on this subject that Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin and you[?] are into dogmatism [pit bull dog bite] on their LPs and classical analytical philosophers influenced views without any room for rational discussions at all, i.e. insisting ideologically, moral facts are mystical, nonsense and meaningless, without providing any sound argument justifications.

[FlashDangerpants]

It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.

Everyone??

In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities.[4][5]
More generally, it is applied to some strong belief which its adherents are not willing to discuss rationally.
This attitude is named as a dogmatic one, or as dogmatism; and is often used to refer to matters related to religion, but is not limited to theistic attitudes alone and is often used with respect to political or philosophical dogmas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

What I have stated is merely I have an encompassing Moral Theory, but I have not presented the details of that theory or beliefs and insisted that is the truth or the way.

Also, it is not that I do not want to discuss the above rationally with EVERYONE in the philosophical community.
It is just that I don't for various reasons do NOT want [my perogative] to discuss my overall thesis in this particular forum especially with posters like Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin and you.
As such this has nothing to do with dogmatism.

However, note I am seriously engaging rationally in discussing the point that morality is objective, i.e. moral realism and there are moral facts.
Now, it on this subject that Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin and you[?] are into dogmatism [pit bull dog bite] on their LPs and classical analytical philosophers influenced views without any room for rational discussions at all, i.e. insisting moral facts are mystical, nonsense and meaningless, without providing any sound argument justifications.

So half your argument is a secret. You gave me the "Everyone??" with double question marks. And then you listed the people who argue against you and did exactly the same thing again by calling us all dogmatists again... in the same post.

You can call it serious engagement if you want, but you still haven't explained what makes the contents of DNA right. you have an entirely ungrounded theory, and you have been dogmatically refusing to deal with that issue.

Your primary dogma is this assertion that there is some unquestionable quality of DNA that provides oughtness without any explanation of what makes it actually right.

[Veritas Aequitas]

So half your argument is a secret. You gave me the "Everyone??" with double question marks. And then you listed the people who argue against you and did exactly the same thing again by calling us all dogmatists again... in the same post.

You can call it serious engagement if you want, but you still haven't explained what makes the contents of DNA right. you have an entirely ungrounded theory, and you have been dogmatically refusing to deal with that issue.

Your primary dogma is this assertion that there is some unquestionable quality of DNA that provides oughtness without any explanation of what makes it actually right.

I claimed the moral 'oughtness' is innate, thus has to be from the DNA even we have not traced it to any specific genetic codes yet.

Note coherently,
we can extrapolate the moral function from the higher primates to humans on an evolutionary basis,
https://www.livescience.com/24802-anima ... -book.html#
surely the innate moral behavior of monkeys are from their DNA.

It is also inferentially that morality is innate, i.e.

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/#:

There are so many research findings that are available for us to 'triangulate' 'quadrigulate', or multi-correlate that innate morality is from the DNA.

There is no dogmatism here. I am willing to give up the above [just like any scientific claim] if you can prove me wrong convincingly with evidences and arguments.

[Skepdick]

The one that gets the weight right.
The one that gets the temperature correctly.
The one that is correct about the COVID.
And I'm clearly not so that test.

Man that was easy, you got any harder ones?

I can't tell if you are acting stupid if you are actually this stupid. Unfortunate side-effect of being charitable.
Buuut, you are a Philosopher so one must assume proclivity for obscurantism....

Unlike the comic (which is relying on temporal ordering to identify "first" from "second"), you are not actually providing an identification procedure to determine which is "The one that gets the weight right"; or "The one that gets the temperature correctly."

But I guess this is Philosophy.

[Skepdick]

....explanation of what makes it .....

It's difficult to take you seriously when you refuse to elaborate on the sort of response you expect to your challenge. To borrow some of your intellectual prowess... "All this strictly to the extent that such a bizarre construct as "explanation of what makes it" actually means anything, it's quite a bizarre phrasing if you think about it."

Could you perhaps demonstrate the sort of response you have in mind by giving us an explanation of what makes this red?

red.png (9.26 KiB) Viewed 1765 times

[Peter Holmes]

It seems to me that the very height of dogmatism is to repeatedly tell everyone they should believe in some grand argument that you are keeping secret because they aren't worthy of it just yet.

A workable definition of hypocrisy would be calling everyone who does not do the above a dogmatist.

Everyone??

In the pejorative sense, dogma refers to enforced decisions, such as those of aggressive political interests or authorities.[4][5]
More generally, it is applied to some strong belief which its adherents are not willing to discuss rationally.
This attitude is named as a dogmatic one, or as dogmatism; and is often used to refer to matters related to religion, but is not limited to theistic attitudes alone and is often used with respect to political or philosophical dogmas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

What I have stated is merely I have an encompassing Moral Theory, but I have not presented the details of that theory or beliefs and thus did not insist that is THE truth nor THE way.

Also, it is not that I do not want to discuss the above rationally with EVERYONE in the philosophical community.
It is just that I don't, for various reasons, want [my perogative] to discuss my overall thesis in this particular forum especially with posters like Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin and you.
As such this has nothing to do with dogmatism.

However, note I am seriously engaging rationally in discussing the active topic, i.e. the point that morality is objective, i.e. moral realism and there are moral facts.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=24601

Now, it on this subject that Peter, Sculptor, Terrapin and you[?] are into dogmatism [pit bull dog bite] on their LPs and classical analytical philosophers influenced views without any room for rational discussions at all, i.e. insisting ideologically, moral facts are mystical, nonsense and meaningless, without providing any sound argument justifications.

All we've done is patiently and repeatedly explain why the factual premises of your 'encompassing moral theory', inasmuch as you've explained them, are false, or at least not shown to be true - and that your moral conclusions don't follow from them anyway - as they can't, even if the premises were true.

And all you've done is ignore these criticisms, fail to address them, and merely repeat your dogmas ad nauseam, as though ritual repetition will somehow make everything all right. It won't.

[Skepdick]

And all you've done is ignore these criticisms, fail to address them, and merely repeat your dogmas ad nauseam, as though ritual repetition will somehow make everything all right. It won't.

Please be explicit about the standards of "all-rightness" against which you are appraising other people's arguments?

It's all fine that you want to mark other people's homework, but some transparency would go a long way towards convincing us that you are even qualified for the job.

[FlashDangerpants]

The one that gets the weight right.
The one that gets the temperature correctly.
The one that is correct about the COVID.
And I'm clearly not so that test.

Man that was easy, you got any harder ones?

I can't tell if you are acting stupid if you are actually this stupid. Unfortunate side-effect of being charitable.
Buuut, you are a Philosopher so one must assume proclivity for obscurantism....

Unlike the comic (which is relying on temporal ordering to identify "first" from "second"), you are not actually providing an identification procedure to determine which is "The one that gets the weight right"; or "The one that gets the temperature correctly."

But I guess this is Philosophy.

That's so sad. The comic isn't doing that, it just relying on the obviously true answer. Didn't you get the joke?