Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth

60 posts / 0 new

Comments

Quote Common_Man_Jason:This is an example of expressing an opinion but attempting to declare it a truth (again, ironically, because according to you, truth is not absolute even though you express an idea as if it were an absolute truth). Truth is objective. That's what it means. As long as you're cought in the trap of not accepting that, you'll never be able to accept reality


Is it? Are you sure? Is this the example of logical debate you say that truth needs to bare out what is and is not Truth? Seems (ironically) you deny the statement as a truth without the nessesary logical debate.

So who is not accepting reality?

Objective Truth is a interesting Philosophy. A philosophy muddied by perception.
“Even if there are some very good logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, is that enough to say that we know that truth is objective? It may be if you are a pragmatist, but not everyone is. So we must inquire as to whether our conclusions here are really valid after all — and, it seems, there are some reasons for doubt.”

Perhaps the article offended you on this one issue, but it certainly is in no way the focus of the article, nor is the right wing ideology the only target of the article. Take the blinders off. For example, I for one don't believe the official story of 911, and thus the article would assume I'm a denier.

The only thing I'm saying you're not accepting, is that there is truth out there. I'm not arguing any idealogical point or any particular truth other than that. But that's the tape you want to run (seeing me arguing some other point, like Global Warming), so that's all you see from me.


I do not deny that the truth actually exists and that it is out there. I doubt I would recognize it if I saw it, but that would never deter me from looking for it. The article however seeks to quell that search, label and marginalize those that seek the truth because it is inconvenient to the political realities. Your article has nothing to do with Truth and everything to do with denial with those who proclaim to have the truth. Hence the title was interesting.
"Always trust the man searching for truth. Never trust the man who claims to have found it."

That's just wrong and a miss-interpretation of science. Plenty of truths are accepted in science.

Seems my college science classes were a big waste. I was under the impression that science is never settled, never absolute the science itself is limited to only what we do know and not what we don’t know. That science is about varying degrees of certainty but never 100%

That was a poor choice of words on my part. “Accepted” is a perception. Just because you have accepted a truth does not make it a truth.

Roboute's picture
Roboute
Joined:
May. 7, 2010 3:23 pm

Rouboute wrote:" Seems my college science classes were a big waste. I was under the impression that science is never settled, never absolute the science itself is limited to only what we do know and not what we don’t know. That science is about varying degrees of certainty but never 100%"

-------------

The ice sheets are melting....and science will never be 100% sure they are melting until they are gone. So we should deny they are melting, reject observable data and direct obsrvation and wait until they are gone.

That's how some perceive "what's so". ..

"They say there used to be ice at the poles, Johnny, but all we have for proof is this doctored picutre".

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Darwin_Exchange.php is a related exchange between two pairs of distinguished professors. Two wrote a book, the other two reviewed the book, the authors responded to the review [challenging much], the reviewers responded to the response. All focused on Darwin, and interpretation of Darwin.

Jerry Fodor is State of New Jersey Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University and coauthor with Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini of What Darwin Got Wrong.

Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini is Professor of Cognitive Science, Linguistics, and Psychology at the University of Arizona and coauthor with Jerry Fodor of What Darwin Got Wrong.

Ned Block, Silver Professor of Philosophy, Psychology, and Neural Science at New York University, is author of Consciousness, Function, and Representation.

Philip Kitcher, John Dewey Professor of Philosophy at Columbia University, received a Lannan Foundation Distinguished Book Award for Living With Darwin.

The four players have a few other works.

The beginning of the exchange

First misreading: Block and Kitcher think we argue, erroneously, that “with respect to correlated traits in organisms—traits that come packaged together—there is no fact of the matter about which of the correlated traits causes increased reproductive success.” They then speculate that we are making “the very ambitious claim that whenever there are correlated traits there is no fact of the matter about which of the traits causes any effect.”

But, of course, we don’t believe, still less endorse, either of these theses. In fact, we think both are preposterous. We therefore spent our whole seventh chapter discussing a number of ways in which the causal roles of confounded variables can be, and routinely are, successfully distinguished. There are many such, the most obvious of which is perhaps John Stuart Mill’s “method of differences.” In effect, you run an experiment in which one but not the other of the correlated variables is suppressed. If you still get the effect, then it must be the variable you didn’t suppress that’s doing the causing. (If you think it’s maybe the ice rather than the alcohol that makes you tipsy, try taking one or other out, drink what’s left, and see what happens). People, scientists very definitely included, do this sort of experiment all the time. And often it works fine; we report lots of cases in our book. All this is familiar from Philosophy 101; do Block and Kitcher really believe that, old and case-hardened as we are, we could have failed to notice this?

However, the questions of whether there is a fact of the matter about which variable causes what, and whether this fact of the matter is epistemically accessible, really must not be confused with the question of whether natural selection, as neo-Darwinians understand it, is able to distinguish the causes of fitness from their local confounds. Y

Causal, effect or fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" e.g: tax cuts for rich increase revenue.

Related Articles

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Roboute:
Quote Common_Man_Jason:This is an example of expressing an opinion but attempting to declare it a truth (again, ironically, because according to you, truth is not absolute even though you express an idea as if it were an absolute truth). Truth is objective. That's what it means. As long as you're cought in the trap of not accepting that, you'll never be able to accept reality

Is it? Are you sure? Is this the example of logical debate you say that truth needs to bare out what is and is not Truth? Seems (ironically) you deny the statement as a truth without the nessesary logical debate. So who is not accepting reality? Objective Truth is a interesting Philosophy. A philosophy muddied by perception. “Even if there are some very good logical and pragmatic reasons for assuming that truth is objective, is that enough to say that we know that truth is objective? It may be if you are a pragmatist, but not everyone is. So we must inquire as to whether our conclusions here are really valid after all — and, it seems, there are some reasons for doubt.”
Perhaps the article offended you on this one issue, but it certainly is in no way the focus of the article, nor is the right wing ideology the only target of the article. Take the blinders off. For example, I for one don't believe the official story of 911, and thus the article would assume I'm a denier. The only thing I'm saying you're not accepting, is that there is truth out there. I'm not arguing any idealogical point or any particular truth other than that. But that's the tape you want to run (seeing me arguing some other point, like Global Warming), so that's all you see from me.
I do not deny that the truth actually exists and that it is out there. I doubt I would recognize it if I saw it, but that would never deter me from looking for it. The article however seeks to quell that search, label and marginalize those that seek the truth because it is inconvenient to the political realities. Your article has nothing to do with Truth and everything to do with denial with those who proclaim to have the truth. Hence the title was interesting. "Always trust the man searching for truth. Never trust the man who claims to have found it."
That's just wrong and a miss-interpretation of science. Plenty of truths are accepted in science.
Seems my college science classes were a big waste. I was under the impression that science is never settled, never absolute the science itself is limited to only what we do know and not what we don’t know. That science is about varying degrees of certainty but never 100% That was a poor choice of words on my part. “Accepted” is a perception. Just because you have accepted a truth does not make it a truth.

Well at this point, you're just running around in circles contradicting yourself and just trying to be right. It reminds me of the time a friend of mine had a debate with me over whether dogs could read.

Anyway, I've said my peace, and at this point all I can do is repeat myself.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Must be a perception problem. I don't believe I contradicted myself at all. Truth is a difficult subject.

It reminds me of the time a friend of mine had a debate with me over whether dogs could read.

Of course they can read.

Anyway, I've said my peace, and at this point all I can do is repeat myself

ditto

Roboute's picture
Roboute
Joined:
May. 7, 2010 3:23 pm
Quote polycarp2:

"They say there used to be ice at the poles, Johnny, but all we have for proof is this doctored picutre".

That is funy!

Poor Richard's picture
Poor Richard
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This discussion thread needs updating.

The Huffington Post ran a story by Linguist George Lakoff ‘Disaster Messaging’ i.e., how the Conservatives ‘frame messages’ to their advantage; as well as how Progressives and Democrats alike have been at a disadvantage regarding ‘message framing.’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/disaster-messaging_b_639040.html

The term 'PR BS' "hits the nail on the head" as an “ice-breaker” on how the Progressives and Democrats can respond to the Conservative's modus-operandi.

Can the term 'PR BS' serve as “an Aikido of sorts” to counter the Conservative’s modus-operandi……….on message-framing?

The notion of ‘PR BS’ is easily memorable and repeatable; hence the Progressives and Democrats alike can gain advantages with PR; that is to put the notion of "Public" back into "Public Relations". Such notions would not only resonate with Progressives and Democrats, but the very people who need that that "extra nudge" to feel that the conservatives are that party of PR BS, an ample number of new voters who would be swayed to the Democrats.

It seems that the Progressives and Democrats have not advanced on framing-messages because they are too quick to lump most PR into 'PR BS' (that PR might as well be an acronym for Politicized Relations.) Simply put, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The objective here is PR MINUS the PR BS! If the Progressives “preach to the choir,” they must also include “sermons to sway their fence sitting neighbors” over to the progressive’s side!

It's time for Progressive-media to broadcast specific memes that are ripe to be repeated; with memes which are at least inspired by the notions of 'PR BS.' It can it be said that the Conservatives are using the progressive’s lack of memes against us.

It's time for progressive-media to air memes stemming from progressive-minded agendas. Let's make sure that the Conservatives find it difficult to apply Aikido to Progressives and Democrats alike!

Semantic Monitor's picture
Semantic Monitor
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Semantic Monitor:

This discussion thread needs updating.

The Huffington Post ran a story by Linguist George Lakoff ‘Disaster Messaging’ i.e., how the Conservatives ‘frame messages’ to their advantage; as well as how Progressives and Democrats alike have been at a disadvantage regarding ‘message framing.’

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/disaster-messaging_b_639040.html

The term 'PR BS' "hits the nail on the head" as an “ice-breaker” on how the Progressives and Democrats can respond to the Conservative's modus-operandi.

Can the term 'PR BS' serve as “an Aikido of sorts” to counter the Conservative’s modus-operandi……….on message-framing?

The notion of ‘PR BS’ is easily memorable and repeatable; hence the Progressives and Democrats alike can gain advantages with PR; that is to put the notion of "Public" back into "Public Relations". Such notions would not only resonate with Progressives and Democrats, but the very people who need that that "extra nudge" to feel that the conservatives are that party of PR BS, an ample number of new voters who would be swayed to the Democrats.

It seems that the Progressives and Democrats have not advanced on framing-messages because they are too quick to lump most PR into 'PR BS' (that PR might as well be an acronym for Politicized Relations.) Simply put, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The objective here is PR MINUS the PR BS! If the Progressives “preach to the choir,” they must also include “sermons to sway their fence sitting neighbors” over to the progressive’s side!

It's time for Progressive-media to broadcast specific memes that are ripe to be repeated; with memes which are at least inspired by the notions of 'PR BS.' It can it be said that the Conservatives are using the progressive’s lack of memes against us.

It's time for progressive-media to air memes stemming from progressive-minded agendas. Let's make sure that the Conservatives find it difficult to apply Aikido to Progressives and Democrats alike!

However, there is a clever piece of PR BS in this concept. The lie that progressive thinkers and the Democratic party have anything to do with each other. Bunk. The Democratic party is the same as the Republican party, but without the balls. Strangely enough, the only time they show balls is in how they treat the few progressive members they have, like Kucinich.

Common_Man_Jason's picture
Common_Man_Jason
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yes, the Progressives and the Democrats are different entities. That being said, the Progressives must have some type of advisory roles fot the DEMS; as we are not even close to forming a Progressive third-party. We're not even close to (IRV) Instant Runoff Voting; which would probably help third-party candidates.

Anyways, the DEMS are all we have now (even though too many DEMS are not "worth a darn").

For starters, the DEMS must advised to draw parallels from Conservatives on applying "political communications" that get results i.e., the lessons from Frank Luntz, George Lakoff, and even Thom Hartmann's "Cracking the Code!"

An icebreaker, or the DEMS and Progressive's Aikido; 'WHAT'S LIFE WITH A PARTY ON DEATH TERMS?' e.g., death taxes, death panels.

Semantic Monitor's picture
Semantic Monitor
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

A Warren Run Would Change Everything

Over the past few weeks, Elizabeth Warren has emerged as a leader of progressives on Capitol Hill. She led the charge against the part of the CRomnibus that gutted our financial regulations, and she is still fighting the White House over its nomination of bankster Antonio Weiss as Undersecretary of Domestic Finance in the Treasury Department.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system