Strange/senseless questions

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; These questions receive a response via the Holy Spirit in Scripture....

Factfinder

MayCaesar said:

In popular philosophy there is a number of questions that the most famous scientists, philosophers, psychologists and debaters frequently discuss. When they talk about them, they like to make them sound like incredibly profound, world-shattering questions - yet upon closer examination they appear to be, at best, curious terminological exercises. Here is a number of such questions (and my take on them):

1. "What is the meaning of life?"

I have never even understood what exactly is being asked. "Meaning" in what sense? The literal meaning of the word "life" can be looked up in the dictionary. The question seems to imply that human life has some explicit function, like an element of some larger construct, as a wheel would be to a car - but, first, there is no reason for this analogy to be correct since humans are not tools, but organisms, and second, when talking about the role of a wheel in a car, we use very specific words such as "function", "purpose" or "role". "Meaning" seems to be a completely wrong word to use here.

2. "Is mathematics discovered or invented?"

I listened to a discussion between Brian Greene and Max Tegmark on this yesterday, and the more listened, the more I understood that I had no idea what they were talking about. What exactly does it mean for mathematics to be discovered or invented? In mathematics, a set of axioms is chosen in a way that seems to best fit the universal properties of collections of objects in the real world, and once that set is chosen, one can make definitions of classes of objects and explore their properties. It is "invented" in the sense that those axioms are made up, and it is "discovered" in the sense that the consequences of those axioms are not immediately obvious and have to be worked out. But people seem to imply that discovery and invention are mutually exclusive categories, and that does not make much sense to me.

3. "Does god exist?"

One of the most frustrating conversations I have ever heard was between Alex O'Connor and Jordan Peterson a few days ago. Every time Alex tried to get Jordan's position on this - "Do you believe that the events in the Bible literally happened?" - Jordan would engage in sophistry: "What do you mean by 'happened'? What do you mean by 'literally'? I think that the Biblical corpus reflects the collective knowledge agglomerated across universal time and space... [word salad continues]". It appears that many people approach this question not as a factual, but as a metaphorical one, and in that case it is not clear at all what they are talking about. Jordan Peterson seems to define "god" as some kind of top of the hierarchy of goodness, but this is such an abstract concept, even Plato's forms appear simplistic in comparison.

4. "Do intrinsic moral imperatives exist?"

Immanuel Kant has spend a large amount of time thinking and writing about "categorical imperatives", by which he essentially defined moral choices that every human being has to make in order to be virtuous. Yet his argument appears circular, for virtue, in turn, is defined as following those imperatives. But what are those imperatives and where do they come from? If I understand his argument correctly, he suggests that it comes fundamentally from the needs of human biology - yet human biology itself demonstrably features incredible diversity, therefore invalidating the idea that there have to be moral choices applicable to all humans... The concept seems completely made up to me, yet for a couple of centuries philosophers have been debating this. What is the debate about?

I suppose I would like to explore two different questions with respect to this:

1. Am I missing some crucial insight here, or are these (and other similar) questions really mostly exercises in sophistry and a way to pass up time at a bar, rather than something having practical implications?
2. More generally, when everyone around you talks about something making it sound extremely profound, yet to you it seems senseless - is it reasonable to assume that you are missing something important, or is the better assumption that the people around you are just deeply confused and engaged in posturing? Kind of like those people who go to art galleries and pretend to generate incredible insights about the paintings while having no idea about art (not saying that everyone who goes there does that, but some people - including myself - certainly do).
   

What is the meaning of life? I tend to agree with you, there isn't any explicit meaning of life. When we study animal behavior and biology life seems to have an inadvertent goal to it and that is to live, resist death and procreate. And of course that's just me applying the concept of goals to life. The driving force behind said alleged goals do tend to apparently disclose purpose in some lives like the possum for instance. Routinely called the forest's cleaning service, their ability to resist rabies and bacterial diseases when found in decaying flesh benefits other species who aren't dead or infected. As they  'clean' the forest when they feast. The overall evolution of an environment that supports life even in the individual dying of life forms. That's what we are tempted to label as 'purpose'. 

Is mathematics discovered or invented? Yes. Linier time existed so the days and nights tallied up as time passed before we invented measurements of time and numerals representing the measurements. Of course days and nights were discovered as we observed them and realized they were predictable and not random events. Oh, I'm the worst when it comes to people explaining mathematical formulas and equations. LOL

Does god exist? No. At least not as any concepts imagined in the known universe so far. In our query for answers to hard questions what answers we have found only lead to natural phenomenon.

Do intrinsic moral imperatives exist? Tough one but in the end they are subjective in societal settings and individually it completely depends on what the individual will justify in any given circumstances. A society may deem theft immoral but and a starving individual may see his plight more immoral than stealing bread from a merchant. Circular but not necessarily wrong as it is thought to be an injustice when food is actually plentiful. Can go on about differing societies, religious sects and so on but in the end, no intrinsic moral imperatives do not exist though created ones do.

1. Two things. Just because we may not have found a practical reason to discuss these things even if it's with sophistry, it doesn't mean it won't ever lead to practicality at some point. And number two, It's a great way to pass the time away in a bar so maybe that's the practicality you're looking for.

2. It can be a little bit of both. You can be missing a vital piece of information and/or they can just be posturing. We can define discussing these things as useless but at the same time it does fulfill our natural  societal existence we developed into as we are not a solitary species by definition. 

All just my opinions of course.

jack

MayCaesar said:

Strange/senseless questions

Hello May:

Look..  On a debate website, some people wanna debate whether the earth is flat.  That's not a subject that interests me, but I'm not gonna judge whether it's worthy of debate or not.  There's a lot of people out there with some very strange views.  I find it best not to engage with them, and besides, who am I to question them?

Of course, should somebody engage me, we're off to the races

excon

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

What is the meaning of life? I tend to agree with you, there isn't any explicit meaning of life. When we study animal behavior and biology life seems to have an inadvertent goal to it and that is to live, resist death and procreate. And of course that's just me applying the concept of goals to life. The driving force behind said alleged goals do tend to apparently disclose purpose in some lives like the possum for instance. Routinely called the forest's cleaning service, their ability to resist rabies and bacterial diseases when found in decaying flesh benefits other species who aren't dead or infected. As they  'clean' the forest when they feast. The overall evolution of an environment that supports life even in the individual dying of life forms. That's what we are tempted to label as 'purpose'. 

Is mathematics discovered or invented? Yes. Linier time existed so the days and nights tallied up as time passed before we invented measurements of time and numerals representing the measurements. Of course days and nights were discovered as we observed them and realized they were predictable and not random events. Oh, I'm the worst when it comes to people explaining mathematical formulas and equations. LOL

Does god exist? No. At least not as any concepts imagined in the known universe so far. In our query for answers to hard questions what answers we have found only lead to natural phenomenon.

Do intrinsic moral imperatives exist? Tough one but in the end they are subjective in societal settings and individually it completely depends on what the individual will justify in any given circumstances. A society may deem theft immoral but and a starving individual may see his plight more immoral than stealing bread from a merchant. Circular but not necessarily wrong as it is thought to be an injustice when food is actually plentiful. Can go on about differing societies, religious sects and so on but in the end, no intrinsic moral imperatives do not exist though created ones do.

1. Two things. Just because we may not have found a practical reason to discuss these things even if it's with sophistry, it doesn't mean it won't ever lead to practicality at some point. And number two, It's a great way to pass the time away in a bar so maybe that's the practicality you're looking for.

2. It can be a little bit of both. You can be missing a vital piece of information and/or they can just be posturing. We can define discussing these things as useless but at the same time it does fulfill our natural  societal existence we developed into as we are not a solitary species by definition. 

All just my opinions of course.

When it comes to purpose of different animals and the like, it seems to me that it rather works the other way: animals adapt to the environment, and the environment adapts to the animals. For instance, hyenas evolved to feed on the remains of animals, which as a byproduct makes the environment safer for other animals - however, there is nothing in evolution of hyenas per se that would make making environment safer for other animals valuable in any way. Now, other animals can take advantage of that by being bolder when it comes to hunting as they do not run as high a risk of contracting diseases from decaying animals - and, ironically, many of them (for instance, lions) end up hunting the very hyenas that make the environment safer for them!

Now, taking a bird's eye view of the consequences of all of these processes, we can see how biological traits of various animals come together to create a complex thriving biosphere, often at the expense of their own well-being or even survival. But would it be fair to say that the hyenas' purpose is cleaning the desert of diseases? Hyenas themselves would certainly disagree with that. To them the idea would be as preposterous as to us the idea that humans' purpose is to take care of pet dogs. The dogs might like the sentiment, but the humans certainly would not consider the idea seriously.

Regarding the question of god, I suppose to me the immediate question is, "What is the difference between the world with or without god?" If the difference is very significant, then it should be relatively easy to perform an experiment and see which world we live in. And if it is highly insignificant, then I fail to see what the answer matters. Deists, for instance, posit that god created the Universe, then essentially left it to its own devices. How is that principally different from there having been no good, if the outcome is exactly the same?

Theists often resort to esoteric language: "You know god with your heart", "You would hear the god if you only listened", "I commune with god when praying" - and never say anything concrete. What can I do right now to confirm for myself that god exists? The answer is always some kind of, "Open your heart and pray, and eventually you will understand". Sounds like I have to hypnotize myself into believing in god, which is just silly.

I also want to comment on your points 1 and 2. I think you might be onto something here: perhaps having these conversations a bar is more important than we realize. We think that we are just messing around and having fun, but we might be performing some deep philosophical experiments in the process (and the mind freed by alcohol might be an essential ingredient here) that improve our general thinking and then allow us to be more efficient at thinking about things that have immediate practical implications.

I had a debate with a mathematician once where I claimed that the Sun objectively exists, and she argued that existence of the Sun depends on the assumptions we start with. I now realize that we both were right in different ways, but at the time her position sounded ludicrous to me and my inability to refute her arguments was extremely frustrating (and made me chase her romantically, but that is a different story). In the hindsight, that conversation did quite a bit to improve my general thinking, even if at the time I thought we were just messing around on a long drive.

Joeseph

1: Whatever meaning you put on it which I guess can change over the years as its fluid to me anyway

2:That's a very tricky but interesting one are mathematical truths our own invention or does mathematics describe a reality " out there" , it seems that maths does accurately describe how things stand " out there " and are not a matter of convention.

3: Peterson is intelligent but very annoying , I watched him talk for nearly have an hour when asked if there was a god , he waffles on and on never saying anything insightful or meaningful regarding belief in God.

I've never heard any half way decent argument for a god , the term "god" is never defined in a meaningful way and all "god " arguments nearly always descend into  redefining accepted terminology and thus descending into linguistic battles that lead nowhere.

4: Moral value is added by the emotional spectacles through which we observe the world the belief that " right " and " wrong" are objective properties that are " there anyway " is nonsense .

1 - 2 

I actually think dialogue about these topics and others can lead to being informative in a meaningful way , take your example below.....

Kind of like those people who go to art galleries and pretend to generate incredible insights about the paintings while having no idea about art (not saying that everyone who goes there does that, but some people - including myself - certainly do)..........

As a full time  Artist I've watched over the years various " experts" on Arts talk the most interminable opinionated nonsense regards Art , whole University course are offered worldwide now teaching others how to use Art speak.

A person walking into a high end gallery mostly will feel satisfied that the piece he or she is buying is being described in arcane postmodernist language as the price will always reflect such , the high end Art market is incredibly lucrative and academics and experts of all sorts will play this ridiculous game of pretending to know the artists inner motivations for creating the work.

The motivation is nearly always money but its incredibly rude to admit this in polite society. So yes talking of these things can aid people in navigating their way through b-ll sh-t.

An artist over here was given a grant of 80,000 euros to nuture his artistic talents he rewarded the committee by assembling debris that was washed up on the local beach and titled it ....".lost and found" those who truly understood Art ranted and raved at its " brilliance " ....utter lunacy , intelligent people are meant to say nothing while the st-pid " educate " us.

Barnardot

@MayCaesar The thing is that if any one is going to ask strange senseless questions then they are either totally dum or have to much time to think and are on welfare or there religious. So if you find these nits asking such ridiculous questions like the meaning of life or what is math then the best thing to do is ignore them. Because you know that the discussion is going to go no where any way because there brains are so scattered that they start questioning weather or not to wipe from front to back or from back to front.
So the best thing to do is say. Hay look up there then disappear.

Barnardot

@jack ;Of course, should somebody engage me, we're off to the races

Thats all ways an option for lots of people sadly because they have a desire to all ways vent there steam. Its just like Bogan. You just need to mention the word race or black or white and he will take you down town over it. 

MayCaesar

@Joeseph

Your first few lines made me think about a larger implications... Perhaps humans, especially more intellectually-minded ones, have the propensity to complicate things needlessly? As we are driven to deep and profound ideas, maybe we often take simple and silly ideas, but then put layers of needless complications around them and make them look deep.

As you said, when talking about "god", most people avoid clearly defining the term. It could just be because the idea of "god" is so utterly ridiculous and indefensible, that even roughly defining it would instantly make one's position invalidated. So they run around in circles, playing with terminology, saying cryptic things like "It probably happened, but I don't know what it means" (literal Peterson's quote), often outright lying and misrepresenting their opponents' arguments (as if a bad argument against "god"'s existence is a good argument in favor of its existence). It is all smoke and mirrors, allowing one to argue something they know has no basis in reality, yet shielding the argument from reality-based attacks.

Feynman talked about it a lot as well. As a popularizer of science, he loved easy and eloquent explanations and had no patience for obscure language. I remember him taking a passage from some book of philosophy consisting of a couple of dozen of cool-sounding terms, and pointing out that all that it really means is, "Man thinks".

Another quote that belongs to I do not know who is: "A good teacher makes hard concepts easy to understand. A bad teacher makes easy concepts hard to understand". Similarly, a good philosopher takes a complicated question and makes it digestible by the last fool, while a bad philosopher takes an elementary question and writes a thick essay full of pretentious terms on it.

I may be guilty of it myself. Too many university essays in which I did not have much to say, but was required to fill X pages with something...

Thanks for the insight regarding galleries! I guess arts are even more susceptible to pretentious pseudo-intellectual arguments than philosophy, given how subjective it intrinsically is. Indeed, someone can pick up a few rocks and put them together, and claim to have expressed something incredibly deep - and how can anyone prove that this is not the case? In the modern culture where people's feelings are often put on a pedestal, calling out pretentious "art" is frowned upon, and the idea that one has to prove that their art stands for something does not resonate with people.

My rule of thumb (as something knowing very little about arts) is that a good piece of art must take quite a bit of effort to produce. It does not mean that the more time it takes, the higher quality it is - it is more of a necessary condition. If I know that someone just threw a few objects in a pile, then I do not really care what they wanted to say by it: it is lousy art at best.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

Your first few lines made me think about a larger implications... Perhaps humans, especially more intellectually-minded ones, have the propensity to complicate things needlessly? As we are driven to deep and profound ideas, maybe we often take simple and silly ideas, but then put layers of needless complications around them and make them look deep.

I
Einstein said there was majesty in simplicity and that the supreme excellence is simplicity. Maybe the very intellectually minded get an ego boost knowing they understand some things better than most and complicating things may keep it this way? It must be flattering to have others constantly seeking your opinion as an ""expert" in the field.

I totally agree some of the best music, writing , music , cooking , philosophy , math at their core have this supreme excellency as in simplicity.

As you said, when talking about "god", most people avoid clearly defining the term. It could just be because the idea of "god" is so utterly ridiculous and indefensible, that even roughly defining it would instantly make one's position invalidated. So they run around in circles, playing with terminology, saying cryptic things like "It probably happened, but I don't know what it means" (literal Peterson's quote), often outright lying and misrepresenting their opponents' arguments (as if a bad argument against "god"'s existence is a good argument in favor of its existence). It is all smoke and mirrors, allowing one to argue something they know has no basis in reality, yet shielding the argument from reality-based attacks.

Reading this I remember David Hume said " There can be no "demonstrative science" and no way that gods existence can be definitely proved. Furthermore if statements seem to be neither relations of ideas  ( like theology ) nor matters of fact they are probably nonsense masquerading as sense.

Couldn't agree more , I love Humes use of the term " masquerading" .

Feynman talked about it a lot as well. As a popularizer of science, he loved easy and eloquent explanations and had no patience for obscure language. I remember him taking a passage from some book of philosophy consisting of a couple of dozen of cool-sounding terms, and pointing out that all that it really means is, "Man thinks".

Another quote that belongs to I do not know who is: "A good teacher makes hard concepts easy to understand. A bad teacher makes easy concepts hard to understand". Similarly, a good philosopher takes a complicated question and makes it digestible by the last fool, while a bad philosopher takes an elementary question and writes a thick essay full of pretentious terms on it.

I remember well reading his bio a really fun guy by the sounds of it , didn't he also play the bongos?  He was wonderful and very playful and an  entirely comprehensible man. Another of that ilk was the brilliant Martin Gardener and like me a life long student of magic , he added so much to the wonderfully interesting field of Mathmagic and only yesterday I was browsing through a brilliant piece of Mathmagic from his book Mathmatics , magic and mystery a fabulous book wildly entertaining.

I may be guilty of it myself. Too many university essays in which I did not have much to say, but was required to fill X pages with something.

Your honesty does you credit.

Thanks for the insight regarding galleries! I guess arts are even more susceptible to pretentious pseudo-intellectual arguments than philosophy, given how subjective it intrinsically is. Indeed, someone can pick up a few rocks and put them together, and claim to have expressed something incredibly deep - and how can anyone prove that this is not the case? In the modern culture where people's feelings are often put on a pedestal, calling out pretentious "art" is frowned upon, and the idea that one has to prove that their art stands for something does not resonate with people.

My rule of thumb (as something knowing very little about arts) is that a good piece of art must take quite a bit of effort to produce. It does not mean that the more time it takes, the higher quality it is - it is more of a necessary condition. If I know that someone just threw a few objects in a pile, then I do not really care what they wanted to say by it: it is lousy art at best.

You're welcome. Most galleries take a whopping 50 % commission , a gallery in New York offered to take work off me several years ago and wanted 60 % , I politely declined.

Yes I like  your statement about good art that effort is required and that means for me simplifying a subject which takes planning and effort,  I paint mainly in Watercolour mostly  beach scenes , rainy day scenes that are about fleeting happy moments in time,  couples walking under umbrellas during rain showers families on sunny beaches enjoying those long idyllic summer days we all like , I got a name for only painting happy scenes as I think that's what most people like to see on a wall.

I paint huge oil paintings of beaches which are great fun to cut loose on.

For me if you claim to be a scientist I would presume one would know his way around a lab and be conversant in "the tools of the trade" , in the Arts now you have people who cannot use a brush , hammer and chisel or pencil yet create " art" , its a bit like a person saying they're a plumber but cannot install a radiator , boiler or pump but instead will talk about it

I gave up the gallery scene when I got tax exemption which certain Artists recieve over here ( a panel from the government decides if your work is worthy of  tax exemption ) .

You've hit it on the head that word " subjective" nails it , it's like wine experts infuriating individuals who try and ( mostly) humiliate mostly males by pointing out recommended wines that will compliment your meal , most people myself included  no nothing about wines and can only learn by tasting . Its ridiculous a complete stranger deeming to know your possible tastes having never met you before.

My wife and I normally order  a bottle mostly red and I never taste before hand I smell instead it's actually ( to me ) a better guide , it also passes of smug wine waiters.

Most "Art experts"  don't paint , draw or sculpt yet inform others on what good taste in Art is and should be and a lot of people let them.

Imagine that an " Art expert" is basically telling a customer that they are to st-pid to have an intelligent opinion on a piece of Art so they best explain to them.

I did a big Art show in Dublin a few years back and a Spanish TV station asked could they interview me , I agreed on the condition I could have my own opinion so the interviewer said fine .......First question was " what's the main reason you paint " I said " money" the interviewer and camera crew burst out laughing as they anticipated some flowery answer littered with the usual  " organic" , " juxtaposition"  , " symbiotics" etc ,etc 

It seems to be in a lot of cases  the Emperors new clothes.

MayCaesar

@Joeseph

You know, in addition to the ego-chasing, I think there is something else here at play. There is also the need to justify to ourselves that we know more than we actually do. I know that I am always strongly tempted to put a lot of information into my slides, far more than is needed to convey the point. For example, if I want to explain how the layered clouds on Venus "work", I will really want to put 3-4 different graphs on the slide and include a lot of cool-sounding terms such as "geomorphology". What goes on in my mind is something like this: "If I only put on important graph and a couple of words on this slide, it will look very unprofessional, like I have nothing more to say on the subject". My regular interview practice for consulting positions nowadays does a lot to alleviate that, for in consulting being concise and to the point is the rule of the game. The client wants to know what they need to do and why they need to do it, and they want to hear a few sentences exhausting these two questions. "Sell all of your trucks and outsource delivery to UPS. You will get $10m. Now put $3m towards UPS fees which will last you 5 years, and invest the rest $7m into building the server to run machine learning we discussed on. Enjoy extra $1.5m/y in profits!" Rather than preparing a 1 hour lecture on the irrelevant details of the AI revolution.

It would be nice if people applied this standard to everyone. While there is a room for long and deep discussions, many of the points can be made in seconds.

It is worth noting that theists try to walk on two sides of the ravine at the same time. On one hand, they claim that god's existence is somehow very obvious, that anyone thinking impartially will be able to figure it out. On the other, whenever someone asks for concrete evidence, they start talking weird shamanic stuff about "opening your heart" and "praying". It is like god's existence is both so obvious it barely needs to be mentioned, and so obscured that it is impossible to arrive at it by means of reason.

What I think people like Jordan do is try to make arguments in the middle, which is why they have to employ such esoteric language. How do you make a point in between two mutually exclusive points? You employ smoke and mirrors, use the language so convoluted that you yourself get stuck in the middle of your sentence, confused about what you are trying to say. But then make a dramatic pause, so everyone in the audience thinks that you are in the middle of an epiphany of cosmic proportions.

Feynman is, probably, the only role model in science I have ever had. The guy managed to insult and annoy everyone, yet do it in a way that made everyone love him. He would break all norms, defy all expectations of what a "serious scientist" should do or look like - all the while doing incredibly innovative science.

And amidst all this he loved to humbly say that he "did not know much about the world". Without any sarcastic continuations such as "but I still know more than the most". He would not really compare himself to others: he would just try to understand the world better each and every day, while enjoying himself.

I like your attitude towards art and other things. Life would be a lot easier if everyone honestly stated their motivations, instead of making stuff up. When it comes to the wine experts you mentioned, for instance, I have never heard one give a good explanation of why wine X costs more than wine Y. They would mention all sorts of nuances of the taste of wine X; then I would ask them, "Do you honestly think that most people care about these nuances?", and they would try to avoid the question somehow. I was once offered a glass of, I think, $1,000 wine that the people I was staying with got for free at a business event - and said, "Hmm, I do not feel much difference between this wine and the Barefoot wine that costs $7 at Walmart". It made them quite upset, "Don't you feel the incredible plum-like aftertaste?" I said, "No, and if I wanted a plum-like aftertaste anyway, I would just eat a plum".

The experts who only talk about art but do not do it remind me of the "Larry Merchant phenomenon" in boxing. Larry Merchant was that boxing commentator who himself had never put gloves on, yet he developed this sophisticated-sounding commentary style that many people fell in love with. Once he got to comment on a boxing match alongside Evander Holyfield, a legend of boxing who dethroned Mike Tyson in the mid-90-s. At some point Evander said, "Look, Larry, everything you just said is complete nonsense. This isn't how boxing works, and you would know it if you actually boxed and tried your suggestions in the real world". I did some boxing in my teens, and this is absolutely on point. There is a WORLD of difference between what people watching boxing on TV imagine boxing is like, and what it actually is like. 99% of boxing is long and painful grind, and Larry Merchants making it sound like some incredibly sophisticated tactics are making stuff up.

Last point I will make in light of what you said is the value of being a contrarian, on defying people's expectations when it comes to these things. When things are simple, yet people want to make them sound profound, just state that they are simple - and enjoy the reactions. Richard Dawkins has this great ability to dismiss religious nonsense with short sentences. "You know that this all is , right?" When someone keeps going on and on about celestial wisdom and metaphorical truth and blablabla, he will say, "But you haven't said anything of substance. It is all gobbledygook." There is a joke about Hollywood villains making big speeches: that the best way to ruin a villain's speech is to laugh at it. Nothing maddens these pseudo-intellectuals as much as demonstrating that you do not even feel the need to seriously reply to their arguments. Let them rant on for 10-15 minutes, then just say, "So, all this said and done, what's your point?"

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

I enjoyed reading your views and am on the same page , I love your closing line " so all this said and done what's your point ?" I've a friend who uses this phrasing a lot , it infuriates those who hold forth on topics they claim to be authorities in.

My friend and I meet every two weeks in a bar more or next next door to the famous  Trinity college ,Dublin , its a haunt for journalists , academics,  artists etc , last year while sitting at the bar a man said to me " you're an artist  so you must be a good drawer " I said  " your use of the term " drawer " seems odd to me anyway as it seems antiquated " a nearby academic who lectures in languages at Trinity said " the man's usage is correct" my reply , " nonsense" , the academic then delivered a 10 minute lecture on the English language much to the amusement of me and my friend and others at the bar , my friend said " you've said nothing to correct him if he's wrong so what's your point?" 

He went into a rage and said " who would decide the matter for you then? " I said without a pause Doctor of linguistics Oxford University , my friend immediately went online to see if there was any contact info, there was an email address so he sent an email and the whole bar laughed and said we wouldn't hear anymore , remarkably we got a reply 10 minutes later which was amusing,  informative and warm.

The Doctor said it amused him greatly that people in  Irish bars had arguments such as this and in  his opinion he said " the usage of the term " drawer" to him was moribund if not defunct as in " hewer of wood" etc so he would in fairness side with me " he then said " but who am I to say what correct usage is don't you guys get tax breaks for artistic use of language " .......I offered to meet him when he's next here for a drink or 3.

The difference between these 2 academics was striking , one wanted to showboat the other just enjoyed the whole Monty Python type surrealism of the situation, and I know which one I preffered.

I read this short book years ago and it's an excellent summation of what you and I are saying in our own way, I like what he says about the its very astute....

On  is a 2005 book (originally a 1986 essay) by American philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt which presents a theory of  that defines the concept and analyzes the applications of in the context of communication. Frankfurt determines that is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or false.[1] Frankfurt's philosophical analysis of has been analyzed, criticized and adopted by academics since its publication.[2]

MayCaesar

@Joeseph

The case you described is amusing indeed! Many academics have this exceeding seriousness, overblown respect for their discipline merged with overinflated ego. Whenever they get a chance to demonstrate their supposed brilliance, they make long-winded speeches trying to impress everyone - even if 99% of what they say has no relevance to the conversation.

My best friend is a biologist, and she often will explain in detail natural phenomena without a prompt. I will say, "Look at the leaves on that tree! The shape is interesting!", and she will start explaining why they might be that shape. But I always welcome it: she will not do it in a self-important and condescending way, but, instead, will try to get me to understand it and use simple language and apt analogies. She knows how interested I am in learning about the world, and she will not do this to every other person.

In contrast, I have met people who would be set off by the smallest inaccuracy and go on a long rant about how something actually works. Or just hear a reference to something they know and proceed to explaining it, taking up everyone's time and providing little value. There was one mathematician who would almost murder you if you confused general topology with algebraic topology... And "sorry" would not calm him down at all.

Much like the more reasonable academic in your story, I do not mind people messing around and "butchering" something I am interested in. I think that the world is a giant circus and we are all performers in that circle, so let's have some fun and not hold sticks up our asses. One common jab we statisticians get from other mathematicians is, "Statistics is not real mathematics". I have always rolled with it, using self-deprecating remarks such as, "Statistically speaking, you might be right". Someone does not take my area of expertise seriously... great! Me neither.

I do still get a little upset though when people who do not know much about subjects that I have invested a lot of time into try to lecture me on them. That is something I need to overcome, and I am working on it. I do not like the idea of considering myself an expert of something and then referring to my own authority: there is always a lot to learn, and I always want to consider myself a novice at everything. Yet no one is perfect.

I have heard that book referenced on numerous occasions by Peter Boghossian, incidentally whose "How to Have Impossible Conversations" book I am reading right now (and it is quite a life-changing read). 'er typically will want to deliver a particular point, but make arguments and data up on the fly to support it. It is much easier to make a claim, than to prove it wrong, and master 'ers can clutter the conversation with false claims based on imaginary data they just made up and deceive a lot of people. I have only found two effective ways to combat this:

1. Mock them by using their own tactics in the exaggerated way. Say, someone like Alex Jones says, "Have you heard of Project 241? No? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about". You can say then, "I have not heard of that project... But have you heard of Operation Green Chameleon from 1973? No?!!! I thought everyone had!"
2. Laser-focus on one claim and refuse to move further before establishing the validity of this claim. In the above example, have Alex explain Project 241 in detail, including making very specific claims about it. Then go to the Internet and search for these claims. Establish that they either do not appear there at all, or have no reliable sources backing them up. Once it turns out that the very first claim you focused on is , the audience will be more inclined to think that everything this guy says is .
   

Barnardot

@MayCaesar Here is the ultimate strange senseless question of all time. Are you ready for it:

What is the meaning of life.

Oh yeah. Isnt that the ultimate?

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

One common jab we statisticians get from other mathematicians is, "Statistics is not real mathematics". I have always rolled with it, using self-deprecating remarks such as, "Statistically speaking, you might be right". Someone does not take my area of expertise seriously... great! Me neither.

That's funny , I wonder what " real mathematics" is to them? Learning should be fun it makes things so much easier , I met a physicist while on holiday years ago and spent time with him talking about his discipline which he approached with an almost childlike sense of wonder , he was a wonderfully engaging man and great company.

I used to amuse him with various mathematically based tricks which he marvelled at as he admitted they totally flummoxed him as the mathematical principles were so well hidden yet he was no slouch mathematically,  the difference in his personality was he didn't see me fooling him  with tricks as a challenge because they were offered as entertainment and he knew the difference.

I do still get a little upset though when people who do not know much about subjects that I have invested a lot of time into try to lecture me on them. That is something I need to overcome, and I am working on it. I do not like the idea of considering myself an expert of something and then referring to my own authority: there is always a lot to learn, and I always want to consider myself a novice at everything. Yet no one is perfect.

You're not different in that case because at times one would want the patience of a Saint regarding people who hold forth on topics they know little about.

I have heard that book referenced on numerous occasions by Peter Boghossian, incidentally whose "How to Have Impossible Conversations" book I am reading right now (and it is quite a life-changing read). 'er typically will want to deliver a particular point, but make arguments and data up on the fly to support it. It is much easier to make a claim, than to prove it wrong, and master 'ers can clutter the conversation with false claims based on imaginary data they just made up and deceive a lot of people. I have only found two effective ways to combat this:

1. Mock them by using their own tactics in the exaggerated way. Say, someone like Alex Jones says, "Have you heard of Project 241? No? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about". You can say then, "I have not heard of that project... But have you heard of Operation Green Chameleon from 1973? No?!!! I thought everyone had!"
2. Laser-focus on one claim and refuse to move further before establishing the validity of this claim. In the above example, have Alex explain Project 241 in detail, including making very specific claims about it. Then go to the Internet and search for these claims. Establish that they either do not appear there at all, or have no reliable sources backing them up. Once it turns out that the very first claim you focused on is , the audience will be more inclined to think that everything this guy says is .

The book I mentioned is well worth a read its right in line with what we are discussing now. Your book recommendation sounds very interesting indeed , I will put it on my list.

Your two effective ways are excellent pointers and I could see them being most useful in a lot of cases.

I think there  are certain people that just cannot be reasoned with or who refuse to engage fairly , I mentioned this fact to Factfinder earlier regards just saying and his resurrection claims , instead of providing decent evidence for his claims he keeps mentioning Evolution which I keep telling him even if proved false doesn't prove a god, he also says Atheists keep saying life comes from non life , I've also never claimed this.

How do you have a conversation with someone like that? I mentioned to Factfinder that i noticed he also kept misrepresenting your postion also , do you just not bother engaging anymore with him?

RexTheDog01

@MayCaesar. i agree with the sophistry element, these are deceptive questions however I still believe the questions are valid in that they have been asked and remain unanswered. The fundamental function of a question is to provide a feedback that generates understanding. In this reality we have people who are smarter than others this requires us who are not as smart to ask questions the asking of these questions helps both the asker and the asked better understand the reality that suddenly surrounds us, In that in-order to explain their knowledge they need to break it down to such a level a layman can understand, if this were not so the Genius would not be able to explain why they are a Genius unique among the standard of everybody else.

The genius benefits from this experience because those questioning the genius poke and prod at it, picking holes in and trying to dismantle it in exchange for the rise of a new genius with a new idea, the threat provoking the genius to better understand to beat out the competition in genius but the competition benefits from questioning the previous genius for a better understanding requiring the genius to explain for fear of not being able to explain why their understanding is the best understanding. In both cases the Genius and the Layman learn by asking, when they run out of sensible questions they run in to the insensible, the frontier of sense and knowledge where the path disappears in to infinity. When will questions run out? When will all questions have been asked and answered? What then? Fundamental questions ask for an understanding of the fundamental parts of our reality the who, what, where, why and when, answering all of these questions is the task in front of us, we have to march through the non-sense to make it to the end of questions the reason they are asked in the first place is to better understand this aligns with life’s fundamental desire to learn new things this is inherent of all creatures and beings conscious enough to ask a question as questioning of reality is required to make a survivability decisions, all living beings decide to survive, their understanding of the reality around them helps them survive, the keep asking questions and getting answers, yes or no normally but sometimes just a maybe, and a maybe generates the most senseless questions of all.