This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
No, I didn't. Go back and check the username you grabbed the quote from.
If you're going to be an asshole and call my arguments "stupid", maybe make sure you're replying to the right user.
So, I'm going to skip over defending an argument I never actually made.
Stop making stuff up.
I never claimed I did. Stop making stuff up.
2+2=4 is a useful, coherent model for counting discrete entities. I "know" it is true insofar as it consistently works.
2+2=4 is not universally physically true. If I add 2 clouds to 2 clouds, I don't (necessarily) get 4 clouds, because clouds are not a discrete entity that's appropriate for modelling via addition.
But within mathematics, within the rules of the game of addition, 2+2=4. If you think that's not "justified", then i reject your concept of justification as being useful.
You're still making statements like this that don't mean anything.
This is a parody, right? I literally flagged up "modal collapse" as the primary example of nonsense phrases you're using. You're not using simple words in this explanation. I don't think you can use simple words, because you're not actually conveying any kind of coherent concept; you're just stringing together big words in a way that feels like an explanation to you.
And no, Godel's god doesn't "solve the problem of unprovable truths"; that's nonsense, and shows you don't understand Godel.
No, I didn't. Please stop lying.
If you're going to be childish and rude, try actually reading the comment you're replying to.
It does not matter in this case. The point was usage of universal claims without justification. Which you claimed right here in this discussion bellow.
And? Telling stories about unicorns to my daughter also works consistently, the same about stories about all kind of made up things. But that is also besides the meta-point I am making - why is "consistently works" any form of justification? What does it even mean and how did you came up with it?
Excellent. We discovered a difference of counting by identity vs division. However the realm of numbers is realm of counting by identity, so this analogy does not wok. 2+2=4 is either true or false, there is nothing like "kind of". We are talking about a concrete thing - abstract concept of standard numbers and not clouds or persons inside Trinity. Which is by the way a good argument against OP's Gnosticism.
And here we are. A universal metaphysical game. Either you believe 2+2=4 or you are out. You reject the concept of justification of anything outside of 2+2=4, because presumably it goes against your presupposition. Anything other than 2+2=4 such as 2+2=5 or 2+2=6 up to 2+2=Googleplex is not part of this presupposition and thus an incoherent paradigm not to be taken seriously. If somebody believes in his drug induced schizoid mania that all + operations are 42, you would discard it as incoherent and not worth any serious discussion.
This is exactly my position but on meta-level higher. There are paradigms with no justification for 2+2=4, they have no grounding and even worse, they positively reject the only entity - GOD - that could provide such grounding. As you named it, they break rule of "math" and metaphysics and thus they speak gibberish. Now you may have some inkling of my presuppositional argument.
You yourself said that You can assume that I'm familiar with Godel's ontological proof, mathematically capable, etc.. I don't want to waste more time on this. Do you want to explain the analogy or not? It is not crucial for my point. If you do not grasp it, that is still okay.
Actually it does matter that you're ascribing quotes to me that I never said, and positions that I don't hold.
Not in the way that 2+2=4 "works". You're extremely confused if you think you can just conflate two entirely different meanings of the word "work".
Then first you need to justify why "justification" matters. What do you even mean by it?
No, sorry, that's nonsense. You failed to understand. This has nothing to do with identity or division.
Mathematics consists of models. One such model is "here are the natural numbers, and we can use addition on them". This is good for counting things like pebbles, so we use it for that. This is bad for counting things like clouds, so we don't use it for that.
Nowhere has identity or division entered into it.
It is true, within the rules of the model. And we also use it as a shorthand for another true statement: "If you have two things, and another two things, and you group them together -- without breaking anything or fusing anything together -- you end up with four things".
... in what world are numbers concrete and clouds not??
You really need to use simple language. You're tangling yourself up. What do these statements even mean?
No, I don't. Stop making stuff up.
Still meaningless. I have no idea what you're talking about, and neither do you. If I'm wrong, try and communicate it using plain English. No "meta", no "paradigmatic", no "metaphysical".
I did. I also explicitly said that phrases like "modal collapse" were meaningless and making you confused. You then decided to use "modal collapse" in your simple words explanation. If you actually understand what you're talking about, you can explain it without saying "modal collapse".
I'd love an explanation. A genuine explanation that doesn't hide behind using complicated words to disguise the fact that there's no actual substance there.
Look, here's how you sound to me. Suppose I said something like this: "Here's an analogy: the atavistic ontological modalities of pseudo-presuppositionalist frameworks lack consanguinity with the indirect supplication of their co-philosophies."
And then you ask me to explain what that means, and I sneer and say "oh, I suppose if you're not smart enough to understand part of my analogy".
That's ok. Neither of us grasps it.
Just read what I said. I critiqued access to unjustified universal categories. That is the point.
Usually if people use these words like "useful" or "works" they are concept from philosophical pragmaticism. So please do not leave me in a suspense and tell me what do you mean by "works" and "useful".
Do you know how to read? I specified it in the very same sentence: saying that "abstract concept of standard numbers and not clouds". The abstract entity of "2" is not identical to two clouds or two bananas. But I am willing to go there if you wish as this is exactly touching the metaphysics: what are numbers, how are they existing, where are they existing?
I do not have to explain words to you. You yourself said that you are knowledgeable about Godel's ontological proof. Google it with conjuction with "modal collapse" in "plain English". I do not know what you want at this point - should I define the word definition in plain English?
What are you talking about. There is literal wiki article about Godels ontological proof. Modal collaps is literally a subcategory with its own wiki page. If you are too simple or lazy to grasp it, then that is okay. And it is not even necessary, it was just part of the analogy But do not blame me on using the terms.
What you said was that I made a bunch of claims that I did not, in fact, make. I don't know why you're incapable of admitting you're wrong or apologising for making up things about another user.
The ordinary everyday meaning. This isn't complicated. By "works", I mean: "If you use 2+2=4 when measuring out ingredients for a dish, you'll get the right proportions. If you use 2+2=4 when designing a plane, you'll get a plane that flies. If you use 2+2=4 when figuring out how much change to give a customer, you'll give them the correct amount of change".
This is obviously entirely different to the way you used "works" in your facetious unicorn analogy, where you mean something like "telling this story accomplishes my goals".
Now please define exactly what you mean by "so", "please", "do", "not", "leave", and so on, for every other commonplace word you used.
Yes. Your English is poor. I assume your native language is something Eastern European (judging by how often you omit articles). While I recognise it's a feat to discuss complicated things in your second language, you could maybe have a bit more humility concerning whether the communication issue might be on your end.
It is unusual to describe "the abstract concept of numbers" as concrete, given that "abstract" and "concrete" are pretty close to antonyms.
Agreed, of course.
Already covered this. Mathematics consists of models, which you can think of as games or systems consisting of rules. Numbers are elements within particular mathematical models. Numbers are things like 5, 2.45, and 1,000.
I have no idea what this kind of question means, for any subject. "How is an apple existing" -- what does this mean?
You seem confused. Numbers are abstract concepts. They aren't like apples or horses; they're not in a location. That's like asking "where is justice existing?"
I never said you did, nor would I think you capable.
But you said you were giving me a simple-word explanation of your analogy, and used the phrase "modal collapse". You're under no obligation to give me a simple-word explanation, but if you pretend to be giving me one while using nonsense phrases, I'm going to point it out.
You know exactly what I want, as I've said it explicitly twice now. You literally just offered what I want: a plain English explanation of your analogy, without using any bullshit phrases like "modal collapse". You don't need to define individual words or phrases, just say your analogy using normal words.
There's a literal wiki article on Transubstantiation. That doesn't mean that Transubstantiation isn't meaningless bullshit; the existence of a wikipedia page doesn't save it.
If you think your point is meaningful, you can explain it in simple words. You keep refusing to do this and pretending not to understand.
Ok, buddy. Maybe learn to spell, as a bare minimum, before accusing other people of being stupid.
What the hell? You two are behaving terribly. I just gave @georgioz a one-day ban for his "FUCK YOU" crash-out, but your much calmer but just as unnecessary ad hominems are no better. You're not arguing, you're just trading sneers and seeing who can out-condescend the other. You can take a day off too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link