Civility

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

I have no conception of "god", "supernatural", "incorporeal", etc.  Just as I have no conception of the other dimensions that string theorists speak of.  For me, it's just scribbles on a blackboard or tablet, as the case may be. 

 

 

[kumakuma]

55 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 

 That is incorrect. It was due to a build up of hostile posts over a period of time, mainly from your side of the fence .

Several members, including myself are still in contact with  Barry.

 

If Barry told you that the objectivists drove him away then it must be true.

 

I do find this a little odd though as it seemed that everyone here (except the gentleman I mentioned) treated him with a lot of respect. I don't personally remember him saying anything that I disagreed with and I was sorry that he decided to stop posting here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

 

If Barry told you that the objectivists drove him away then it must be true.

 

I do find this a little odd though as it seemed that everyone here (except the gentleman I mentioned) treated him with a lot of respect. I don't personally remember him saying anything that I disagreed with and I was sorry that he decided to stop posting here.

 

I've been reading Barry's posts since the middle aughts, and even conversing with him (but not in a few years now).  I also never remember him saying anything that I disagreed with.  And I personally adore the mastering job he did on the original Led Zeppelin CDs, AC/DC Back In Black, GnR Appetite For Destruction, Dokken's Under Lock and Key, and many, many more.  While I admit it's a nerdy take on things, he is literally a bit of rock and roll history to me.

[kumakuma]

Just now, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

I've been reading Barry's posts since the middle aughts, and even conversing with him (but not in a few years now).  I also never remember him saying anything that I disagreed with.  And I personally adore the mastering job he did on the original Led Zeppelin CDs, AC/DC Back In Black, GnR Appetite For Destruction, Dokken's Under Lock and Key, and many, many more.  While I admit it's a nerdy take on things, he is literally a bit of rock and roll history to me.

 

His Bob Marley CDs are also very good.

[sandyk]

33 minutes ago, kumakuma said:

If Barry told you that the objectivists drove him away then it must be true

 

 I said MAINLY from your side of the fence.

There were hostile replies from both sides, but the majority were from your side.

 

There is always somebody who loves trying to discredit high profile members/people.

[wgscott]

It is the nature of rationalism, almost by definition, to default to a skeptical approach.  Those with very thin skin and a persecution complex mistakenly take rational skepticism and critical thinking too personally.  

 

It is the nature of irrational subjectivism to appeal to and to venerate authority figures (gods, or priests or "high profile members/people") to strengthen their positions, typically because they lack compelling experimental evidence to support their personal beliefs.

[jabbr]

36 minutes ago, wgscott said:

It is the nature of rationalism, almost by definition, to default to a skeptical approach.  Those with very thin skin and a persecution complex mistakenly take rational skepticism and critical thinking too personally.  

 

It is the nature of irrational subjectivism to appeal to and to venerate authority figures (gods, or priests or "high profile members/people") to strengthen their positions, typically because they lack compelling experimental evidence to support their personal beliefs.

Yeah Bill!!! Finally someone brings up a real school of philosophy !

 

Rationalism, however is best contrasted with Empiricism : https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

 

Hmmm ... then came Quine which is why I’m a pragmatist  

 

Im equally skeptical of isolated sense datum as I am of dogma which is maintained in the face of contradictory bits of evidence (see Kuhn)

[christopher3393]

3 hours ago, wgscott said:

It is the nature of rationalism, almost by definition, to default to a skeptical approach.  Those with very thin skin and a persecution complex mistakenly take rational skepticism and critical thinking too personally.  

 

It is the nature of irrational subjectivism to appeal to and to venerate authority figures (gods, or priests or "high profile members/people") to strengthen their positions, typically because they lack compelling experimental evidence to support their personal beliefs.

 

I can hear a difference between the 2 statements, but a healthy skepticism suggests a possible expectation bias since the poster is named. We need to establish proper conditions for blind posting.

 

Acknowledging that, I'd consider adding something to the second statement: "a tendency  to become addicted to ever more extravagant aesthetic gestures".

[christopher3393]

Pardon my response above. I was going to write "This isn't even wrong" because it appears to be highly speculative. But I see that several "liked" these statements so I'll ask:

 

Can anyone support these claims? What data would you use as evidence that would warrant these claims?

[Ralf11]

On 10/21/2017 at 8:03 AM, jabbr said:

isolated sense datum 

 

yet didn't Patti Smith say "Go Rimbaud"?

 

and.. shouldn't that be datumses?

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

 

yet didn't Patti Smith say "Go Rimbaud"?

 

and.. shouldn't that be datumses?

Haha yeah in that case would certainly be “sense data”

 

ugg should have written “an isolated sense datum” — the distinction I was trying to make is that conclusions are drawn from data, not from a single datum

 

[Ralf11]

Agree, and yet Allen Ginsberg said "First thought, best thought"

[christopher3393]

 

On 10/21/2017 at 9:27 AM, wgscott said:

It is the nature of rationalism, almost by definition, to default to a skeptical approach.  Those with very thin skin and a persecution complex mistakenly take rational skepticism and critical thinking too personally.  

 

It is the nature of irrational subjectivism to appeal to and to venerate authority figures (gods, or priests or "high profile members/people") to strengthen their positions, typically because they lack compelling experimental evidence to support their personal beliefs.

 

On 10/24/2017 at 11:13 AM, christopher3393 said:

Pardon my response above. I was going to write "This isn't even wrong" because it appears to be highly speculative. But I see that several "liked" these statements so I'll ask:

 

Can anyone support these claims? What data would you use as evidence that would warrant these claims?

 

...he,he. I thought so.  Posing and flexing...

 

...painting subjectivism like so...

 

synonyms for thick skinned: insensitive, unfeeling, tough, hardened, callous, case-hardened

 

magnanimous would be a better choice, but would it be accurate? 

 

rational/irrational:  maybe rational/intuitive would be better?

authority worship? is there another only slightly sub-textual axe to grind here?

 

Is berating one of the behaviors of skeptics? Seems more suited for the cynic than the skeptic.

 

Let's face it. You're willing to let yourselves off the hook pretty easily with these half- baked  stereotypes.  If you want to have an actual dialogue about these issues, fine. Otherwise, clown on, I guess.

 

 

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

14 minutes ago, christopher3393 said:

Let's face it. You're willing to let yourselves off the hook pretty easily with these half- baked  stereotypes.  If you want to have an actual dialogue about these issues, fine. Otherwise, clown on, I guess.

 

I can't say I know you at all, but from what I've read of your posts in the forum, I'm genuinely surprised you can't seem let this go.  Your attempt at provocation (the pictures) is commendably high brow, but I'm most curious where you see yourself in this rational/irrational/intuitive/authority worship framework.  I'm especially intrigued by the implicit, "answer me or clown on" demand.

[christopher3393]

I think the framework was simply a bald claim with no evidence to support it given. You often ask for the same thing. Support your position, especially if it is as strongly worded as Bill's is. Perfectly acceptable to ask this. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

I think the framework was simply a bald claim with no evidence to support it given. You often ask for the same thing. Support your position, especially if it is as strongly worded as this one is.

 

So you took offense?

[christopher3393]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

So you took offense?

 

The language used suggested a strong claim, not an offensive claim. Weak claims, strong claims. It's in the wording.

 

You "liked" the claims. What did you like about them? Do you agree with them? How do you explain your agreement? Of course, you don't have to explain. 

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

The language used suggested a strong claim, not an offensive claim. Weak claims, strong claims. It's in the wording.

 

From my perspective, your demands seem to oscillate between the abstract and the concrete.   For us non-ascetics, can you break down exactly what it is you're taking issue with here?

[christopher3393]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

From my perspective, your demands seem to oscillate between the abstract and the concrete.   For us non-ascetics, can you break down exactly what it is you're taking issue with here?

 

Claims without evidence that warrants the claims, an issue that often comes up here, but usually regarding technical claims. I assume that this is an ongoing discussion of civility, and there is some effort to be, what's the word?, objective. The wording of the claims sounds as if they are objective. Therefore, supporting them should be quite doable.

 

I'll be back tomorrow. I usually sign off at 4 pm.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Just now, christopher3393 said:

 

Claims without evidence that warrants the claims, an issue that often comes up here, but usually regarding technical claims. I assume that this is an ongoing discussion of civilty, and there is some effort to be, what's the word?, objective.

 

Ok, slowly making some progress.  Can you present the first claim you believe lacks evidence?

[Shadders]

Hi,

Hmmm, a thread on civility that ends up in an argument......

This reminds me of a US program called "Cheaters". It is about a camera crew investigating errant partners.

 

The first set of scenes is the alleged errant male/husband leaving the couples counsellor with his wife - which seemed obvious - they are having issues, she suspects him of cheating, so they followed.

 

After a few more scenes, he is seen leaving relationship counsellors, but this time, it is with the mistress.

 

This is hilarious, not only is he having marital problems, but also having problems with the mistress, where therapy is also required.

 

If it was me, i would be thinking, hold on, what is the common denominator in this therapy lark.

 

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

I think you're right.  Dude's way too esoteric for me.  Is he angry or belligerent or frustrated?  Or is the perceived lack of interest (or ability) to engage him on his level proof of something?  I give up.

[Teresa]

On 10/21/2017 at 7:27 AM, wgscott said:

It is the nature of rationalism, almost by definition, to default to a skeptical approach.  Those with very thin skin and a persecution complex mistakenly take rational skepticism and critical thinking too personally.  

 

It is the nature of irrational subjectivism to appeal to and to venerate authority figures (gods, or priests or "high profile members/people") to strengthen their positions, typically because they lack compelling experimental evidence to support their personal beliefs.

 

I submit subjectivists are the most skeptical of all as they don't believe what they don't experience with their 5+ senses. Not tests, not specifications, not reviews, not other people's experiences, etc. but only what they experience themselves. This is why subjectivists don't comment on audio products, music or anything else they have not heard in person themselves with their ear/brain/body system.

 

If someone claims to be a subjectivist and has an opinion beyond “self” then I submit such person is not a true subjectivist. That is why you don’t see subjectivists questioning other peoples listening impressions and why a subjectivist never demands anyone prove anything to anyone. IMHO all experiences are internal and personal and don’t necessarily apply to anyone else.

 

A true subjectivist is not in a position to claim anything, just share episodes of their experiences. And of course, they never claim what is experienced by them can be experienced by others in exactly the same way. Every human being is different.

 

Suggesting someone famous has experienced something close to what one has personally experienced, is not an appeal to an authority figure but usually a defense against an over-demanding objectivist. In effect, see I'm not crazy this famous person has experienced the same.

 

Since a true subjectivist has no personal beliefs that extend beyond self, how can there ever be any evidence to support their personal experiences?

 

subjectivism |səbˈjektəˌvizəm|
noun Philosophy
the doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. 

 

For example, I believe gravity is real as objects fall down when dropped.

 

I understand objectivists search for external truths, however it is their demanding such from subjectivists that IMHO causes the breakdown of civility. I have no problem with objectivists doing all kinds of measurements and tests as long as they keep such activity between themselves.

[Ralf11]

Confirmation bias is not one of the 5 senses.

[christopher3393]

16 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Ok, slowly making some progress.  Can you present the first claim you believe lacks evidence?

 

16 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I think you're right.  Dude's way too esoteric for me.  Is he angry or belligerent or frustrated?  Or is the perceived lack of interest (or ability) to engage him on his level proof of something?  I give up.

 

samuel, wgscott provided no evidence whatsoever. Nor have you answered my questions to you regarding your affirmation of his position. So as stated, the claims are groundless; no reasoning or data provided to support them.

 

Esoteric? I'm simply asking for what is asked of high school students on a daily basis. I just assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this would be familiar:

 

 

And, no , I'm not requesting an essay, just any bare bones support for a claim. Why is this so hard to get?

 

take a look at this: http://nampahigh.nsd131.org/common/pages/DisplayFile.aspx?itemId=13602192

 

and this: https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/eng207-td/qualifying_claims.htm

 

This is not esoteric. It is standard practice.