Worked on truth this morning. The subject is endless. So much to be said.
Truth being an ideal term and decidability being a comparative term.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 16:25:00 UTC
Worked on truth this morning. The subject is endless. So much to be said.
Truth being an ideal term and decidability being a comparative term.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 16:25:00 UTC
You just haven’t graduated from rationalism (internal consistency) to science in operational terms. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 16:11:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764494594520285186
Reply addressees: @ontologicalepi @SanguineEmpiric
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764493929509027840
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/764493929509027840
WORDS MATTER
If you give people a language for expressing their intuitions they will seem a lot smarter.
Because they are.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-13 07:40:00 UTC
BELIEF: STILL WORKING ON THIS SPECTRUM
I have faith in god. I believe in elves. I can’t determine if this is true or not, but I can determine that is false. I agree with this and disagree with that. I’m willing to do this and unwilling to do that. I prefer this carrot cake over that lemon cake. I understand this and don’t understand that. I’m aware of this and unaware of that.
Faith. (choice in matters of norms)
Belief (choice in matters of superstition)
Determination (judgment)
Agreement (consent)
Willingness (bear a cost)
Preference (taste)
Understanding (knowledge)
Awareness.(experience)
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-12 03:34:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-hierarchy-of-argumentative-structures/HOW DO YOU CONSTRUCT ARGUMENTS?
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 14:50:00 UTC
(a) I don’t ‘believe’ it’s archaic.(b) I don’t understand what you mean by ‘preceding’. Both exist, are made, are qualifiable.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 13:56:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763735770490400768
Reply addressees: @mightyboom_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763706323313700865
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763706323313700865
MIKHAIL VOLOSHIN ON BELIEF
—“BELIEF, IN THE THIRD PERSON:
The verb “to believe” makes sense when (and only when) used in the third person. “Christians believe that the resurrection happened,” for example. Or, “AGW alarmists believe that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels will result in a hyperlinear increase in global temperature.”
BELIEF MEANS COUNTER-FACTUAL
By its nature, “to believe” implies counterfactuality. If the speaker wishes to convey that the contents of a subject’s mind are in accordance with reality, the speaker doesn’t use the word “believe”. The more natural words then would be “know” or “realize” or “understand”. I.e. “The West has known since at least Aristotle that the Earth is round.” To say, “The West has believed…” rather than, “The West has known…” implies that this “believed” assertion is incorrect, i.e. counterfactual — at least from the POV of the knowledge base of the speaker.
BELIEF, IN THE SECOND PERSON: CONDESCENSION
To use “believe” in the second person is inherently condescending — to say to someone, “You believe X,” implies that you *don’t* hold X to be true, and think your listener holds or espouses a counterfactual belief.
BELIEF, IN THE FIRST PERSON: REDUNDANT
To use “believe” in the first person is, at best, redundant. It is functionally equivalent to say, “I believe it’s raining,” “I know it’s raining,” and “It’s raining.” In colloquial conversation, people use the modifier “I believe” as a sort of hedge against the accuracy of their own statements. I.e. in practice, “I believe it’s raining,” would indicate that the speaker recognizes the possibility that it might in fact *not* be raining — that is, “I believe X”, ironically, means that the speaker in fact *does not* believe X, or at least not fully.
At worst, using “to believe” in the first person begs for an instance of Moore’s Paradox, and indicates a serious case of doublethink. “I believe that people can be born the wrong gender, and I also believe that gender is a social construct. Stop questioning my beliefs!” Moore *believed* that no person could sustain a recognition of the counterfactuality of their own beliefs; Moore had apparently never met any actual human beings.”— Mikhail Voloshin
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 12:40:00 UTC
BELIEF AND INACTION, TRUTH AND DEMONSTRATED ACTION
So, when you say you ‘believe’ in something magical, like ghosts, or fairies, or angels, that’s the correct use of the term.
But instead, you can state a preference or dislike, agree or disagree, understand or not understand, or judge or opine something is false, might be true, or true. And the gold standard of course is do you demonstrate your judgment or opinion, understanding or not, agreement or disagreement, and preference or dislike?
Because what we say is loaded with signals – even to ourselves. Our actions are evidence that either agrees or disagrees with our statements.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 12:26:00 UTC
You ‘believe’ in magical things. Belief is an archaic word.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 10:15:00 UTC
lying like Russians works only when the truth isn’t available and you control the distribution
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-11 07:13:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763634528103591940
Reply addressees: @johann_theron
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763630980645216256
IN REPLY TO:
@johann_theron
@curtdoolittle However, IMO it should have focussed on psychology, which Russians are good at. Thus West destroys itself (like South Africa)
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/763630980645216256