Why do theists and atheists insist that if there is a God that it created the universe?

[thedoc]

So far IC sees a difference between the world of thought and the real world and Logik does not. I agree with IC on this point.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not inevitable. It might be true that our minds have mediated access to reality. But that won't give us reason to know that that access in inadequate, or to believe it's not giving us access to anything real. For certain, we are not simply picking our all own perceptions...some are "forced" upon us.

You speak of (in)adequacy without specifying criteria.

Correspondence will do. The question is "Do our perceptions have an adequate correspondence to their source?" The answer might be "Yes."

To hedge off ontological questions would be arbitrary. In point of fact, the ontological precedes the ethical...you don't know what "the good" is if you haven't established already in your mind, even suppositionally, what "the real" is. Humanly speaking, mentally furnishing the world comes first: deciding what to do with it is secondary...except in the mind of God, since for Him creating and assigning roles would be identical acts.

Disagree. The first principle of ethics is first do no harm.

Oh, not at all. There's no agreement about that. Moreover, "harm" hangs undefined in that claim. It's certainly not uncontroversial.

Unfortunately, this is a product of our "mediated access to reality". I have no access to ontology beyond that which I DECIDE is ontological.

If that were true, you'd simply pick your own reality. Nothing could be "compelled" upon you from outside.

Classification is a function of minds - not reality.

I would say, "Classification is what a mind does with reality."

Okay, but #1 needs some unpacking. One doesn't "communicate" merely with oneself. That act presumes both issuer and recipient of communication. So there has to be common interpretation, at least within a functional range of accuracy. However, that's a far different topic from what's at the top of this message, so lets revert to the main.

OK. Then I need to climb one abstraction higher: What do you use communication for?

No, I mean the main topic of the strand. We're way off it. That's not fair to the original poster. If we wanted to wander farther, it would need a new strand.

[Logik]

Correspondence will do. The question is "Do our perceptions have an adequate correspondence to their source?" The answer might be "Yes."

The epistemologic approach to this is the exact opposite of what you propose.

I KNOW the map is not the territory. I KNOW my map is not a perfect representation of reality.

My model of reality IS wrong. I don't know HOW wrong. How wrong is too wrong?

Is there a limit to how "right" the map can be given how big reality is and how small my brain is?

Avoiding stupidity is far easier than seeking brilliance.

Oh, not at all. There's no agreement about that. Moreover, "harm" hangs undefined in that claim. It's certainly not uncontroversial.

There is agreement among applied ethicists. Doctors. Systems engineers. The people who deal with risk and harm.

If you are suddenly disagreeing I am going to have to question your claim of being an "applied ethicist".

If that were true, you'd simply pick your own reality. Nothing could be "compelled" upon you from outside.

That's not true. Map corrections come from the outside. Where else would they come from?

I would say, "Classification is what a mind does with reality."

Classification is what the mind does with its map of reality.

[Immanuel Can]

Correspondence will do. The question is "Do our perceptions have an adequate correspondence to their source?" The answer might be "Yes."

The epistemologic approach to this is the exact opposite of what you propose.

There isn't one thing called "the epistemological approach." Epistemology is a broad field.

But my claim here is intended to be very modest: only that we don't have reason to say we know that our mediated grasp of reality isn't sufficiently accurate to the truth. That's all.

I KNOW the map is not the territory. I KNOW my map is not a perfect representation of reality.

Yes, but it's a "map" of something. A "map" refers to a real entity, and is a good "map" only if it corresponds sufficiently to its referent. So you'd need a different analogy if you wanted to say it had no adequate relation to reality.

Oh, not at all. There's no agreement about that. Moreover, "harm" hangs undefined in that claim. It's certainly not uncontroversial.

There is agreement among applied ethicists. Doctors. Systems engineers. The people who deal with risk and harm.

You haven't even established what "harm" is. That's a serious problem. It's not obvious.

If you are suddenly disagreeing I am going to have to question your claim of being an "applied ethicist".

I said I was an ethicist. I did not say I privileged the "applied" business above either normative or meta-ethics. I don't.

In fact, if someone called me merely "an applied ethicist," I should actually be vaguely insulted -- to be without sophistication at the other two levels is pretty much to be an ethical clod. One can't "apply" without understanding the deeper issues and alternatives.

If that were true, you'd simply pick your own reality. Nothing could be "compelled" upon you from outside.

That's not true. Map corrections come from the outside. Where else would they come from?

But to say that would be to argue from your own analogy. And as I said earlier, "map" is something that corresponds to reality.

Classification is what the mind does with its map of reality.

You don't "classify a map." You use a map to classify reality. Somebody who "classified maps" would be doing a very odd, redundant activity...or else is merely some kind of archivist, not a person navigating the place the map describes.

[Logik]

There isn't one thing called "the epistemological approach." Epistemology is a broad field.

It is a broad field, but what you are proposing (positive claims) is decidedly NOT in the field.
Epistemology is about negation.

But my claim here is intended to be very modest: only that we don't have reason to say we know that our mediated grasp of reality isn't sufficiently accurate to the truth. That's all.

Yes we do. Model errors. Systemic failures. Compound risk. Black swan events.

When that we didn't know explodes in our face... That's a clear sign your map is wrong.

Yes, but it's a "map" of something. A "map" refers to a real entity, and is a good "map" only if it corresponds sufficiently to its referent. So you'd need a different analogy if you wanted to say it had no adequate relation to reality.

Do you not see the recursive problem here? How do you KNOW that your map "corresponds sufficiently to the referent" when you haven't defined "sufficiency".

The only hypothesis you can test is the opposite one: My Map does NOT correspond sufficiently to the referent.
Every mistake you make is evidence FOR the hypothesis. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

We could reasonabl say "the map is correspondent enough that it hasn't failed in 100 years" and then tomorrow it fails you.

This is the inductivist turkey problem.

You haven't even established what "harm" is. That's a serious problem. It's not obvious.

The Boeing 737MAX crashing and killing 300 people is harmful.It shouldn't be happening. It's fucking obvious.
The entire potato produce of Ireland succumbs to blyth. Famine ensues. It shouldn't be happening. It's fucking obvious.

I said I was an ethicist. I did not say I privileged the "applied" business above either normative or meta-ethics. I don't.

Right. So you are a theoretician? That's why you are so obtuse. You lack a sense of judgment.

In fact, if someone called me merely "an applied ethicist," I should actually be vaguely insulted -- to be without sophistication at the other two levels is pretty much to be an ethical clod. One can't "apply" without understanding the deeper issues and alternatives.

Only a theoretician would be insulted by having skin in the game. That's why you are so naive.

The surest way of building safe airplanes is to make the engineers fly in them...

But to say that would be to argue from your own analogy. And as I said earlier, "map" is something that corresponds to reality.

So? I learn from my mistakes. Unless my mistakes are fatal. Then I die. And you learn from my mistakes.

[Immanuel Can]

Epistemology is about negation.

Actually, it's not. Negation is only one area or strategy of epistemological thought. Verificationism, correspondence theory, empiricism, logical positivism...all are, in various ways, affirmation claims, not negations. And all are very squarely in the epistemology field.

But my claim here is intended to be very modest: only that we don't have reason to say we know that our mediated grasp of reality isn't sufficiently accurate to the truth. That's all.

Yes we do. Model errors. Systemic failures. Compound risk. Black swan events.

We don't know that those are not exceptions or anomalies. In fact, your wording of them suggests they are.

Consider "system failures," for example: a "failure" is only detectable because there is usually a "system" in play, and because much of the time it functions. Or "Black swan events": they only happen because most swans are accurately known to be white.

In other words, the occasional failure doesn't completely negate the value of the "map." It is enough for maps if the correspondence to reality is adequate...it does not have to be perfect. In fact, if it were perfect, you would not have a "map" at all: you'd have to have the thing-itself. And then, what would the "map" be for?

How do you KNOW that your map "corresponds sufficiently to the referent"?

My claim was more modest than that: it was that we don't know it doesn't. It might well be sufficient for knowing swans to say that "most are white," and leave it at that. And we might have that much accuracy, in some things.

But my claim is not even that strong: it's that we can't confirm that we don't have that much.

The only hypothesis you can test is the opposite one: My Map does NOT correspond sufficiently to the referent.
Every mistake you make is evidence FOR the hypothesis. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Not quite. The fact that you can detect an "error" points to the fact that you have some grasp of what a "correct reading" would be. So there is at least a sufficient correspondence for you to be able to detect error. I would think that should be enough to lend some concern to my modest claim above.

We could reasonabl say "the map is correspondent enough that it hasn't failed in 100 years" and then tomorrow it fails you.

Of course. But if it guided us faithfully for 100 years, we would have to admit it had a high degree of correspondence to reality. That's the other side of the problem.

The "negative" side of epistemology quickly becomes mere cynicism, mere glass-half-emptyism. But in point of fact, our "glass" of epistemological correspondence or knowledge of the real may not be only 50% full, but rather 85% or 99%. It depends on the question, of course.

You haven't even established what "harm" is. That's a serious problem. It's not obvious.

The Boeing 737MAX crashing and killing 300 people is harmful.It shouldn't be happening. It's fucking obvious.

Too easy a case, though even that can be cynically undermined -- perhaps they thereby, as Scrooge said, "decrease the surplus population," and we all do better as a result. But maybe that's "harm."

However, consider a harder case: is it good for women to be allowed to abort babies? Some will say "harm" consists in not permitting women to kill their babies at will, and some will say "harm" is killing babies. So in that case, how do you decide what "harm" really is?

I said I was an ethicist. I did not say I privileged the "applied" business above either normative or meta-ethics. I don't.

Right. So you are a theoretician? That's why you are so obtuse. You lack a sense of judgment.

Ha. No, and I wasn't insulting you, so relax.

I just said I wasn't such a clod as not to understand that without the right theory, ethics is just a power game played by the ignorant and willful. And I don't wish to be either. That's why I said..."In fact, if someone called me merely "an applied ethicist," I should actually be vaguely insulted..."

The surest way of building safe airplanes is to make the engineers fly in them...

That might be right. But I think I would prefer my engineer to have a theoretical understanding of aerodynamics when he was creating the designs. I think the fly-'em-and-die method of testing merely at the applied level would be far too inefficient...and fatal.

[Logik]

Epistemology is about negation.

Actually, it's not. Negation is only one area or strategy of epistemological thought. Verificationism, correspondence theory, empiricism, logical positivism...all are, in various ways, affirmation claims, not negations. And all are very squarely in the epistemology field.

All of those the above things you mention are indeed in the field of epistemology.

Negation is the most important one. Or as scientists call it: falsification.

Since YOU are the one who contrives a conjecture/theory/hypothesis, then YOU are the one who knows its weaknesses.
YOU are the one who can attack your own ideas best. Hence: It is cheaper and easier to prove yourself wrong than it is to prove yourself right.

Most "epistemologists" don't even try to prove themselves wrong. And a whole lot of people see counter-factual reasoning as contrarianism rather than "just another tool to improve knowledge".

We don't know that those are not exceptions or anomalies. In fact, your wording of them suggests they are.

Tsunamis are exceptions and anomalies.
Meteorites striking Earth are exceptions and anomalies.
Floods and natural disasters are exceptions and anomalies
Airplanes falling out of the sky are exceptions and anomalies.
People dying in hospitals are exceptions and anomalies.

Are you suggesting that we should focus only on the norms, and ignore the exceptions?

Consider "system failures," for example: a "failure" is only detectable because there is usually a "system" in play, and because much of the time it functions. Or "Black swan events": they only happen because most swans are accurately known to be white.

In other words, the occasional failure doesn't completely negate the value of the "map." It is enough for maps if the correspondence to reality is adequate...it does not have to be perfect. In fact, if it were perfect, you would not have a "map" at all: you'd have to have the thing-itself. And then, what would the "map" be for?

Nobody says it negates the value of the map? I am merely challenging your claim that "your map may correspond SUFFICIENTLY".

You can't justify the "sufficiency" claim. Ever. Because of the problem of induction. Because the principle of "no harm" is an unattainable ideal unless you were omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient e.g unless you had total control of the environment.

My claim was more modest than that: it was that we don't know it doesn't. It might well be sufficient for knowing swans to say that "most are white," and leave it at that. And we might have that much accuracy, in some things.


But my claim is not even that strong: it's that we can't confirm that we don't have that much.

That ignores the principles of risk management. The severity of an issue is frequency * impact.

Your toaster failing 1 in 100 times is not the same thing as your parachute failing 1 in 100 times.
You don't die from lung cancer by smoking 1 cigarette - you die from lung cancer by repetitive, continuous exposure to the risk of smoking.

And yes. Because we can't predict the future and know such things it is literally why "better safe than sorry" applies.
It is literally why "symmetry" is an error. I'd rather be over-cautious than under-cautious.

Not quite. The fact that you can detect an "error" points to the fact that you have some grasp of what a "correct reading" would be.

You continue to ignore the principle of negation in epistemology.

I have no clue what "correct" means yet, but I am know for damn certain that airplanes should NOT be falling out of the sky.

HOW to prevent them from falling from the sky: THAT is the problem!

So there is at least a sufficient correspondence for you to be able to detect error. I would think that should be enough to lend some concern to my modest claim above.

I am far more certain about what SHOULDN'T happen than I am of what SHOULD happen.

Of course. But if it guided us faithfully for 100 years, we would have to admit it had a high degree of correspondence to reality. That's the other side of the problem.

Inductivist turkey problem.

The "negative" side of epistemology quickly becomes mere cynicism, mere glass-half-emptyism. But in point of fact, our "glass" of epistemological correspondence or knowledge of the real may not be only 50% full, but rather 85% or 99%. It depends on the question, of course.

It becomes caution. You need not be cynical about the fact that 1 in 13000 people WILL die in a car accident in their lifetime.

It's a fact. Doesn't seem to stop you from driving. So clearly you have some threshold at which the risk is worth the reward.

Too easy a case, though even that can be cynically undermined -- perhaps they thereby, as Scrooge said, "decrease the surplus population," and we all do better as a result. But maybe that's "harm."

It's vague and stupid. Either he means "there are too many people on the planet" or he means "remove the dead weight".

And an easy way to convince yourself that he means the 2nd one is to recommend a fair-pruning algorithm. We will randomly select 30% of the planet for extermination So Scrooge has a 30% chance of not making selection. Watch his tune change.

Keep twisting the odds, because he question effectively boils down to: "Welcome to the eugenics lottery - what chance of being filtered out from society would you like?"

Not to mention that there are other ways to reduce the population within a generation or two. Disincentivise people from breeding.

However, consider a harder case: is it good for women to be allowed to abort babies? Some will say "harm" consists in not permitting women to kill their babies at will, and some will say "harm" is killing babies. So in that case, how do you decide what "harm" really is?

You don't have to decide. Or at least - you don't have to worry about that problem until you have sorted out all the other dumpster fires.
Even if abortion was harm the impact is isolated, and has no broad negative impact on society. In fact, aborting unwanted children has a reduction on crime. So it's a nett positive for the trade-offs humanity is willing to make between risk vs reward.
And you also have to consider your own ability to regulate moral hazards - if you made abortion illegal it'll just move to the black market.

Unlike tsunamis.

Ha. No, and I wasn't insulting you, so relax.

I didn't take it as an insult. I am merely trying to gauge your experience to the real world and beyond reading about ethics from a textbook.

I just said I wasn't such a clod as not to understand that without the right theory, ethics is just a power game played by the ignorant and willful. And I don't wish to be either. That's why I said..."In fact, if someone called me merely "an applied ethicist," I should actually be vaguely insulted..."

*shrug* I see zero value in theory. In fact - reading ethical theory is a lot like "yeah! we have known this since Hammurabi!"

That might be right. But I think I would prefer my engineer to have a theoretical understanding of aerodynamics when he was creating the designs. I think the fly-'em-and-die method of testing merely at the applied level would be far too inefficient...and fatal.

If the Wright Brothers took your advice you wouldn't even have an airplane.

But do observe. The reason you want an engineer to have a "theoretical grounding" is so that they don't repeat past mistakes. e.g your goal is error-minimisation.

Of course, all industries become stagnant and over-regulated and inefficient and so over time - enterpreneurial (high risk, high reward) opportunities present.

Like SpaceX.

The point in all of this is to get you to think in probabilities and distributions (continuums). The black-and-white thinking is harmful beyond belief.

[Immanuel Can]

All of those the above things you mention are indeed in the field of epistemology. Negation is the most important one. Or as scientists call it: falsification.

That's Karl Popper. He's only one voice, and his epistemology has some flaws. It was probably better than verificationism, but not ultimately the right answer.

However, what's clear is that negation isn't the only epistemological "game in town."

Most "epistemologists" don't even try to prove themselves wrong.

I haven't found that's so. But "confirmation bias" is always an issue, of course.

Are you suggesting that we should focus only on the norms, and ignore the exceptions?

No, not at all, of course. But I am suggesting that when one is in a forest, one might observe trees.

I am merely challenging your claim that "your map may correspond SUFFICIENTLY".

My claim was more modest: it was that you can't prove that sufficient correspondence doesn't exist. That's a subtle difference, but ultimately one of real import.

My claim was more modest than that: it was that we don't know it doesn't. It might well be sufficient for knowing swans to say that "most are white," and leave it at that. And we might have that much accuracy, in some things.


But my claim is not even that strong: it's that we can't confirm that we don't have that much.

That ignores the principles of risk management.

No, I mentioned that. Different levels of certainty are appropriate to different questions. I'm happy to recognize that. In fact, you can see I did, when I wrote:

The "negative" side of epistemology quickly becomes mere cynicism, mere glass-half-emptyism. But in point of fact, our "glass" of epistemological correspondence or knowledge of the real may not be only 50% full, but rather 85% or 99%. It depends on the question, of course.

See?

You continue to ignore the principle of negation in epistemology.

Of course I don't. You can see above that I've even identified its theoretical location in modern epistemology. I've just shown it's not the only game in town, and not by a long shot.

Too easy a case, though even that can be cynically undermined -- perhaps they thereby, as Scrooge said, "decrease the surplus population," and we all do better as a result. But maybe that's "harm."

It's vague and stupid.

Not so fast. Do not many environmentalists say the same? They argue we're overpopulated, and the deaths of a few million would be really good. In fact, it would prevent their "harm to the planet," so they say.

The point is simple: "harm" is not an uncontentious idea. One cannot just float it out there as if it were an uncontroversial first principle for ethics. That's clearly not true.

However, consider a harder case: is it good for women to be allowed to abort babies? Some will say "harm" consists in not permitting women to kill their babies at will, and some will say "harm" is killing babies. So in that case, how do you decide what "harm" really is?

You don't have to decide.

Oh, yes you do. If you don't abort, you'll have a baby on your hands. If you do, you will kill a human being. There's no possibility of not deciding.

Even if abortion was harm the impact is isolated, and has no broad negative impact on society. In fact, aborting unwanted children has a reduction on crime.

It reduces everything, not just crime. It eliminates good people and geniuses too. That's the wondrous thing about abortion -- you never really know whom you're killing. In fact, it eliminates whole populations, when they fail to reproduce at a rate of replacement. And it eliminates far more women than men, which further impairs overall population sustenance. It's a kind of social suicide, really...not a good thing.

I am merely trying to gauge your experience to the real world and beyond reading about ethics from a textbook.

Good luck. There's not enough information about me out there for anybody to know. And I try to avoid ad hominem arguments, even in my own favour.

*shrug* I see zero value in theory. In fact - reading ethical theory is a lot like "yeah! we have known this since Hammurabi!"

Hmmm...you might be surprised.

That might be right. But I think I would prefer my engineer to have a theoretical understanding of aerodynamics when he was creating the designs. I think the fly-'em-and-die method of testing merely at the applied level would be far too inefficient...and fatal.

If the Wright Brothers took your advice you wouldn't even have an airplane.[/quote]
Oh, definitely not so. They had plenty of theory -- plenty of blueprints and plans. And if they had no theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics or gravity, they'd not have survived a first attempt.

The reason you want an engineer to have a "theoretical grounding" is so that they don't repeat past mistakes.

No, it's because I want them to know what they're doing, and not to die being foolish. I kind of want them to stay around.

[Logik]

That's Karl Popper. He's only one voice, and his epistemology has some flaws. It was probably better than verificationism, but not ultimately the right answer.

However, what's clear is that negation isn't the only epistemological "game in town."

If you know what the "right" answer is - you would tell us instead of beating around the bush. It's because you DON'T know is why knowledge-acquisition is systematic.

Negation is the most important game in town. Your knowledge is "right" until it isn't. Negative feedback is how learning works.

I haven't found that's so. But "confirmation bias" is always an issue, of course.

Going out of one's way to prove oneself wrong is counter-intuitive to most humans.
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo

No, not at all, of course. But I am suggesting that when one is in a forest, one might observe trees.

When one is in a forest one might observe the most pertinent threat to one's well being.

My claim was more modest: it was that you can't prove that sufficient correspondence doesn't exist. That's a subtle difference, but ultimately one of real import.

It's ultimately a difference of sophistry. You are asking us to prove a negative.
Furthermore you are dragging the discussion into boolean existence/non-existence again.

Your map is "right" and continue to be "right" until reality provides evidence to the contrary.

Of course I don't. You can see above that I've even identified its theoretical location in modern epistemology. I've just shown it's not the only game in town, and not by a long shot.

I believe I already responded to this with: it's easier to avoid stupidity than seeking brilliance.

I'll further respond with: Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later

You do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science. As your grandmother would have said, better safe than sorry.

And so ethics (risk management) is first and foremost - about survival. Otherwise - what's it for?

Not so fast. Do not many environmentalists say the same? They argue we're overpopulated, and the deaths of a few million would be really good. In fact, it would prevent their "harm to the planet," so they say.

The point is simple: "harm" is not an uncontentious idea. One cannot just float it out there as if it were an uncontroversial first principle for ethics. That's clearly not true.

Environmentalists are short-term thinkers. There is no trajectory on which Earth remains Human-home forever. No matter how "sustainable" we become. No matter how "organic" we eat. There will come a point at which this planet WILL become uninhabitable - whether through our doing; or through the universe's doing. Ask the dinosaurs.

And so, the only reason to give a shit about the environment is to avoid extinction in the short term. Once we have 100 planets to habitate. Who gives a fuck about Earth?

Oh, yes you do. If you don't abort, you'll have a baby on your hands. If you do, you will kill a human being. There's no possibility of not deciding.

No. I mean YOU don't have to decide. I am under the impression that you lack the anatomy to become pregnant.
Let those who have the anatomy decide.

It reduces everything, not just crime. It eliminates good people and geniuses too. That's the wondrous thing about abortion -- you never really know whom you're killing. In fact, it eliminates whole populations, when they fail to reproduce at a rate of replacement. And it eliminates far more women than men, which further impairs overall population sustenance. It's a kind of social suicide, really...not a good thing.

While population growth is on the exponential rise it's far from a "social suicide". To make the "we need more geniuses" argument is basically a strategy based on winning the lottery. You think genius is nature, not nurture. Might as well preach for eugenics now.

And lastly: how would you even enforce anti-abortion laws? How are you going to prevent a teenage girl from going to the black market to seek an abortion?

Are you going to mandate monthly pregnancy tests for teenage girls so you can make sure they don't do such naughty things?

Your notion of "control" is skewed. There is a difference between controlling the general population towards a general direction; and controlling every single individual towards a particular direction.

Precision and control again. You can't control individuals as effectively as you can control masses.

Good luck. There's not enough information about me out there for anybody to know. And I try to avoid ad hominem arguments, even in my own favour.

Your words reveal more than you know.

Hmmm...you might be surprised.

Well no, I am NOT surprised - hence the problem. The emotion of surprise generally signals something unexpected, new information.
The lack of surprise in ethics literature is decidedly the problem.

Oh, definitely not so. They had plenty of theory -- plenty of blueprints and plans. And if they had no theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics or gravity, they'd not have survived a first attempt.

Oh really? Where did that theory come from? Who created the knowledge for them to use? Surely SOMEBODY had to be first?

No, it's because I want them to know what they're doing, and not to die being foolish. I kind of want them to stay around.

And so you are going to teach them to "not be stupid" or what? Learning is not a process that works by wishful thinking.

In 1800 there is no book you could have read that can teach you ANYTHING about aerodynamics. SOMEBODY had to learn it SOMEHOW.

[Immanuel Can]

That's Karl Popper. He's only one voice, and his epistemology has some flaws. It was probably better than verificationism, but not ultimately the right answer.

However, what's clear is that negation isn't the only epistemological "game in town."

If you know what the "right" answer is - you would tell us instead of beating around the bush.

I was only pointing out that "negating" isn't epistemology -- it's but one possible strategy among many.

Negation is the most important game in town.

I don't think so. Descartes showed us that negation can take you to the point where you know nothing at all, save perhaps for your own existence. But even that remains uncertain as to what you are. In other words, being cynical if that's all one does, takes one not to knowledge but to a state of knowing essentially nothing at all.

Going out of one's way to prove oneself wrong is counter-intuitive to most humans.

Yes, but philosophers try not to be "intuitive" in that way. They're famous for thinking about and casting doubt upon whatever others simply take for granted.

No, not at all, of course. But I am suggesting that when one is in a forest, one might observe trees.

When one is in a forest one might observe the most pertinent threat to one's well being.

Ah. I see the irony was lost.

What I was suggesting is that the one thing you can certainly find in the forest is a whole lot of trees. Just so, when one is in the midst of things one knows, one would be unwise to focus exclusively on those things that appear problematic, as if they made everything else disappear. The problematic cases may well be far fewer than the obvious things. It is often so.

My claim was more modest: it was that you can't prove that sufficient correspondence doesn't exist. That's a subtle difference, but ultimately one of real import.

It's ultimately a difference of sophistry. You are asking us to prove a negative.

It wasn't my "ask." It was the supposition of anyone who works only on the negative side of epistemology. But you're right that they couldn't possibly prove their cynicism is actually correct. That is indeed an old problem with negatives. They don't prove things.

Your map is "right" and continue to be "right" until reality provides evidence to the contrary.

Now you're agreeing with what I suggested. You're positing the existence of both "map" and "reality." You're checking the former against the latter.

it's easier to avoid stupidity than seeking brilliance.

Yes. It's very, very easy to be negative. Too easy. And it builds nothing. Being brilliant is much, much harder than being a cynic. Being a contributor of something positive is far harder than just negating what everybody else tries to do. But what conclusion should we draw from that? That being brilliant, positive or creative is bad? And being cynical, negative and merely deconstructive is good? Hardly.

And so ethics (risk management) is first and foremost - about survival. Otherwise - what's it for?

If ethics were about "survival," the only ethic would be, "Don't be at the back of the herd." All else would be up for grabs.

But that's not ethics. Gazelles do that on the Masi Mara, and they have no ethics at all. Humans can do better. Ethics is about good and evil, regardless of convenience, desire or even, sometimes, of survival.

Environmentalists are short-term thinkers.

Funny: that's what they say about us.

There is no trajectory on which Earth remains Human-home forever. No matter how "sustainable" we become. No matter how "organic" we eat. There will come a point at which this planet WILL become uninhabitable - whether through our doing; or through the universe's doing. Ask the dinosaurs.

Well, how about this thought: long before heat death happens, you and I will be dead too. That drive for survival is a race you and I are going to lose. As the old quip goes, "The mortality rate around here is 100% -- everybody dies."

So what is the real value of "survival," if that's all we do? Maybe we should be up to something more valuable while we're "surviving," no?

Once we have 100 planets to habitate.

Who is "we"? You and i will have passed long before that happens. And had we a million such planets, they'd still have death on all of them.

No. I mean YOU don't have to decide. I am under the impression that you lack the anatomy to become pregnant.
Let those who have the anatomy decide.

Last time I checked, conception was a two person activity. And last time I checked, you're on the legal hook for what you contribute to.

It reduces everything, not just crime. It eliminates good people and geniuses too. That's the wondrous thing about abortion -- you never really know whom you're killing. In fact, it eliminates whole populations, when they fail to reproduce at a rate of replacement. And it eliminates far more women than men, which further impairs overall population sustenance. It's a kind of social suicide, really...not a good thing.

While population growth is on the exponential rise it's far from a "social suicide".[/quote]
It's not species-suicide, perhaps. But it is most certainly social suicide...your society will not survive if you do not procreate and pass it on to the next generation. Whatever comes in its place will not be your society.

To make the "we need more geniuses" argument is basically a strategy based on winning the lottery. You think genius is nature, not nurture. Might as well preach for eugenics now.

No, I was just pointing out that when you kill babies, you have no idea whom you're killing. It could be Hitler or Albert Einstein, or a Rembrandt or a criminal. You just never know.

Did you ever wonder if the person who would have grown up to cure cancer, AIDS or some other dread disease was perhaps dispatched into a garbage pail in the back of some abortion place?

And lastly: how would you even enforce anti-abortion laws? How are you going to prevent a teenage girl from going to the black market to seek an abortion?

You're never going to do that. People will always do evil. But in a moral society, one should not encourage murder. Since the vast majority of abortions are purely convenience abortions, a lot of lives could be saved. But we're not trying.

Precision and control again. You can't control individuals as effectively as you can control masses.

This is true. Masses have no conscience. Only individuals do.

Good luck. There's not enough information about me out there for anybody to know. And I try to avoid ad hominem arguments, even in my own favour.

Your words reveal more than you know.

I'd be surprised if that were true.

No, it's because I want them to know what they're doing, and not to die being foolish. I kind of want them to stay around.

And so you are going to teach them to "not be stupid" or what? Learning is not a process that works by wishful thinking.

No, but trial with no theory ends up being fatal.

In 1800 there is no book you could have read that can teach you ANYTHING about aerodynamics. SOMEBODY had to learn it SOMEHOW.

Not true. The problem of flight long predated the Wright brothers. Nobody had solved it, but even DaVinci had had a try. And "lighter than air" craft, like balloons, were already well known. There was lots of theory; it was just incomplete.

[Logik]

I was only pointing out that "negating" isn't epistemology -- it's but one possible strategy among many.

Nobody said that. I am merely pointing out that if it cannot survive negation it's not knowledge.
Falsification is cheap. if I can falsify it - I don't have to verify it.

I don't think so. Descartes showed us that negation can take you to the point where you know nothing at all, save perhaps for your own existence. But even that remains uncertain as to what you are. In other words, being cynical if that's all one does, takes one not to knowledge but to a state of knowing essentially nothing at all.

So what? Do you value knowing more than you value existing?

Yes, but philosophers try not to be "intuitive" in that way. They're famous for thinking about and casting doubt upon whatever others simply take for granted.

Philosophers are also known for trying to figure out if one horse is faster than another through "pure reason" instead of just racing them.

What I was suggesting is that the one thing you can certainly find in the forest is a whole lot of trees. Just so, when one is in the midst of things one knows, one would be unwise to focus exclusively on those things that appear problematic, as if they made everything else disappear. The problematic cases may well be far fewer than the obvious things. It is often so.

The obvious things are not the things are not the things you need to worry about. It's the things that are in your blind spot....

It wasn't my "ask." It was the supposition of anyone who works only on the negative side of epistemology. But you're right that they couldn't possibly prove their cynicism is actually correct. That is indeed an old problem with negatives. They don't prove things.

Because the notion of "proof" is strictly in the domain of mathematics and logical deduction. Empiricism is about evidence, not proof.

Nobody can "prove" to you that the Earth is round. I can show you photos from outer space, but I am not in control of your risk-aversion.
You could dismiss my photos as fakes. There is literally no way for me to know what you need to convince yourself. Literally no way for me to know where your uncertainty lies.

Unless you state it.

Now you're agreeing with what I suggested. You're positing the existence of both "map" and "reality." You're checking the former against the latter.

I am not checking anything against anything. If my model says X will happen so I anticipate X. When I experience Y instead of X then I KNOW my map is wrong. I don't know HOW it's wrong and what needs fixing (yet), but I know it's wrong.

When an airplane crashes - you know SOMETHING needs to change with safety protocols/design/equipment. But you don't know WHAT.\

All you know is that a sequence of events resulted in harm.

Yes. It's very, very easy to be negative. Too easy. And it builds nothing. Being brilliant is much, much harder than being a cynic.

Being a brilliant cynic is even harder. What's your point?

Being a contributor of something positive is far harder than just negating what everybody else tries to do. But what conclusion should we draw from that? That being brilliant, positive or creative is bad? And being cynical, negative and merely deconstructive is good? Hardly.

More black-and-white thinking. Why do you think it's one or the other? Have you heard nothing of what I have been saying?
I am the one BUILDING SAFE SYSTEMS. That means finding the right balance between uesful and dangerous.

If ethics were about "survival," the only ethic would be, "Don't be at the back of the herd." All else would be up for grabs.

And some people play by those rules. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

But that's not ethics. Gazelles do that on the Masi Mara, and they have no ethics at all. Humans can do better. Ethics is about good and evil, regardless of convenience, desire or even, sometimes, of survival.

No it's not. That's the ideologue version. Ethics is about system engineering. Big picture stuff. Whether you think it's right to fuck your sister - it's none of my damn business.

Well, how about this thought: long before heat death happens, you and I will be dead too. That drive for survival is a race you and I are going to lose. As the old quip goes, "The mortality rate around here is 100% -- everybody dies."

So? Is that a good reason for temporal discounting? We are all in the same boat. You and I get to live in the world we live in because of everybody before us contributed something.

So what is the real value of "survival," if that's all we do? Maybe we should be up to something more valuable while we're "surviving," no?

Point is still lost on you. You can't do anything "more valuable" while you are dead.

Who is "we"? You and i will have passed long before that happens. And had we a million such planets, they'd still have death on all of them.

We humans. So you can't look further than your selfish nose?

While you aren't dying at age 25 from a toothache and dysentery you can do something useful.

Last time I checked, conception was a two person activity. And last time I checked, you're on the legal hook for what you contribute to.

An unfortunate asymmetry. You have absolutely no say in the abortion once you donated your semen. Your control ends with the latex.

It's not species-suicide, perhaps. But it is most certainly social suicide...your society will not survive if you do not procreate and pass it on to the next generation. Whatever comes in its place will not be your society.

Sure it will be. All humans are my society. Perhaps not my values - but if my values went extinct. Guess what? That's how it works...

No, I was just pointing out that when you kill babies, you have no idea whom you're killing. It could be Hitler or Albert Einstein, or a Rembrandt or a criminal. You just never know.

Did you ever wonder if the person who would have grown up to cure cancer, AIDS or some other dread disease was perhaps dispatched into a garbage pail in the back of some abortion place?

The one-man superhero dream team is a male ego myth. Multiple-concurrent discoveries is a thing. And so there's far more evidence suggesting that discoveries are social, rather than individual phenomena. That doesn't mean we should discourage lone rangers, but it does mean we shouldn't base our entire strategy on curing AIDS or cancer on them. That's the same as hoping we get lucky.

Problem-solving is a systematic mindset. It can be taught. Nobody is irreplaceable.

You're never going to do that. People will always do evil. But in a moral society, one should not encourage murder. Since the vast majority of abortions are purely convenience abortions, a lot of lives could be saved. But we're not trying.

It's not black and white. In Portugal drugs are decriminalized. That doesn't mean drugs are encouraged. It simply means state resources are not being poured into the "problem". Guess what? Apparently it works better than throwing drug addicts in prison.

No, but trial with no theory ends up being fatal.

Where do you get theory from in a new field of research? Who creates the knowledge where no knowledge exists?

Not true. The problem of flight long predated the Wright brothers. Nobody had solved it, but even DaVinci had had a try. And "lighter than air" craft, like balloons, were already well known. There was lots of theory; it was just incomplete.

So if nobody had solved it then what did the theory say about building an airplane? Baloons work on completely different principles to airplanes.

You are making my argument for me. The Wright brothers wrote the theory a posteriori successful experimentation.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think so. Descartes showed us that negation can take you to the point where you know nothing at all, save perhaps for your own existence. But even that remains uncertain as to what you are. In other words, being cynical if that's all one does, takes one not to knowledge but to a state of knowing essentially nothing at all.

So what? Do you value knowing more than you value existing?

Not the point.

To say, "cogito ergo sum" is to say only that I exist, but not that I can locate the world and do anything in it.

Philosophers are also known for trying to figure out if one horse is faster than another through "pure reason" instead of just racing them.

True. But again, not the point. Sometimes none of us has the ability or means to "race the horse," and we have to use other methods.

It wasn't my "ask." It was the supposition of anyone who works only on the negative side of epistemology. But you're right that they couldn't possibly prove their cynicism is actually correct. That is indeed an old problem with negatives. They don't prove things.

Because the notion of "proof" is strictly in the domain of mathematics and logical deduction. Empiricism is about evidence, not proof.

Of course. But negation does not provide evidence either. All it does is negate someone else's if it can.

When an airplane crashes - you know SOMETHING needs to change with safety protocols/design/equipment. But you don't know WHAT.

When your airplane crashes, you know nothing at all. You're dead.

Best not to "race the horse" in that case.

What's your point?

I'm pretty sure I made it...

Being a contributor of something positive is far harder than just negating what everybody else tries to do. But what conclusion should we draw from that? That being brilliant, positive or creative is bad? And being cynical, negative and merely deconstructive is good? Hardly.

If ethics were about "survival," the only ethic would be, "Don't be at the back of the herd." All else would be up for grabs.

And some people play by those rules.

I never met one, and I suspect if you did you also wouldn't like them at all. They'd be keen to get you to the back of the herd.

But that's not ethics. Gazelles do that on the Masi Mara, and they have no ethics at all. Humans can do better. Ethics is about good and evil, regardless of convenience, desire or even, sometimes, of survival.

No it's not. That's the ideologue version. Ethics is about system engineering.

Ha. That's one thing it's definitely not.

You and I get to live in the world we live in because of everybody before us contributed something.

"Contributed"? It sounds like you have some teleology in your back pocket there. What's the point of "contributing" when it's "survival of the fittest," and eventually you aren't the fittest and you die? Why should you care what happens after that.

(Heck, why should anybody care how things play out before that, for that matter?) There's no ethics there.

So what is the real value of "survival," if that's all we do? Maybe we should be up to something more valuable while we're "surviving," no?

Point is still lost on you. You can't do anything "more valuable" while you are dead.

I wrote, "we should be up to something more valuable while we're surviving." I didn't say anything about after death. I accept that you believe death ends all. I just asked if you had really faced the consequences of that belief.

Who is "we"? You and i will have passed long before that happens. And had we a million such planets, they'd still have death on all of them.

We humans. So you can't look further than your selfish nose?

In a "survival of the fittest" world, who cares? Selfishness isn't even wrong, then: it's probably adaptive. In any case, it's certainly optional then.

...there's far more evidence suggesting that discoveries are social, rather than individual phenomena.

Some are, and some aren't. One thing for sure: take a Vivaldi or a Pasteur out of the equation, and the same things don't happen.

You're never going to do that. People will always do evil. But in a moral society, one should not encourage murder. Since the vast majority of abortions are purely convenience abortions, a lot of lives could be saved. But we're not trying.

It's not black and white.

Actually, it is. Death is like that. If you kill something, you don't get a second choice. That's very black and white.

Some things genuinely are.

[attofishpi]

People will always do evil. But in a moral society, one should not encourage murder. Since the vast majority of abortions are purely convenience abortions, a lot of lives could be saved.

Why do you care about the life of an entity that has not lived one especially in consideration that this entity has an indestructible soul?

[Logik]

To say, "cogito ergo sum" is to say only that I exist, but not that I can locate the world and do anything in it.

Why do you want to do anything WITH the world? To what end/purpose?

True. But again, not the point. Sometimes none of us has the ability or means to "race the horse," and we have to use other methods.

If your goal was to know the answer - there is no other method. Either you race the horses, or somebody races the horses for you.

Or somebody did a statistical analysis on muscle mass to probability of race-winning experiment.

You have a yes/no question: Is horse A faster than horse B?
It boils down to three mathematical statements:
A > B
A = B
A < B

It requires 1 bit of information to disambiguate the inequalities.

Somebody, somehow needs to extract that information from somewhere.

When your airplane crashes, you know nothing at all. You're dead.

Is that a claim for 100% of plane crashes being 100% fatal? Or just you dragging the discussion into the mud?

I never met one, and I suspect if you did you also wouldn't like them at all. They'd be keen to get you to the back of the herd.

The easiest way to put me at the back of the herd is to overtake me.

Ha. That's one thing it's definitely not.

OK. I guess we have to agree to disagree:

How complex systems fail
From Safety I to SafetyII

"Contributed"? It sounds like you have some teleology in your back pocket there. What's the point of "contributing" when it's "survival of the fittest," and eventually you aren't the fittest and you die? Why should you care what happens after that.
(Heck, why should anybody care how things play out before that, for that matter?) There's no ethics there.

Back pocket? I've been screaming teleology from the top of my lungs from day 1. Without purpose (criteria for success/failure) all philosophy is sophistry.
Epistemology without criterion - sophistry.
Ethics without criterion: sophistry.

You can't divorce epistemology from ethics, even though some try really hard.

Your understanding of "survival of the fittest' lacks perspective. It lacks the [/url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_preference]Temporal discounting[/url].

If you are looking for a material reason: working on problems that matter while you are alive makes you rich.
If you are looking for an emotional reason: if you act towards the common good you go to Heaven.

Pick your argument. The idea/goal behind both is the same. To counter human temporal discounting. e.g short-term thinking.

I wrote, "we should be up to something more valuable while we're surviving." I didn't say anything about after death. I accept that you believe death ends all. I just asked if you had really faced the consequences of that belief.

You do understand that "surviving" is not a passive exercise, right? What you DO feeds back into the system.
If you invest your energy into the top 10 causes of human death (heart disease, cancer, etc.) that is valuable BECAUSE it leads to longer human lifespan e.g survival.

In a "survival of the fittest" world, who cares? Selfishness isn't even wrong, then: it's probably adaptive. In any case, it's certainly optional then.

You don't even understand what "survival of the fittest means".

If you play the survival game by the "me, me ,me!" strategy you live to 35 (no society, no doctors, no fire brigades, no safety nets)
If you play the survival game by the "us, us, us!" strategy you live to 85.

I am playing the "survival of the fittest" game. That's why I've chosen the cooperative strategy.

Some are, and some aren't. One thing for sure: take a Vivaldi or a Pasteur out of the equation, and the same things don't happen.

Take society out of the equation and Pasteur would've had no time to play the silly "science" game.

Your binary mindset is getting rather painful.

Actually, it is. Death is like that. If you kill something, you don't get a second choice. That's very black and white.

Some things genuinely are.

No. It's not black and white.

Not actively working towards preventing murder is NOT the same as encouraging it.

Like I said - your binary mindset is tedious...

[Immanuel Can]

To say, "cogito ergo sum" is to say only that I exist, but not that I can locate the world and do anything in it.

Why do you want to do anything WITH the world? To what end/purpose?

True. But again, not the point. Sometimes none of us has the ability or means to "race the horse," and we have to use other methods.

If your goal was to know the answer - there is no other method.

You should note that "race the horse" was in quotations. I was speaking metaphorically.

Let me put it very simply: trial and error is fine, so long as the "error" end is not too costly. But if you're building airplanes, it's not a good idea to have no theory about what you're doing, and just go jump off a cliff. That would indeed be trial and error, but you'd only do it once.

Likewise, if you want to measure the dimensions of a stellar phenomenon, you're going to have to use mathematics, not hand measurement. You can't "race the horse" in that case.

There are many such cases. Ergo, trial and error is not the only method. Sometimes, it's not even a possible method.

I never met one, and I suspect if you did you also wouldn't like them at all. They'd be keen to get you to the back of the herd.

The easiest way to put me at the back of the herd is to overtake me.

Maybe. But the lions still get you. There's no ethics in that.

Back pocket? I've been screaming teleology from the top of my lungs from day 1.

The problem, then, is justifying your particular telos. It's controversial.

I wrote, "we should be up to something more valuable while we're surviving." I didn't say anything about after death. I accept that you believe death ends all. I just asked if you had really faced the consequences of that belief.

You do understand that "surviving" is not a passive exercise, right? What you DO feeds back into the system.
If you invest your energy into the top 10 causes of human death (heart disease, cancer, etc.) that is valuable BECAUSE it leads to longer human lifespan e.g survival.

But this is only a verbal trick. "You" are not alive. "You" do not survive. And logically, whether or not the human race goes on while you are in the eternal black oblivion of death cannot be a matter of concern to you, either then or now. It's not wrong for your to take out the whole human race with you, and it's not right of you to perpetuate it. The very terms right and wrong no longer have referent, then.

Nietzsche knew this.

In a "survival of the fittest" world, who cares? Selfishness isn't even wrong, then: it's probably adaptive. In any case, it's certainly optional then.

You don't even understand what "survival of the fittest means".

If you play the survival game by the "me, me ,me!" strategy you live to 35 (no society, no doctors, no fire brigades, no safety nets)
If you play the survival game by the "us, us, us!" strategy you live to 85.

That's simplistic, and it turns out to be wrong. I know it's what they "altruism-believing" set wants to believe, but it just doesn't stand up to the facts.

The most effective survival game is getting the "us" to do what "I" want, but "I" being able to exempt myself from all the rules. Then the "I" not only survives, but triumphs.

Not cooperation, but everybody else cooperating with me and I being left free to do as I see fit...that's the real win in an amoral universe.

Nietzsche also understood this.

Actually, it is. Death is like that. If you kill something, you don't get a second choice. That's very black and white.

Some things genuinely are.

No. It's not black and white.

You mean you've discovered ways to revivify corpses? I think not. It's binary, alright.