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 -
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.
I think there are basically two assumptions that one kinda has to make in order to have a philosophical discussion:
No Cartesian Daemon fucking with our ability to do logic and philosophy.
The world exists - not necessarily "for real", but still as a whole. If we are brains in jars being fed simulated sense data, the simulation does at least model Earth and thus it is possible to deduce things about the simulation.
You need assumption #1 because if there is such fuckery, then it fatally undermines any attempt to search for philosophical truths, so what's the point?
You need assumption #2 because if the world doesn't exist, you (or from your perspective, I) probably don't exist and the discussion would again appear pointless. Also, because a deus deceptor even restricted from directly messing with our ability to do philosophy closes off huge swathes of questions to anything beyond "well, I dunno".
You do not actually need assumption #2, though, to prove that 2 + 2 = 4. Proof:
2 + 2 = 2 + (1+1) = (2 + 1) + 1 = 3 + 1 = 4.
First step is the definition of 2, second step is the associative property of addition, third step is the definition of 3, fourth step is the definition of 4. All of these are axioms (as is the transitive property of =). Maths is only ever asserted to be true with respect to some set of axioms; sure, this isn't true in Tropical but we're not talking about Tropical. Either my ability to do logic is being fucked with, or 2 + 2 = 4, no empiricism required.
"You need assumption #1 because if there is such fuckery, then it fatally undermines any attempt to search for philosophical truths, so what's the point?"
Exactly. Now you embraced the basic presuppositional argument. X is necessary for Y. I assert Y. Therefore X exists. In this argument you posit that debate is meaningless if stable reality does not exist and if it is fucked up by Carthesian demons and similar stuff. I assert that meaningful debate exists. Therefore meaningful and stable reality exists, and no Carthesian demon shenanigans are real.
But observe yourself. This is pure presuppositional argument outside of any empirical or scientifical evidence as Carthesian Demon is equally consistent with empirical and scientific evidence. It is all the matter of your presupposition as Carthesian demon cannot be disproved by any number of evidence and empirical experience. You just have to accept it on blind faith.
Now we can enter into a meta-level discussion that I wanted to have with @stoatherd. The meta level discussion is as follows:
I'd argue that Transcendental Argument for God is a very strong presuppositional position, that enables me to have access to stable reality and metaphysics, coherent ethics, grounded epistemology and possibility of math, logic and everything else. Personal God also grounds teleology and purpose and meaning of not only debate but the whole universe.
That is all.
No, that's not what I'm saying. There is some probability that Cartesian-Daemon shenanigans are occurring. There's just obviously no point in discussing that scenario or even contemplating it, so we might as well act as if they're not.
There is a difference between assuming something and asserting it. I assume that AI will not destroy the world when I'm making plans for the long-term. This isn't because I think AI will definitely not destroy the world (I think it's about 30% we all die); it's just that you can't actually execute on plans, or collect on investments, if you're dead, so that chunk of possibility-space is not useful to plan for.
I have not found you explaining what this is.
What does it mean obviously and no point? You are smuggling some new concepts, are we supposed to decide what is true and worthy to pursue by obviousness and having point? Whatever it is, it is your presupposition even in this naive and unexamined form. Can I say that Cartersia Demon obviously exists and thus there is no point having discussion, ending in some post-modern nihilism? If not why - from inside of your paradigm. How do you account for obviousness and meaning of "there being a point"?
Do you assume that everything is obvious to everybody and that the universe has a point and meaning and telos? Why? My paradigm of God accounts for such a thing: God is a person, he created the universe with a divine purpose. Humans were created in an image of God, they possess rational capacity to understand Gods plan and thus discussion is fruitful as it can arrive at this meaning, it is having a point. I am waiting for your paradigm to prove the same.
Sure, I can present it here in this context as there are more transcendental arguments for God, including Kantian one. I mean it in this sense.
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