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 -
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.
This is just pragmatic argument. But again, did you ever try to ask question of why this is the case? The so called The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics? There is no easy answer to this. Many people are just saying "math works", which is their presupposition, a bling belief in the "Truth" of math. But it is still unreasonable, do you have any explanation of why is that and how math works? Otherwise it is just case of blind belief, something akin to Pythagorean cult.
How is it different? I use something, it accomplishes my goals which is the way of how I decide what is true or not. Again, if this is not the case then tell me your epistemological principle and how you decide what is truth.
Thank you for your ad hominem. At least I know how to read wiki page of Gödel's ontological proof.
Yes, for somebody discussing in bad faith. It is absolutely common to use the word "concrete" in realm of abstraction. For instance things like "present a concrete proof" or "give me a concrete example of an odd number". Is this a novel linguistic lesson from Eastern European for you?
Oh, numbers are "elements". Okay. Unicorns are elements. They are things like Pinkie Pie or Fluttershy. Again, what are the numbers, why are they and how are they. Going in epicycles and naming numbers as "concepts" or "elements" and giving examples is not enough. Or we can also play this game - God is an all powerful being and as an example he consists of three persons in a Godhead - Father, Son and The Holy Spirit. It is my assertion. Please accept it just because I said it.
So how do numbers exist? They do exist without location, they are omnipresent. Wow, we are getting into quite supernatural territory here, numbers are omnipresent and posses one of the godly attribute. How do you know this is the case? Did you directly tap with your senses into number axis and felt all the numbers in their infinitude? How can empiricist prove existence of abstract concept such as numbers in the first place?
You said yourself that you are well versed with Godels ontological proof and related concepts. I gave you wiki page for the proof as well as for the modal collapse. I do not have to continue with this, just argue with wiki page that is written in plain English and then give me further questions. Also I hope that you remember that I used it as an analogy.
@Amadan, I'd appreciate some mod feedback on whether there's an appropriate way to reply to this, if you have time.
So far, georgioz has yelled "FUCK YOU" at me, called me simple and stupid multiple times, created strawmen of my position (including misattributing quotes from other users to me), and repeatedly evaded requests to just explain his position by insinuating that I can't read.
You gave him a one-day ban for the "FUCK YOU".
You then also gave me a one-day ban for responding to him with condescension and snark. (Subjectively, less condescension than he was throwing at me.) Which... fair enough, I guess, in isolation. I could've been a bit less patronising. (Though the most patronising thing I said, "ok buddy", is a phrase you yourself have also used in this thread.) There are also a few places where I'm being blunt and direct (e.g. calling a phrase "nonsense") for the sake of trying to clarify the conversation, but that could be read as part of a pattern of condescension, even when that's not the intent.
But a one-day ban for "FUCK YOU" + you're simple/stupid + condescension, and a one-day ban for being condescending in return, doesn't seem proportionate. After @naraburns banned me a month ago for responding to bait with too much heat, I've tried to learn that lesson (which required me to get over a lot of frustration at that ban). This time, I didn't escalate even after being told "FUCK YOU" -- I just said "excuse me?" -- but I still get the same ban?
I'm pretty sure that If I said "FUCK YOU" to Amadan out of nowhere, I'd get much more than a one-day ban.
Now georgioz is continuing the conversation. I think there are actually useful things to discuss here, which is why I kept trying to get him to explain his position. But I'm getting the same attacks:
I don't think we are symmetrically "behaving terribly". I'm asking georgioz to explain his positions in his own words, which is kind of the entire point of this place. In return, he keeps pointing me to wikipedia and telling me I can't read.
This isn't symmetric.
So, is there actually a way I can respond to this, that doesn't require me to be a punching bag? There are actually interesting discussions we can have around this. I want to have them. I'm trying to elicit that discussion (though yes, in a way that was too snarky). But it seems that I have to just accept being told "FUCK YOU", and being told I'm simple and stupid, and that I can't read; and that if I condescend at all in return, we're both "behaving terribly".
I'm frustrated because I did actually put effort into trying to make the conversation go somewhere useful. Yes, I could've (and should've) been less condescending. But if I'm going to be told I'm behaving terribly, regardless of how much effort or heat or aggression each person is putting in, it all just feels a bit pointless.
Sure, I am willing to go there and just restate the useful discussion. Please just explain your position again, I will do the same in the following positions:
Everybody including secular materialists, Bayesian Big Yud rationalists, relativists and everybody else engages in presuppositions.
All my arguments were asking for philosophical justification of beliefs. I was specifically arguing against the naive "math is self-evident" argument that you presented, which turned the argument to "it is evident to me" as opposed to found that argument on something. I was using internal critique to find your foundation of why you believe the assertions that you make.
This ties to ability of anybody to make universal claims. I specifically wanted to use internal critique if your position. Is it mathematical realism in the vein of Gödel, Kantor, Penrose or Tegmark? Or is it nominalist in the vein of philosopher Harty Field or earlier Quine (who later became mathematical realist) or even Hilbert with his formalism or weird blend of mathematical anti-realism like Yudkowsky or Joscha Bach? We could never go there in our discussion, because I was not able to relate what universal claim is, how Hume or Descartes tried to wrestle with it.
Which leads me to the topics that we had. Asserting that 2+2 equals 4 is just lower level assertion. Again, there needs to be justification for it let's say in terms of "Justified True Belief" standard or some other standard such as nominalism, which is inherently relative. Again, these are not some stupid ideas that georgioz on The Motte said, they were discussed between top philosophers - including modern philosophers of science and Math like Kantor for centuries.
I had constant whiplash where you demanded plain English but at the same time claimed to have knowledge of Gödel and his proofs sufficient to understand it.
Anyways, I challenge you again - what is your underlying presupposition, your metaphysics, epistemology and to lesser extent ethics:
What is the nature of reality, visible (e.g. matter, energy, planets, galaxies) and invisible (math, logic, abstract concepts). How do they exist? Why do they exist?. It takes more then a baby eating alien Yuskowsky story, or just claiming - "here, I wrote number 2 on paper as an example of existence of numbers". This is the purview of ontology. As long as you say "standard numbers exist", there is a question of "how they exist" or "why they exist". And this is not just some word game. There are 150 IQ people who disagree about nature of these things. If they can have disagreements, why cannot we rehash these modern debates here?
The nature of epistemology. What is knowledge, what is "Truth" and how can we justify something as true vs not-true. Be it My name is stoatherd and I know it to 2+2=4 to all there exists is just matter and energy. These are all dogmatic claims, that need to have some justifications. Secular atheists make fun of let's say Christians that they believe in made-up unjustified entities such as God or Angels or whatnot. Now the ball is in your court, how do you justify your beliefs and how and why are they better? Why and how do you posses the knowledge of the Truth and everything else?
Also I do not like ad hominess and other rhetorical tactics, but I will meet you where you are at. I also claim that this specific game is asymmetrical but from secularist point of view. It is considered a standard argument to say that "HAHAHA, stupid Christians believe in unproven and unjustified fairy-tales". Only to then act all indignant when in turn somebody asks them about their fairy tale cosmology and empiricist dogmas that one should take on face value. If you show basic philosophical respect, then I will show the same back.
There's no contradiction there. I was asking for plain English because I think you are tripping yourself up using complicated phrases.
I'll do an analogy. Imagine you ask someone why the sky is blue, and they say: "Quantum decoherence causes the eigenfunction to scatter the ket vector of that wavelength". All of those are real words, and have real technical meanings. But the person saying that sentence is confused, and they're not giving a true or even meaningful explanation.
So a good approach is to ask that person: "Can you please explain what you mean in simple English?" If they have a coherent idea in mind, then they can go: "Sure! Basically, we can think of each atom as a cloud, and when a wave of light passes through that cloud, it interacts with ..." and so on.
I have sufficient knowledge of Godel and his proofs. I just think you're invoking him wrongly, and in order to argue that point, I'm trying to pin down exactly what you mean.
As I said before, I don't know what you mean by "how" a thing exists. What kind of answer does that question even invite? What do you mean?
You're presupposing that these things do exist, or that it's simple to declare that they do exist, which I think requires a bit more of a rigorous definition of "exist".
Let me split your entities into two categories: Type A (physical arrangements of matter/energy -- galaxies, planets, houses, apples, trees, etc), and Type B (everything else).
It's easy to answer why Type A things exist: because of the laws of physics acting on the prior state of the universe. A planet exists because a bunch of cosmic dust existed before it, and then gravity compacted it.
Why do Type B things exist? e.g. the universe, numbers, justice?
That's a confusing question, because the word exist was invented to describe Type A things. The meaning of "exist" concerning Type A things is clear: if you ask "does an apple exist?", you're asking whether a certain physical arrangement is present in the same universe as you. So there's a clear implicit meaning of "exist" concerning Type A things.
But when you start saying "numbers exist" or "the universe exists", it's not clear what that means. So before I can answer why these things exist, I need an explanation of what you mean by something like "numbers exist" or "the universe exists". (This is a similar issue to when you say "modal collapse": I think you're unintentionally smuggling a very complicated idea into the simple word "exists", and it needs to be broken down into simpler words.)
The possession of an accurate model of a portion of reality.
The nounified version of the adjective "true". A claim is true if it accurately represents reality.
If a claim accurately models reality, then it is true to the extent that it does so. That's what "true" means.
We can be mistaken about calling a thing true, in the same way that we can be mistaken about literally anything.
They aren't. I verify my username by repeated observation and evidence. This is the same process I use to verify 2+2=4.
I haven't claimed "all there exists is just matter and energy". I'm entirely open to the idea of there existing additional things. But either they interact with the physical world, in which case they are physical; or they don't, in which case this is a very exotic use of the word "exist" that needs defining.
Observation and testing. They are better because they work. I'm fine with that not being considered "justification"; I'll just enjoy my beliefs working.
I... don't?
I have some knowledge. Some of my knowledge is presumably wrong; I don't know which parts. I don't have complete knowledge of everything. These sentences are true of everyone.
I am not doing this, and I'd prefer if you didn't do it either.
Dude, I haven't done this. If you think I've done this, please point to where.
It seems other people haven't shown what you consider "basic philosophical respect", and you're using that as an excuse to be disrespectful to me. I don't think that's great.
It is not easy and definitely not an explanation. You just assert: "Laws of physics exist". It is a presupposition. What are these laws, why do they exist and how do they exist? Moreover how do you know that they exist? Are they uniform or do they break sometimes? Are they omnipresent and unchanging and eternal? On its own this is an outrageous statement on par of saying that "God exists".
You said that you are empiricist. You know, that no amount of evidence can prove a thing. That is the core observation of Quines Undeterminism of scientific theory. There are number of alternative theories that can explain things. This is rooted in age old sceptical tradition from Hume and Descartes. Maybe you are suffering from schizoid mental illness, or there is Carthesian Demon feeding you false information and you falsely think that you are stoatherd. Moreover you filter which evidence to examine and accept into your web of beliefs as any other schizoid person who sees everything as a proof for his own personal conspiracy theory.
Okay so I can say that God and unicorns work for me and thus they exist. Or you may object and have some outside criterion on what is "useful" and what "works" means. Then I would challenge you to either state that dogmatic yardstick, or ground it in pragmatism itself.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link