Destroying Skepticism

[snapshot]

Copy of FDR_1088_Sunday_Call _In_Show_June_15_200 8.mp3

My threads never get a lot of posts, but I'm doing this anyway.

I just had a conversation with JcP about skepticism. I proved him wrong, in his opinion, though, he was right.

Listen to this philosophy internet phone call mainly to detonate the arguments of others. I don't expect skeptics to learn anything, but this will help people who are unsure about skepticism to realize that it's philosophically untenable.

If you're a skeptic, you can discuss or debate here as well.

[verklingen]

you're absolutely right man. no one can be skeptical of logic, objectivity, or science because they are the framework upon which all possible shared experiences are hung. logic is the scaffolding we build to reach shared experience, and science is the tool we use once we get there to better our understanding of it.

no i'm not being sarcastic, i just had a change of heart.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

you're absolutely right man. no one can be skeptical of logic, objectivity, or science because they are the framework upon which all possible shared experiences are hung. logic is the scaffolding we build to reach shared experience, and science is the tool we use once we get there to better our understanding of it.

no i'm not being sarcastic, i just had a change of heart.

Forgive me for being skeptical.

[snapshot]

No, really? Like, seriously?

[verklingen]

yeah man, no kidding. out of curiosity, does my estimation of logic, science, and their purpose seem fair to you? shared experiences being experiences which are not determined by opinion such as the act of listening to a band vs. having an enjoyable experience listening to that band.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

yeah man, no kidding. out of curiosity, does my estimation of logic, science, and their purpose seem fair to you? shared experiences being experiences which are not determined by opinion such as the act of listening to a band vs. having an enjoyable experience listening to that band.

The only way I would nudge your estimation would be to make this point you made more clear:

no one can be skeptical of logic, objectivity, or science because they are the framework upon which all possible shared experiences are hung.

I would say you can't be skeptical of these things because you have to accept these things (ie. prove that it's true that skepticism is a valid theory) in order to argue against it.

So, essentially, yes, not only is it the basis for for the objectivists' (the person that believes in objectivity, not an Ayn Rand follower) framework for reality, it is also the basis of the skeptics framework for reality by which he can argue for his skepticism.

But I think you are dead on in your assertion that objectivity and subjectivity are the differences between verifiable facts and opinions, respectively. If you can't say whether something is true or not, then it's just your opinion, because you need a methodology by which to say whether or not something is true.

Discovering truth without a methodology--which is opinion based--can be contradictory; if my opinion about the nature of reality differs from yours, to say that both of our opinions about the nature of reality are true would completely deflate the use and meaning of the word "truth."

I don't want to lecture; I think it's completely one-sided. I'd like to know if you have any suggestions for making this discussion more rewarding to you.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

I would say you can't be skeptical of these things because you have to accept these things (prove that it's true that you can be skeptical) in order to argue against it.

yes, exactly right man! i was going to edit my reply to read "all possible necessarily shared experiences," but i saw an invisible member in here and i assumed it was you making a reply. would you agree more with that terminology?

you've provided a great deal of clarity for me, and not only here. i think i'm satisfied for now, but i wanted to thank you for that. seems like this might be another one of your short threads if i'm the only one who decides to chime in.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

yes, exactly right man! i was going to edit my reply to read "all possible necessarily shared experiences," but i saw an invisible member in here and i assumed it was you making a reply. would you agree more with that terminology?

Interesting. My brain is doing backflips trying to think about the implications of inserting the word "necessarily" in there, but the backflips feel good. What do you think the implications of that word (or the entire statement) is? I'm having trouble understanding it without feeling like I'd just be repeating myself from before (ie. putting my own spin on it to understand it how I do, which I've already fleshed out). I'll try to step out of my box and say, they are necessarily shared because, if they weren't, you'd have to accept that you're just talking to yourself.

you've provided a great deal of clarity for me, and not only here. i think i'm satisfied for now, but i wanted to thank you for that. seems like this might be another one of your short threads if i'm the only one who decides to chime in.

This is sincerely the most gratifying feeling I get from doing philosophy. It seems selfish, but in another sense, it's like we are both one step closer to each other so long as we are both one step closer to truth, together.

[verklingen]

well like you put it, "you have to accept these things." that's what, in my estimation, makes our objective experiential reality necessarily shared. . . or at least proves that our discussions about it must be necessarily shared. like in the debunking christianity thread where jcp presented an example of the sky not being blue for a fly or a blind man. that appears to have a ring of truth on the surface, but they are not sharing in the reality being discussed: a reality wherein beings can perceive light within a certain spectrum, the varying frequencies of this spectrum being represented by various colors.

i'm doing backflips too man, trust me.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by verklingen

like in the debunking christianity thread where jcp presented an example of the sky not being blue for a fly or a blind man. that appears to have a ring of truth on the surface, but they are not sharing in the reality being discussed: a reality wherein beings can perceive light within a certain spectrum, the varying frequencies of this spectrum being represented by various colors.

i'm doing backflips too man, trust me.

Only replying because you brought me up by name, Verk.

First of all, why are you determining what reality is being discussed? How do you define this reality? If you are defining it by logic et al of snapshot, that's fine (as I've said a few times now). But does this definition make your definition true, or merely true based on what you choose to define it by?

Is there more than one reality?

If so, is your newly-found 'objective truth' in one reality objectively true in another? If you reside in reality A... and I reside in reality B... does your belief in objective truth hold any water to my reality?

If not, if there is only one reality, then that fly and that blind man share your reality. In which case, your "shared experience" is not that the sky is blue, but that the sky is blue, ultraviolet, and infinite other things, including non-existant.


I think it's great that you changed your mind. Subjectivity is cool like that. It allows you to use your perception and beliefs to define what is or is not true for you.

or, to quote your "most interesting" thing about existence:

Originally Posted by verklingen

the fact that i can change my experience of something by managing my beliefs about it..

[verklingen]

i didn't change my mind man, i just incorporated a perspective i formerly denied and separated myself from.

actual reply forthcoming, i'm leaving work atm.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by verklingen

i didn't change my mind man, i just incorporated a perspective i formerly denied and separated myself from.

or disincorporated a perspective you formerly accepted and held yourself to.

At least you're still able to admit it's a perspective

have fun at work.

[The Rev]

There are alot of really great ways to prove yourself right, but at the end of the day, none of them will make you any friends. Arguing points is an exercise in ego defense, a way to maintain the legitimacy of that idea you take for your self.



The Rev

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by JcP

Only replying because you brought me up by name, Verk.

First of all, why are you determining what reality is being discussed? How do you define this reality? If you are defining it by logic et al of snapshot, that's fine (as I've said a few times now). But does this definition make your definition true, or merely true based on what you choose to define it by?

what reality is being discussed is determined by the subject matter of the discussion. i don't so much decide that as i decide to engage the discussion. any reality can be discussed, including a subjective reality. but that reality has the special distinction of being particular to the consciousness which posits it (and also any who choose to share it with them), so there is an inherent qualitative difference between the shared and unshared realities.

Originally Posted by JcP

Is there more than one reality?

there are various realities among humans. a reality is really only an agreed-upon perception. there are realities which do not require discrimination (the sky being blue; it is apparent enough to those who are able to see) and also realities which do (jesus christ being one's lord and savior; it is apparent enough to those who are able to see [or, conversely, atheism; it is apparent enough for those who are able to see]). really i'm still with you man, i don't deny the importance of opinion and belief. but i also see what snapshot is saying about the importance of our shared realities and how we negotiate them.

Originally Posted by JcP

If so, is your newly-found 'objective truth' in one reality objectively true in another? If you reside in reality A... and I reside in reality B... does your belief in objective truth hold any water to my reality?

if that reality is subjective, not if you choose against sharing it with me. but for the objective physical reality -- the only reality we all, for now, necessarily share -- it will every time if it agrees with the common perception of that reality. for example, you can tell me that you can burn yourself while in meditation and not feel any pain. i can tell you, in full honesty and truth, that you will burn to death. but even if i have a belief that fire causes pain, that belief will not translate into your reality -- your truth -- if you can actually pull it off.

Originally Posted by JcP

If not, if there is only one reality, then that fly and that blind man share your reality. In which case, your "shared experience" is not that the sky is blue, but that the sky is blue, ultraviolet, and infinite other things, including non-existant.

necessarily, they at least share A reality with me. engagements between my consciousness and the fly are pretty much limited to the objective physical reality, but i can share as many realities with a blind man as i can imagine: maybe we like the same music or books, share common religious inclinations, a love for cigars, etc. the only limit is my and his imagination. but these realities, whether we alone share them or we share them with a wider group, are particular to us and anyone who decides to join us. this distinguishes them from considerations relating to the purely physical, undeniable truths (yes, undeniable from within the framework of of all possible necessarily shared experiences ).

Originally Posted by JcP

I think it's great that you changed your mind. Subjectivity is cool like that. It allows you to use your perception and beliefs to define what is or is not true for you.

or, to quote your "most interesting" thing about existence:

yeah man that's still quite awesome. kind of like that guy who burned to death without feeling a thing.

[Waves]

Originally Posted by The Rev

There are alot of really great ways to prove yourself right, but at the end of the day, none of them will make you any friends. Arguing points is an exercise in ego defense, a way to maintain the legitimacy of that idea you take for your self.



The Rev

i actually quite agree with this. being defensive means you are defending yourself against a threat that you perceive to your beliefs and your ego. when in reality everyones perception is subjective and as much as we put all this stock into objective measurements like science and shit, everything will still be a subjective perception in the end. even two people that believe in the same scientific principle understand that principle in two different ways and thus have totally different beliefs concerning that principle. people dont realize that its not necessary to agree on everything we believe. variety in beliefs results in variety in action, appearance, interests, etc, and thats what makes the human race so cool is our variety. we are all basically the same yet so much different.

i do believe in debate, healthy debate that is more akin to sharing than it is arguing the objective accuracy of any particular belief, which does not exist. only subjective understanding exists. science and logic makes sharing that understanding easy but that does not mean the understandings are objective measurements on reality. just shared.

when both parties are aware that both parties are correct, that both parties are simply running off of subjective interpretations of data, it becomes much easier to come to agreements and disagreements alike. no one says we all have to believe the same shit. i'll fucking believe what i want to believe, even if it is illogical or abnormal or whatever. my perceptions are my perceptions and i am free to interpret them in any way i see fit, i.e. use the beliefs i see fit. thats just me.

[Waves]

Originally Posted by JcP

or disincorporated a perspective you formerly accepted and held yourself to.

At least you're still able to admit it's a perspective

have fun at work.

I think it's great that you changed your mind. Subjectivity is cool like that. It allows you to use your perception and beliefs to define what is or is not true for you.

but wait...are you admitting he CHOSE to disincorporate a perspective he formally accepted? it wasnt fate? have you CHOSEN to change your mind on this particular subject?