zurew

Because he didnt lose just by a little, he lost by a lot and there if you try to do the "it was stolen" move - with that move you also undermine and render all of your previous 4 landslides (from 2010 - 2022) potentially illegitimate, because the implication is that even when the numbers says that a party won with a landslide (with a supermajority where you have so much power) even in those cases it can be rigged at a relevant enough scale. With a supermajority you can do stuff like: Amend or adopt a new Constitution (called the Fundamental Law in Hungary) Pass or modify cardinal laws (laws that require a two-thirds majority), such as: the electoral system rules of the judiciary Appoint key officials, for example: members of the Constitutional Court the Prosecutor General heads of media authorities Make major changes to how the state and its institutions function And now given all of that, imagine that you would need to somehow tell a story that even though you had supermajority for 16 years and you had the power to make elections more safe, you still left elections structurally vulnerable enough so that they can be rigged at this scale. Its also not a good move for other reasons, because there is evidence that fidesz did buy votes (and we are talking about handing out money to some voters in some cases, in other cases handing out bags with food and other stuff, in other cases just literally buying shots and alcohol to some people) and if you try to do big investigations now, you are going to expose your own corrupt bs - these kinds of moves worked well against mostly uneducated and really poor people in places, where usually less than 2k but in other cases less than 1k people live. And because even small towns and villages can play an important role (due to how mandates are allocated), they can sometimes determine whether a party achieves a supermajority or falls short of it.

They can be an epistemic failure, but this is why the talk should rather be about how to make sense of events better and how to distinguish real conspiracy theories from false ones. I wont do this, but my personal approach would be something like: 1) Lets take systematically all the conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true and deeply analyze them structurally and try to extract common patterns from them. 2) After that, lets go back in time, and try to think about what better epistemic approach(es) could have been used to recognize that the given conspiracy theory is plausibly true and or worth deeper investigation (given all the avalaible info and tools and all the alternative hypotheses back then) 3) After that check how many false positives ( by false positive here I just mean - generating a conclusion that there is a conspiracy when there isn't one) would your updated epistemic approach generate about other known historical events that we already have a more plausible/better answer and or theory for. So develop an approach by which you can recognize and differentiate (hopefully in a reliable way) true conspiracies from false ones and integrate that approach within a higher order weighing system - where you compare, study and entertain a bunch of other alternative theories for any given event in question (by alternative theory here , I just mean theories that are not conspiracy theories). I understand your frustration (if you try to target people who are so naive and biased that they never ever entertain any conspiracy theory no matter how much evidence is presented), but on the other hand, you need to understand and acknowledge that dismissing most conspiracy theorists as a heruistic can be reasonable and understandable given some of the reasons you already layed down - limited resources, time, information and having negative priors about most conspiracy theorists (where most of their claims turn out to be false or unsubstantiated and most of them are generally uneducated about the subject they try to talk about) . This is not to say that there isn't any room for epistemic improvement (when it comes to how to approach conspiracy theories and people who bring up conspiracy theories) , but this is to say that you shouldnt have an unreasonable standard for people and for institutions. Because, just like we cant expect every single criminal case to be perfectly solved (given all of our limitations), we also cant expect people and institutions to recognize every single legit conspiracy theory when there is one. But I think its fine for you to push people to update their priors about conspiracy theories and about conspiracy theorists so that they dont just categorically reject all conspiracy theories.

@Ramasta9 Since you think that the covid vaccines (or "jabs" as you would label it) were really bad and were part of some big global scale malicious collaboration - what do you think about the promotion and the distribution of the Sputnik vaccine (and if you are categorically against all vaccines, since you have the habit of vaguely gesturing towards "unnatural" things being bad - what do you think about all the other vaccines that were created by Russia) ? And how do you navigate disagreements, when your organic nature disagrees with another vibes based politics organic nature? In those cases, why do you conclude that your vibes are more accurate compared to the the vibes that the other person has?

@Socrates This isnt to undermine the meat of your point, this is to ask a very specific question - do you think it is always irrational to outsource validation to others? For instance, after recognizing that you have basically 0 domain knowledge about a particular field, do you think its better to rely on your validation (even though you dont even know what standards you should even apply or how you should even conceptualize and create a hierarchy of evidence about that given field or what facts are even relevant) than to rely on the consensus of domain experts?

@LastThursday Interesting, engaging talk, thanks. Also appreciate that you actually engaged with my points in good faith.

Well because of the reasons you layed down and because law is complicated and the definitions there even though are much more precise compared to other domains, they are still not defined with as much precision that would narrow down the possible interpretations to 1 (and thats probably good). its also the case that we cant exhaustively think through all possible combinations beforehand about how a given crime could occur and how it should be handled, so pragmatically there needs to be a jury who can navigate the messy cases within the bounds of reasonable interpretations and law. its also the case that law is extremely context sensitive and there are a bunch of issues with trying to capture that context in higher order rules (because there is necessary info loss about context and there are epistemic issues that we already talked about - in this case , issue about how you need to interpret and apply the higher order rules given a specific case) I agree that our minds are naturally messy (our pre-theoretic usage and understanding of logic is different from prop logic, but I would argue that rules of inference captures our pre theoretic notion of deduction quite well), but in any case, I dont see how what thing produced the given logic is relevant. I also dont think this is a prop logic issue, because no jury formally uses any kind of fuzzy logic or any non-conventional logic either. I think the issues surrounding this has to do more with how precisely defined a given proposition is (and thats gonna be an issue for all kinds of logics, although you might argue that the degree to which lack of precision is gonna be a problem will differ from logic to logic). Not sure what you mean by circularity issue or how that is a unique issue to prop logic.

That would be an equivocation on the term 'rape' though. Once it is layed down what is exactly meant by the term, after that the only hurdle is getting informed about the case and checking whether the defined conditions were met or not. I agree that it can be an issue, but once it is specified what was the intended meaning and interpretation when the sentence was used, then you can narrow down the possible interpretations. I take it that once you go with a different interpretation, you are not really engaging with the same proposition anymore, because the misinterpretation you go with creates new meaning for the exact same sentence and with that you tackle an entirely different proposition. I dont reject the the law of excluded middle, and I dont do fuzzly logic stuff (unless there is really a case that classical logic cant handle). What you describe there is what I would label again as just an epistemic problem - in this specific case related to not giving a precise enough definition and or not being informed enough about the case (but once those conditions are layed down and met I dont see why couldnt the proposition be handled in a binary way). I find the problem about "which logic should I use here" to be just a representation problem (in this case) , and not anything more significant than that. You can represent and express the exact same proposition under multiple different kind of logics, where you capture and maintain the exact same meaning. But in any case, I think we agree on the thing that I cared about and I wanted us to agree on - and that has to do with the fact that a propositions truth value will be univocally shared given the assumption that all the epistemic issues are resolved (agents are perfectly informed, have the exact same interpretation , use the exact same logic to assing truth value etc).

Matt has largely new atheist, science dicksucking views - One of his misconceptions is largely underestimating how much testimonial evidence is actually involved in science and how much trust it necessarily relies on (including social, judicial,financial, cultural pressures and incentives and institutions) for it to work on a global scale. Once you remove all the previously mentioned shit, you will either have to trust things on blind faith or you have to literally validate everything on your own (including every single occurence of a peer-review cause you cant just take an institution's or a scientist's word for it ; including every single past experiment that were done, because how do you actually know and can make sure that those were actually done; and every single fact that science books mention about physics , biology, chemistry etc). Yeah scientist do experiments and validate things and peer review things etc, but with the large set of caveats that I previously mentioned. If you take a single scientist, that scientist will necessarily need to take a large set of things for granted (involving experiments that were done in the past, including peer reviews that were allegedly done by other scientist and institutions, including the accuracy of the content in science books etc). A single scientist will only validate a fraction of a fraction of those things. And relying on those previously mentioned structures go much deeper. You cant even do experiments without them - for instance, if you are a scientist who wants to run an experiment on patients, even there you need to somewhat rely on the patients collectively not fucking you up and trolling you by taking some pills before the experiment (without you knowing about it) and other institutions providing accurate medical data about your patients etc. -- So then how can science work? Science works relatively well on a global scale, because of the checks and balances and because of the values and motivation that the previously mentioned social, judicial, financial, cultural structures and institutions provide - Those structures make and incentivise scientists to generally provide honest and accurate testimonials and feedback about the experiments they do, about the peer-reviews they do, and about the data they provide , about content that they write down in science books and about the way they teach next generations.

@LastThursday So lets check what we disagree on. Reading back some of the stuff that you said - you seem to agree with me on the distinction between what is propositionalized (Existence) and a proposition of Existence. When I said that proposition (X) is true about the rape case (independent from the jury's knowledge about it), there what I meant was that if the jury would have known all the info surrounding the case, then he/she would have realized that proposition(X) is true. This is also what I meant by there being a fact of the matter about proposition (X). It just means that assuming that you are perfectly informed about the rape case, you will say that proposition (X) is true. The question related to this issue given your paradigm is just this: Do you agree that all perfectly informed agents would give a univocal "its true" answer to the question "Is proposition (X) true or false?"

The difference between a thing and a description of a thing. The difference between a thing that is interpreted and an interpretation of said thing. The difference between the thing that is modelled and your model of said thing. The difference between the thing that is propositionalized and a proposition of said thing. -- Whatever you meant in your earlier statement by the structure of reality is what I meant by behavior of nature. All im saying is that prior to modelling or interpreting or propositionalizing or making a description of the structure of reality , there is the structure of reality.

Lets clear up what you actually mean by that and what that entails. There is an interpretation of that statement that is sensible to me , but there is another that isn't sensible at all. Given how you intended to mean that statement - does that mean that if I think I can fly, then that actually makes it so that I can fly? I also think there might be an equivocation and misinterpretation on the sentence "laws of physics" - I meant the behavior of nature and I didnt mean our modelling of nature. It has nothing to do with what my paradigm allows or doesnt allow and it has everything to do with that sentence not being intelligible to me. It might be a sensible and coherent statement and view, I just dont understand what 'propositions existing' mean.

No the content of the proposition can make it time relatively true or false. Getting back to the rape case, we can add and explicate time relative facts to the case and that way the truth value of said proposition can change if you change the content about time. I dont know what it means for a proposition to exist, but regardless I take it that it doesnt depend on that, what matters is the content that the proposition relates/corresponds to. The laws of physics exists before you become conscious of the laws of physics or before anyone utters any proposition about the laws of physics. There are facts of the matter about the laws of physics independent from your knowledge of it. It might be the case, that you dont know anything about the laws of physics , but thats just a statement about knowledge, but that doesnt change anything about the laws of physics. That is compatible with what I am saying. For instance, you can make propositions where the content of said proposition is something about the future, and those propositions doesnt have any truth value yet. Still disagree, thats an epistemic issue not a metaphysics issue . Gravity still works even if you are unconscious of it. Your epistemic limitation or your lack of knoweldge doesnt change any fact about gravity.

But relative propositions also have a fact of the matter about them once the additional relative context is provided in the proposition itself. (You can be wrong about relative propositions, once the context is added and they are not knowledge dependently true) The proposition (X) that "person A raped person B" won't change just because the jury doesnt know whats up with that rape case. Its just the case that the jury simply doesnt know what kind of truth value that relative proposition holds (whether it is true or false) , but its still a fact of the matter that the proposition is true. The relative facts surrounding the case is what makes proposition (X )true or false, not someone's knowledge about the case. (Person A raping person B is what makes proposition (X) true, not whether the jury has any knowledge about the case or not). I think you confuse where the proposition is located at with the content of the proposition. Even relative propositions' truth value are dependent on the content of the propositions and they are not dependent on where the propositions are located (it doesnt matter whether you are a platonist or non-platonist about propositions, that is a tangential question to this problem). The only way the location of the given proposition becomes relevant to the truth value of said proposition (whether the proposition is true or false) is if the content of the proposition is about the location itself.

But thats just an epistemic issue not an issue about metaphysics. There can be facts that we will never know about or prove given our epistemic issues, but from that doesnt follow that those facts arent true. Their truth value isn't dependent on our knowledge of them, unless you take it to be the case that all truths are knowledge dependently true. We can list here a large set of facts about physics that werent known by any person on Earth during the ice age, but from that doesnt follow that the laws of physics had to change or that the laws of physics were different back then. Or we can just go with a rape example, where one person rapes another - do you think there isn't any fact of the matter about one person raping another up until the point the jury becomes conscious of the evidence against the rapist? Or do you take it to be the case, that if there cant be sufficient evidence presented against the rapist, the rape just didnt happen?

Some philosophers will agree with you, because they dont buy into this divide. So far my understanding is that its a way to try to differentiate yourself from philosophers who you consider to be bad philosophers (because you take it that they are doing bad philosophy). I agree with you generally speaking (especially about your comment on mysticism), but I dont think that most philosophers who consider themselves as non-analytic philosophers are actually into mysticism or practice being a mystic , so I think most of the criticisms still apply to them (and that criticism largely contains the idea that they lack clarity, sometimes they are conceptually confused and their inferences are bad and or unclear and its not just that they have a hard time explicating their views, but they are sometimes reluctant to do so). I also take it that some mystics could actually and genuinely benefit from studying analytic philosophy, because even though they practice and do stuff, they can still get seemingly quite dogmatic about their views and they necessarily rely on some claims that are justified by not direct experience , but by analytic and conceptual tools (even if they dont want to say it out loud and even if they dont want to admit it). I also dont like most of the criticisms levied at analytic philosophers (that I consider to be low-tier) like the criticism that they make things harder by inventing new terms and by inventing new conceptual , analytic tools and frameworks and new ways of reasoning. Just imagine for a second if the same kind of criticism would be directed at mathematicians "Dude, why the fuck do you guys jerk yourselves off with inventing new symbols and why would you guys obscure things by rules and axioms and why do you make it so hard to count and to model things, and to make sense of equations, when you could just convey everything purely using natural language that a 5 year old could just immediately and perfectly understand? "). Its only when it comes to philosophy, where people have this general tendency that they dont need to learn anything new and they can just jump in and understand most stuff and can just do philosophy on their own - but they intuitively understand that none of that shit flies in any other domain (not in science and not in math, because you need to learn a fuck ton of background info and ways of thinking and conceptual tools). And this is not really about learning stuff in a dogmatic way, but more about learning new tools to gain ability to think more clearly and to think deeper about things. Its cool if you can dig 1 meter deep just by using your natural hands, but its better to use tools to dig deeper, if your goal is to go much deeper and to check whats up deeper down (in my view, there isn't any virtue in with just sticking to your natural hands there and your mind is already filled with all kinds of background info and ways of thinking that you pick up from your culture and you are also born with a bunch of cognitive biases anyway and you not learning about those not gonna make them to go away). The irony is that you need to learn some stuff about 1st principles thinking to get better at it, because people are naturally really bad at it.

There is a lot more more other stuff that I find useful (this is basically my main conceptual toolbox). Some of these are very time-consuming depending on how granular you want to get with your arguments and how many objections you want to handle/prepare against. But this is also not just about arguments, but also about improving one's thinking and actually trying to be less biased in one's position and be more intellectually honest. You can do the archetype stuff that I mentioned , and combine that with other techniques - like with the technique that I will label as collect-explain-snythesize: You can think of it as a scientific project, but in this case this is almost purely conceptual. You start with trying to collect all the avalaible data and facts that is relevant to the case or argument you try to build or that is relevant to the thing or phenomena you want to explain. After that, you can combine that with the archetypes and try to generate at least one explanation/case from the perspective of each archetype - less wordy way to say it , is to say try to steelman each archetype. After that, you can try to build some kind of overarching perspective that takes into account all those steelmaned perspectives (and can maintain some of the positive features of each perspective, and or can also dodge or have a response to the negatives of each perspective) Of course the meaning of 'positive' and 'negative' will be dependent on the goal of the project and what kind of function(s) a given perspective need to play or account for. ----- There is also something that I label as Neighbor Position Stress Test : This is somewhat similar to the archetypes, but different in some relevant ways. The tactic is that when you hold a position, try to generate an indefinite number of other positions that are extremely similar to yours (just a slightly bit different, like imagine a guy who buys into all the premises that you hold, except one or a few) and check how you would argue against them or think about how they would argue with each other. The reason why this is different and important is because this shows you how many independent lines of justification you have for your exact position. For instance, christians do this, where they will argue for a tri-omni God with an atheist, they will appeal to a bunch of things there , because they disagree on so many things (he can appeal to the content of the Bible, he can appeal to general arguments for God, he can appeal to arguments against materialism etc). But if two christians agree on literally everything (lets say except on the resurrection, or except on God being all powerful) - in that case, they will have an extremely hard time to argue for their specific position ,because there its not enough just to establish that God exists or that Jesus did some other miracles or that Christianity is overall true, but you have to argue for one very specific premise without appealing to anything more abstract. ------ There is also the affirm/deny/agnostic frame that you can apply on each premise. You can ask what would I tell to a person who believes in the negation of this premise, and what would I tell to a person who is agnostic on this premise? Arguing with the agnostic is much harder, because there you need to make a case why witholding judgement with respect to that particular premise given all the avalaible info is irrational or absurd. ---- There is also a more abstract tool that I call "Go one level of abstraction higher": After you map out some of the possible disagreements, sometimes you find that you have a hard time arguing and using this tool is one way to find out how those types of disagreements are navigated using other contexts. So the tactic is to find inspiration from other contexts where the exact same type of disagreement is present and then try to grab that and apply that to the context where your disagreement is / will be. So for instance, when it comes to analytic philosophy a bunch of disagreements can be categorized under the realist vs constructivist frame (these two categories dont necessarily exhaust the possibility space and there is sometimes room for other alternative frames ,but we will go with this for now). So if you have a hard time arguing why you are a realist about lets say math, you can take a step back, check how realist arguments are navigated and done when it comes to lets say art or beauty and try to grab a line of argumentation from there and check if it works in your context. A more intuitive example could be researching how you can generally persuade an agnostic person on any given premise and then try to use some of that that to persuade an agnostic when it comes to your specific premise. ---- The other research related tool is just simply checking what possible perspectives and positions can even be taken on the thing that you guys disagree on. This is related to how you can construct your archetypes, because sometimes its unclear how could a given archetype even respond or what position they could even take, if you go deep enough with the disagreements. --- And the last for now will be related to language stuff. Its often the case, that a given term can be used in multiple ways and its easy to make the mistake of equivocation when you construct your arguments. So you can combine this with the collect-explain-snythesize technique, where you dont just collect all the avalaible facts relevant to the argument or case you want to make, but you also collect all or most senses of a given essential term that you use in your arguments and construct an argument using each different sense of the same term (if it is necessary).

You dont necessarily need to argue for it, you can just stay inside their frames and let them explain why they go with certain perspectives over other perspectives and then after that you can lay down your version and frame it as a perspective and then check if they would buy into it or not and if not ask them why not. The only thing you need to establish is some hierarchy of perspectives (you dont need to necessarily establish that there is some kind of top to that hierarchy), and the case that certain perspectives are more inclusive and take more other perspectives into account. Perspectives dont necessarily need to be mutually exclusive, they can be inclusive. You can also remind them that they already take it that certain truths are not perspective dependently true- for instance, the claim that "all or most truths are perspective dependently true" cant be perspective dependently true or if it is, well then you can ask them why they buy into that rather than into the negation of that claim (and then whatever process or epistemology they will describe or appeal to there, you can just use that as a ground to build your case on). But I often times dont like these talks, because its unclear what they mean by perspective and most of the debate is dependent on clarifying that phrase and often times people have a hard time explicating what they even mean by it.

Aside from what already was mentioned, try to learn the basics of analytic philosophy. Especially learn about inferences and how not to jump big in your logic. You need to practice how to walk people through your ideas(train your mind how to handle objections - once you map out the premises you can ask at each premise: what would i say if the person wouldnt buy into this given premise?) and see multiple pathways how to get to your conclusion with more granularity. But yeah just writing down your thoughtprocess and then reflecting on it and checking how easy it is to follow and how easy it is to track what your inference is will train you more than enough. A more advanced move is to try to create an archetype or multiple archetypes in your mind about the type of person you want to write your response to and then try to think about what kind of objections that kind of archetype would bring up and try to get clear about at what level the disagreement will be and think about how to navigate those types of disagreements.

Okay , that makes sense as a personal advice, but i dont see how that responds to this thread. This is the question - If you were the owner of this forum ,then what would you do with respect moderation (if anything) and why would you do that?

Either way, the exact same issue applies to that as well. Not everyone is living from or acting from that empty/silent mind all the time. You need to provide an answer thats applicable to the types of people who are on this forum

Maybe you use a different definition for constructiveness maybe you dont. But look, even if you take it to be the case that being enlightened is the only and necessary way to achieve constructiveness that still doesnt really engage with the question surrounding the rule vs no rule. The reason why is because you need to deal with a bunch of us with here who are not enlightened. So the question is about how can you run a forum where a bunch of people are not enlightened. But I personally dont buy into the premise that enlightened people dont crash out time to time.

Not necessarily, if the definition of constructiveness is cashed out in something purely descriptive and empirical, then there is a fact of the matter about what kind of outcome it generates once it is employed. You are confusing clashing subjective values with how a given particular value can be achieved. The how it can be achieved is not a value question, it is an empirical one. This question about moderation vs no moderation is just simply an empirical question. Your claim that no rule is better for achieving constructiveness than some rules is also just a belief, unless you can show empirically how no rules can achieve the desired outcome better than some rules.

Can you point to something that substantiates that your theory works in pracitce - like a site where there is 0 moderation, but given your standards the discourse quality is better or an example where there was moderation and after it was completely lifted the discourse quality overall got better.

Nah dude your post was definitely indicative of closed mindedness. Im not sure about Leo though. Hold on dude, some people are doing real work here. Godspeed to you, as some would say.