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 -
See, you presuppose existence of logic. You wield its power - but how and why does the logic or by extension math exist? Is math also existing in space and time, adding new numbers or laws of logic as underlying matter evolves? Imagine a space where there is only one physical particle. Does it embody the number "two"? If yes or if not how and why?
This is what I hammer all the time. How can you claim access to logic without grounding? It is the true presuppositional argument - logic and math exists. Because I use it. But you can use all kind of things, does it mean that inside of a paradigm anything that can be "used" exists? Again, how and why it exists. And not in first-order way how child asks, but paradigmatically.
Okay, this seems like a very strong claim. What is the grounding for that? You are a finite person who does not have access to things like "everything". Why do you believe this? This was the point of Hume and Quine - there is no grounding for such a strong claim.
No, this is scientism. Science is just a method - a method which explicitly denies access to universal statements and truth as all "truths" are provisional. What you claim is absolutely unscientific, I can tell you right now: give me falsifiable criteria to the claim "all theories across every branch of science are all converging on that same conclusion". This claim itself is not scientific, it is a theological claim of belief.
These are pure unfalsifiable fairy tales. They rely on belief in "truth" of some presuppositions. These supposedly scientific multiverse theories are at best bunch of speculative cosmological philosophy and at worst just made up things build on unstable grounds. There is nothing scientific about them. You cannot ground them on science, because again science is just a method. It is akin to recipe for bread, it has no philosophical grounding.
More options
Context Copy link