It seems like we're living in an epidemic of false belief. Clearly the other side just doesn’t have all the facts, right? Or are they really that ? In this fascinating and hilarious talk, cognitive scientist Philip Fernbach peels back the layers of what we really know and reveals some surprising truths about us...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jobYTQTgeUEPlease do take the time to watch (15min) if you want to discuss this.
" Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
  Considerate: 59%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
I like you am not optimistic regarding this changing in the future a certain proportion of people will always believe as it’s an industry with billions at stake , over here at the moment the big movement seems to be “empowerment courses “ which include such tripe as Tibetan bell ringing , chakra cleansing and “re-energizing programs” this does not show any sign of waning in the future if anything it’s getting stronger
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: interesting video    proportion of people   big movement   known celebrity  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
I read once about a tribe in Papua New Guinea which did not rely on binary logic. That is, they did not have the separation of statements into "true" and "false"; instead they saw it as some form of a multidimensional continuum. That is a statement could be strongly "true" and strongly "false" at the same time, but also multiple other things that do not have any representation in our binary logic.
It is possible that there are intelligent civilisations out there that would not resonate with our binary logic and think it nonsensical and overly simplistic. Similarly, we would think their logic overly complicated and vague. In this context, "truth" may not even exist as such and rely intrinsically on the logical language used to describe statements.
Most people never think about these things, and even the most intelligent of us tend to take a lot of things in logic for granted. Yet almost everything in our lives that seems trivial actually is everything but.
Why do people often believe in things that seemingly contradict all evidence? It is easy to answer this with, "They are just lazy", or "They are intellectually dishonest", or even "They are blind". But I think that the better answer is that we all live in our own small worlds, having only partial intersection with others' worlds, and what seems true to some of us, just as much seems false to others, and seems neither to others still.
Does someone buying snake oil make a mistake? You could say so, yet they use it and suddenly become healed. You could say, "Well, it is just a placebo effect". Indeed, it is. But does the placebo effect existing and having actual physical consequences not suggest that, perhaps, snake oil does have some intrinsic healing properties? After all, inducing placebo effect is not automatic, and the same person buying, say, ox oil probably would not be affected by this effect and not be healed.
I invite everyone to read the fascinating philosophical book by Paul Feyerabend called "Against Method", discussing these things. Whether you agree with the author or not, it is a very intellectually provoking read, bound to cause you to look at many things from a new perspective.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
We all know what we mean when we say something is True or False... We're not talking about mathematics, non-binary logic, possible alien concepts and such here...We're also not talking about perceptions of truth, like this cartoon where someone is looking at a 9 on the ground and another on the opposite side looking at the same says he sees a 6, that is not what we're talking about...
Everything either has an absolute truth value (even if we can’t know it) or is just an opinion or belief.
This doesn’t mean we can know every truth, this doesn’t mean that what is true for the observer isn’t unique to the observer. It just means that ultimately, underlying that, “that which is the case, is the case, independent of our ability to confirm it” and “statements phrased correctly have an absolute truth value.”
To get this argument you need to understand our terms, so let’s define them:
- Objectivity: That which is confirmable as true. The state or quality of being true even outside of a subject’s individual biases, perspectives, interpretations, feelings, imaginings, and/or opinions. True for everyone (or confirmable as true, despite the subjectivity, opinion, and belief of some); truth based on empirical evidence or formal logic. Ex. “Water is wet” or “1+1=2.” This type of truth is necessarily and certainly true. It has an absolute truth value independent of subjectivity.
- Subjectivity: That which we perceive. Knowledge based on individual biases, perspective, interpretations, feelings, imaginings, and/or opinions. True for a specific individual; truth based on perspective. Ex. “The water feels cold to me.” This is a type of truth that is subjective, but has an aboslute truth value to the observer that relates back to their perception of absolute truth.
- Truth: Something that is the case, without a doubt. Can be either objectively true for everyone, or subjectively true for us, depending on context. When no context is given, it means that which is “objectively true.”
Objectivity is a subject of philosophy and thus there is room to debate its meaning in different context. But in a general sense, a proposition (a statement) is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc. While some might claim only empirical truth is objective, generally speaking we can say any claim, be it purely rational, empirical, or a mix of both ultimately has an absolute truth value. “Water is wet” (empirical), 1+1=2 (rational), “gravity is affecting the man in the chair” (mix).Context matters. If I say “1+1=2” you could pick that apart by being clever (just like you could pick apart any claim), and come up with instances where “1+1 does not equal 2 under specific conditions.” For this reason it helps to speak in descriptive terms to better state the claim we are making. For example, when we say “1+1=2” we mean “in terms of standard mathematics, 1+1=2; meaning if I have one unit and then consider another together I’m considering two units total.” It isn’t necessary to say that every time, but it is a good fall back if needed in debate. That said, phrasing what we mean and dealing with semantics is a slightly different subject than the subject of objective vs. subjective truth. With that said, we could condense this idea to the following phrase all, “statements phrased correctly have an absolute truth value.”
This is to say, truth exists as an absolute, it is only our ability to prove it with certainty that is tricky. Meanwhile, those who deny objective truths (while free to do so), are often demonstrably wrong (if not with certainty, then with such a high degree on probability that the “subjectivity” argument becomes rather fringe and absurd).
In other words, catchy phrases like “all truth is subjective” or “there is no objective truth” are just that, catchy phrases with no meaning. They are… objectively false. Knowing something is objectively false is itself, an objective truth.
The very idea that all truth is subjective is absurd... If we both look at a red ball, and you think it is red, and I think it is blue, then subjectively for me it is blue, and subjectively for you it is red, but objectively… it is red. There is no grey area here. The metaphysical concept that all truth is subjective is fun to muse on, with it we can be skeptics and question what we know. With that said, we build bridges and machines all the time. If there was no objective truth, our technologies wouldn’t work. Figuring out what is true isn’t always easy, but that is what it is, truth often exists without our ability to determine it with certainty (but that is a complexity, not a rebuttal to this longstanding debate).
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Excellent piece and I agree totally . I don’t know if you know Feyerabend is another in a long list of charlatans , so much so Rational Wiki take a special interest in him......This site seems to abound with those who are fans of pseudoscience and woo including now @MayCaesar
Feyerabend was most known for advancing the concept of "epistemological anarchism," which is basically fancy-talk for "anything goes," as he put it.[3] In Feyerabend's conception, the demarcation problem cannot be solved through a reading of the history of science because scientists have at various times employed non-scientific techniques in their methodology. Therefore, there can be no separation between science and pseudoscience and no prescriptive boundaries set on what scientific methodology ought to be. This position is most famously explicated in his 1975 book Against Method.[4] The accuracy of his reading of historical case studies such as the Galileo affair have been disputed, though.[5]
Democratization of science
Feyerabend argued for a democratization of science, allowing for pseudosciences such as astrology or creationism to lay claim to truth. Needless to say, Feyerabend is the favorite philosopher of more high-level pseudoscientists and woo-meisters, especially due to his use of alternative medicine.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.02  
  Sources: 13  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
Didn't know about him, after a quick search and a few reading, I will not delve deeper into his musings...
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 24%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: quick search    musings   reading   nbsp  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
A very wise decision as it’s wasted time you would never get back
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.32  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: wise decision    nbsp   time    
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Dam! can you believe I only was able to watch 00:14:59?
Sorry, I feel as though I let you down.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: Dam    nbsp      
  Relevant (Beta): 69%  
  Learn More About Debra
This was not my point at all. I was not talking about subjectivity of truth, I was talking about the fundamental structure of our logic that makes all logic intrinsically conditional. We cannot say whether a given statement is true or not without including certain assumptions, hence all logical judgements we make come down to "if A is true, then B is true". We cannot just say "B is true period", without including any conditions, not only because we are naturally limited to interacting with the world through our senses, which lead to inherently subjective judgement, but also because of the structure of the world itself, that has no logical basis to build everything else from.
There are some statements on which almost everyone agrees. You can say that a given ball is red, and I will agree with that. Does it mean that the ball being red is "truth"? Again, what does "truth" even mean? How do you rigorously prove that something is true beyond any doubt?
I simply invite people to look at the terminology in more detail and understand where and why it comes from. Everything in our language is what it is for a reason, and that reason is not necessarily what you would naturally guess from your everyday experiences. There is absolutely nothing indicating that some sort of an absolute truth is out there, and it may very well be the creation of our minds. The goal of science, in any case, is not to uncover the absolute truth, but to develop models consistent with the observations. One does not warrant the other, and can even contradict it in principle.
@CYDdharta
This is a good example of this phenomenon, but, rather than the logic being fuzzy, it can also be multidimensional, which leads to some interesting counter-intuitive results. Digestible interpretation of this type of logic is very difficult, and I am not aware of any practical implications of it - however, I would not be surprised if there existed a very different civilisation out there, in which "fuzzy multidimensional logic" is the basis of all scientific discourse, and their digital technology probably has very little in common with ours.
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 85%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
You don’t have to prove everything you believe beyond any doubt that would leave you in a position of believing that Evolution may actually be false , or that the Earth may be flat , or indeed believing that all sorts of nonsense may indeed hold some truth.
We all believe that there are truths and do not have to rely on absolute truths thankfully as that would leave one embracing absurdities
  Considerate: 68%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.78  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 61%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.08  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.36  
  Sources: 0  
  Entity Sentiment Detection: biggest reason    people   things   money  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra