Defining the nature of rational discussion!

[Doctordick]

Rational discussion takes place mostly inside our own minds, with ourselves. It consists of contemplating what-ifs and bouncing them against our understanding of what is.

Well, that I would agree with and I am quite surprised to find someone express it here. But, I would caution you that, if you think that was the subject of this thread, I am afraid you have totally missed the point. It appears that the world is divided into two kinds of people: those who think “rational discussion” does not require a definition and myself.

The 'what ifs' might be donations from someone else or they might come from direct observations, but until they get used internally and get tossed against our map, no discussion really takes place.

Discussion, Smispussin; the question is, what rules do you use to classify a discussion (by which I think you mean “an exchange of information”) as “rational”?

And, what is very painful to contemplate is that I might not be making any good donations.

Good donations? We could begin by asking what indications do you use to decide the rationality of others?

Dr. Dick, has it occurred to you that this discussion is no longer interesting to participants?

Has it “occurred” to me? Why of course it has occurred to me! Anyone with any ability to reason would find that most people posting on this forum have no interest in being rational. I was merely hoping there might be a few out there.

... maybe it's just not important to break our heads on the boulders of what is ''Rational

Discussion'' when most of us can communicate with each other and be understood. not to belittle your expert efforts, but who cares?

If all you are interested in is “irrational communication” have fun; it's something you all seem to do quite well.

 

Kant's "mock wars" are apparently the essence of modern philosophical communication and I wouldn't want to “break your bird” so to speak. Just thought I would test the waters.

 

Ah, while I was typing this, “Steve” has posted again. And, sir, I think you are dead on the mark except for one simple error.

And also there is the simple truth that most of us are just not capable of understanding what he is trying to get across.

I don't believe that for a moment. It is quite easy to be lead into “mock battles” by misunderstandings and emotional compulsions and I am as guilty of that as is anyone here. As I read back over my posts, I have often been carried away with tangent issues that add more confusion to the mix than clarity. None of us are rational enough to maintain a well oiled rational discussion for long without serious assistance; and I include myself in that criticism. What I have been trying to get across is actually quite simple: we need a succinct method of determining if a particular assertion is to be classified as “rational” or “irrational”.

 

In order to do that we need to first answer another related question. We need to “understand” the concept of “rational”: i.e., what does one mean when they use the word? That question brings us immediately to a third question (which may very well be the most serious question of all): how does one manage to classify things as “understood” or “not understood”?

 

Now, that question seems to me to be answerable. But we can get back that question later, the only important factor here is that the chain of thought above be recognized as rational and that brings me back to the opening post of this thread. I think the following statement is the single most important issue brought up there.

In my head, the term "rational thought" implies the idea being expressed makes sense: i.e., it does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity. Under that view, the adjective rational does not always imply "logical". The view also makes it apparent that "rational statements" (though they seem to make sense) are not necessarily valid, a point anyone familiar with the development of science should be aware. That is, very bright people have made errors in their beliefs from time to time; but that does not mean that those beliefs were irrational.

Perhaps it could be beneficial to reread that entire post. I am hoping you might come to understand what my introduction of the concept of “squirrel thought” was all about.

 

Hi questor, it seems you have also posted while I was fixing my answer to Steve. I have no real argument with you at all. I simply don't think you understand what I am saying. The only question I would like you to think about is, how did you come to the conclusion that Steve's message to you was both rational and understood? And, was that conclusion rational. Now I am not trying to suggest it wasn't; all I am saying is that, in my head, you are fundamentally saying that “it does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity”. The issue I am trying to bring forward is that such a decision can arise through two very different mechanisms: one mechanism is commonly referred to as “logic” meaning the result can be defended through detailed logic and another which simply cannot be defended (at least not in the form of a logical proof). The second is a “gut” thing; where your subconscious lets you know the result is acceptable.

 

All I am trying to do is develop a rational discussion of the issue of maintaining rationality. And it is my opinion that direct recognition of these two very different mechanisms is essential. They have very different powers and very different weaknesses and, if we fail to recognize these differences we tie our own hands, so to speak, when we try to be rational. We ourselves are putting our own thoughts onto that “slippery slope” Steve has referred to.

 

There is a very great difference between being "wrong" and being "irrational" and our thoughts are much clarified if that difference is kept in mind.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Ok. I'm slowly waking up.

 

The two mechanisms I think I can understand.

 

Logic is identifying stuff in such a way that we don't have contradictory understanding.

 

Our emotions are like rapid response guards that tell us something about the internal structure and how it's faring against the tick of the clock. They're metric machines in that they measure the stuff that has meaning. The end result is how we feel.

 

It gets back to thinking rationally. That's the rock falling into the water. All else is just ripples. If the components of thinking are logic and emotions, then I'm ok with that. It's the rational part that turns the slope slippery.

[InfiniteNow]

Our society is perishing from irrationality and we no longer believe that existence can be understood or at the very least we no longer believe we are capable of doing so. Oh, there are some. But society? No way.

Hi Steve,

 

Long time. It's nice to see you around, and I hope you are well and keeping your head in the clouds, feet off the ground, and upward curvature on your lips.

 

Per the quote above, I caution you though not to generalize... or, at the very least, try to avoid it. The above is your own reflective dialog symbolizing your own version of reality... it is YOUR reality, but still only a subset of ALL reality. The map is not the territory.

 

So, this might be the most important subject of all and the fact that some don't find it interesting might be the most damning evidence of our society's irrationality.

Who is this uber-Being capable of judging the rationality from pure obejectivity? What judge in this question wears the no-bias cap? [/Rhetorical Question]

 

And also there is the simple truth that most of us are just not capable of understanding what he is trying to get across.

With this I disagree. I've stated this before, and will reiterate here. Dick is so wrapped up in his concept that he is unable to adequately convey understanding of that reality to others. He has dwindled his personal reality to an increasingly smaller subset of reality itself, so much so that he is unable to relate to others.

 

Curious, since all of his posts surround his concept of understanding that he is so incapable of meeting others at a point of mutual understanding. Dick is an attacking elitist, and far from a good teacher.

 

Don't be fooled by man who claims to walk on water, especially when they are incapable of helping you walk beside them.

[InfiniteNow]

Absolute Reality = [math]X[/math]

 

This absolute reality can be put into as many buckets as you choose, but it's the only true representation of all possibilities. Per the ability to relate with others and share understandings, you have:

 

Person1 Reality = [math]X_{P1}[/math]

Person2 Reality = [math]X_{P2}[/math]

 

Person1 sharing reality with Person2 = [math]X_{P1}_{P2}[/math]

Person2 sharing reality with Person1 = [math]X_{P2}_{P1}[/math]

 

 

However, all experience is a subset of [math]X[/math] itself. It's all [math]X[/math]. The alignment of understanding of [math]X[/math] by Person1 and by Person2 is never 100%. The [math]X[/math] they "own" is always a subset of the master. They can, however, limit discrepancy and by choice agree that they are both trying to understand the same source... [math]X[/math], despite the fact that it will only ever be at best [math]X_{P1}_{P2}[/math] or [math]X_{P2}_{P1}[/math].

 

 

Me... I'd say [math]X=Now[/math], but I don't believe that is the focus of the thread.

[questor]

Dr. D., you certainly have the right to discourse on this subject as long as you wish. i consider myself a pragmatic person and wonder why, after almost 200 posts no one seems to grasp what you are endeavoring to say to your satisfaction. as I look at my life, I cannot see how your discovery can alter it for the better. would you give a couple of examples how your premise could be used to become important to one's daily living or business activities?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Hmm. I think DoctorDick has something important that he's trying to get across. We can have all kinds of rhetoric to the contrary but it won't change my mind.

 

I've had a gut feeling about what he's trying to get across long before I heard him trying to get it across (assuming my gut feeling is in line with his understanding).

 

The point of the whole thing, I suspect, is to define what it means to be conscious and rational and capable of comprehending the nature of existence, which I fear is so different than our concept of it that we aren't even in the right ballpark with our maps. But that idea is not comforting in the least so we blind ourselves to it.

 

But we get by. If existence is the ocean, our understanding deals with the top layer of molecules, the ones that come in contact with the air and we are clueless about what drives it underneath or even how deep the water is.

 

But we pretend.

 

In the movie "Patch Adams", the old genius in the Sanitarium holds up four fingers to every person he meets and asks, "How many fingers do you see". I loved that guy and he wasn't agreeable on any level. But he had something important to get across, a different way of looking at things and of the blindspots that we can induce into ourselves.

 

At the base of any discussion about anything we have perception. If we have a blindspot about the nature of perception, we're blind to the most fundamental tool we use to relate to existence, and to the efficacy of our maps.

 

And that strikes at the term, 'rational'. If our perception is faulty, how rational are we?

[questor]

Steve, you have come this far in your life perceiving the world based upon your own faculties. do you think your faculties have deceived you? do you think a great part of your life has been lived irrationaly? do you think that a premise that can't be explained and understood in a few sentences will change your life? we all live by perception and interpretation of events around us. we perceive reality based upon the ability of our minds to interpret

events rationaly. do you think the majority of people behave in an irrational manner? maybe Dr. Dick could give some reasons why his premise is of any value to anyone.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Our perception works well enough for us to get by and survive. I'm not arguing against that Questor. Within that framework, within our capacity to comprehend using the tools that we have we function just fine.

 

And if 'rational' applies only to that context, well, then we are rational creatures.

 

I'm trying to explain a concept that is based upon the idea that what we see is a derivative of what is really going on below the surface. That we do not, in fact, comprehend or perceive existence correctly.

 

Suppose there are creatures that literally can perceive the underlying functions of the universe. To them, reality must look a lot different than it does to us. Would the concept of rational be different for them? Would we appear rational to them? Would they even require such concepts?

 

The reason I'm slipping that into the discussion is that if rational is connected to valid perception, then how we perceive existence is germane.

 

A big tipoff that we don't approach the study of life (and rational is a concept that applies only to a living thing) from the correct direction is that we don't categorize living things according to the way they perceive existence. It's the very act of perceiving that identifies a living thing. And yet, that's an 'oh, by the way' sort of identification when it comes to life forms.

 

We've made it a quantitative set of identifications, so we are blind to the significant aspect of life: perception.

 

When we get to 'discussion', we are in the realm of the explanation. And that's where Doctor Dick wants us to be. And I suspect that the difficulty I'm having in understanding the concept is that my perception of the referents is not clear enough or I'm facing the wrong direction or both.

 

He has a mathematical treatise on the subject and I suspect he's trying to also explain his idea verbally which is why he keeps torturing himself and coming back here. The math has apparently delivered a contradiction of something we thought we understood. And my gut tells me that's what he's trying to get across. In other words, he thinks we have a blind spot.

[questor]

Steve, some time ago a country lawyer i was visiting received a phone call in my presence. he listened to the caller for awhile and then he said '' I don't want to get involved in no conversation where the answer don't mean nothing''. i'm sure you get my drift. Questor

[Doctordick]

Steve, I read your post this morning and was moved to post (actually questor and InfiniteNow's arguments are quite good; it probably is pretty much a waste of time for me to post). But you seem to have a questioning mind and that, in my head, is a worthwhile thing to encourage. :)

He has a mathematical treatise on the subject and I suspect he's trying to also explain his idea verbally which is why he keeps torturing himself and coming back here. The math has apparently delivered a contradiction of something we thought we understood. And my gut tells me that's what he's trying to get across. In other words, he thinks we have a blind spot.

It is a logical treatise (to quote Feynman, mathematics is the distilled essence of logic). What it delivers is a contradiction of the belief that physics is a defense of it's own validity. It turns out that physics is wholly circular logical structure and is, in fact, a rather brilliant self contained structure capable of “explaining” anything. It is fundamentally the religion of modern times. Physicists don't want to know this (they contend it is simply not possible for such a statement to be true) and they simply refuse to look at it. I don't think it's a blind spot, I know it's a blind spot. (And the math is not actually that difficult if approached carefully.)

 

So be it. But I have had fun talking to people here. The experience has made it quite clear to me why no one listens. Nonetheless, I'll try to make things a little clearer for you.

The two mechanisms I think I can understand.

I don't argue with you; I simply don't think you are viewing these two mechanisms from the perspective I am proposing. The real problem is that, what I was talking about was only put out there in an attempt to get you to see things from a different perspective. If you cannot see things from that perspective, the issue of the perspective isn't even worth bringing up. It seems that, in that case, the only real effect is to further confuse people. I keep trying different attacks, trying to find someone who will step back and see what I am saying without lathering it over with gobs and gobs of their personal opinions. In many ways, what I am saying is just so damnably simple that no one will even look at it.

Logic is identifying stuff in such a way that we don't have contradictory understanding.

I think I would rather define logic as an organized procedure of determining the consequences of known facts (axioms). The significant issue being that both the number of facts behind a logical conclusion and the number of procedural steps necessary to determine those consequences are small enough to also be explicitly delineated. If they can be explicitly delineated, they can be examined.

 

It's power comes from the fact that, if the axioms are valid and no errors are made in the procedure, the consequences are as valid as are the axioms. That is to say, when it comes to logic, validity is an easy question to answer. However, the weakness of Logic (and it is a very great and significant weakness) is the fact that it can only handle a small number of issues. In life, there are very few important problems which logic can actually solve. (I use the term “very few” because I compare it to the billions upon billions of problems to be solved every second in that world view where our perceptions are seen as the unraveling of the nerve impulses constituting our senses.)

 

As a matter of fact, that is exactly the reason why very few people have much interest in logic. It isn't much worth a whit (isn't w better than s) when it comes to the problems of ordinary life. As quester has commented, logic and understanding of the universe have very little application to daily living or business activities? And yet, does he really think it is worthless? If he does, then he is certainly wasting his time reading what I have to say.

Our emotions are like rapid response guards that tell us something about the internal structure and how it's faring against the tick of the clock. They're metric machines in that they measure the stuff that has meaning. The end result is how we feel.

And, don't you feel your self to be “rational”? Do you not possess a rather extensive world view with all kinds of seemingly rational relationships which make sense to you on a daily basis? Just where did that picture come from? Isn't it rather simple minded to think it just represents “truth” delivered to your mind on a platter by some power outside your comprehension? Oh yeah, that's a simple answer and has rather universal acceptance, but do you really believe it is “truth”? That perspective is exactly the same as “God did it!” and, if that is enough for you, you don't need to be talking to me.

 

I have discovered something quite astounding and, to date, no one has had a sufficient attention span to follow me down the path to that insight. Their progress is always blocked quite quickly by rather mundane issues which are essentially no more than opinions that they “know” the path leads nowhere and they don't want to go down there. My sole point with this thread is to get someone to question the validity of that knowledge which blocks their thoughts so they can follow me down that path.

 

My purpose is to get someone here to recognize that validity of that “squirrel” thought is a real issue which can be examined logically. In order to be objective in such an examination, one must first of all recognize that there is no direct way to defend the validity of even the very first element of their world view (that's your slippery slope right there). It's a nice world view to live by, but thinking it is “valid” is the utter height of gullibility.

It's the rational part that turns the slope slippery.

No, it is your personal assumption that “belief” requires truth which turns that slope slippery. You think you should not believe anything which is not valid. It is “belief” itself which an irrational concept. Belief is simply not a required element of thought. Belief has to do with the issue of being “right” or “wrong” and that you have no power over as it is not something knowable.

 

Belief itself is the villain here! It is exactly what closes the human mind to examining the possibilities.

Dick is so wrapped up in his concept that he is unable to adequately convey understanding of that reality to others.

No, it is that they are so wrapped up in the truth of their concept of reality that they will not even look at the problem of what that concept is based upon and how they managed to come up with it. Refusing to look at the problem is absolutely equivalent to asserting that the truth of their position is unquestionable. My position is quite simple: if you do take the trouble to question it, the answers are remarkably simple.

He has dwindled his personal reality to an increasingly smaller subset of reality itself, so much so that he is unable to relate to others.

Now that is an out and out joke! If your mind is so limited that you can come up with no better reason for not listening to logic than that, I sincerely pity you. By the way, as an aside, I believe that is called an “ad hominem argument”; something I thought this forum discuraged.

Hmm. I think DoctorDick has something important that he's trying to get across.

Thank you; I wouldn't be posting if I didn't.

The point of the whole thing, I suspect, is to define what it means to be conscious and rational and capable of comprehending the nature of existence, which I fear is so different than our concept of it that we aren't even in the right ballpark with our maps. But that idea is not comforting in the least so we blind ourselves to it.

That is exactly where the quote, “there are none so blind as those who WILL not see!” comes from; however, it is not exactly my goal. Actually, what I want you to do is to stop trying to find the spot on your map where I am trying to lead you; all I am asking is that you lay down those maps and listen to what I have to say. The issue is, what options do we have when it comes to drawing such a map.

 

But really, the point of this thread was to establish exactly what I mean by a rational discussion (which could very well be a waste of time). I have some things to say and would like to find someone willing to have a “rational discussion” with me: i.e., discuss a simple logical argument without throwing emotionally generated road blocks into the conversation every third line (let us not concern ourselves with the validity of our beliefs).

 

The real problem here is that, when things are brought up which go against ones beliefs, objectivity is very hard to achieve. That is why one needs to simply disown their beliefs if they really want to be rational. You see, following your beliefs and believing they are valid are two very different things. The first is an essential part of life while the second is what blinds us to the obvious. I got a kick out of something a Roman philosopher once said about religion around 200 AD (I have forgotten who it was but not what he said). He was not a Christian and was essentially defending the religion of Rome. He said that it was not necessary for the gods to exist for one to believe in the gods as belief in the gods was belief in the ideals embodied in the gods, not their actual existence: i.e., you should live by your beliefs but don't be so foolish as to think they're true!

But we pretend. ... And that strikes at the term, 'rational'. If our perception is faulty, how rational are we?

As quester has said, understanding the universe has very little to do with life. Most plants and animals (and most human beings) get by just fine, not understanding a thing about how and why things are the way they are; however, there are always a few of us who can't resist asking why. I guess it's just part of our nature. :shrug:

 

What I have to offer is a simple chain of logic and what most people lack is the attention span to follow the course of that logic. Most everyone is a lot like quester; they want the answer in a one liner so they don't have to think about it.

 

More like, "Me... I'd say [math]X=Now[/math]" which I don't find questor complaining about. ;)

 

People generally don't like to think and I have no desire to give them a hard time. Life is a ball and thinking seldom yields much worth while; however, every now and then something interesting crops up. The real question is, would you like to think about what I have discovered? There is an astonishing view from the other side of that swamp. (However, I will caution you that the view does stink in the middle of the swamp.)

 

And, questor, I guess this comment pretty well defines your attitude doesn't it.

I don't want to get involved in no conversation where the answer don't mean nothing''. i'm sure you get my drift. Questor

One wonders why are you bothering to post here. :D

 

Have fun -- Dick

[ldsoftwaresteve]

DoctorDick:

all I am asking is that you lay down those maps and listen to what I have to say. The issue is, what options do we have when it comes to drawing such a map.

 

But really, the point of this thread was to establish exactly what I mean by a rational discussion (which could very well be a waste of time). I have some things to say and would like to find someone willing to have a “rational discussion” with me: i.e., discuss a simple logical argument without throwing emotionally generated road blocks into the conversation every third line (let us not concern ourselves with the validity of our beliefs).

 

I shall try.

"what options do we have when it comes to drawing such a map?"

I've had an inkling that's where we're going with this. Hell, I've probably been standing on top of it the whole time.

 

That presumes I have an understanding of the process of drawing it. And if I do, wouldn't that mean that I was dealing with part of the map?

 

Ok, so that understanding is necessarily limited. Like a dim outline.

 

Wouldn't it be true (how do I get away from using a term like that? And when I say 'true', I mean it more along the lines of a carpenter's level.) that the option to 'suspend all my beliefs' enters in here? I don't have a problem with that. It scares me sometimes that I think I can do that quite easily.

 

That implies that the map reflects the filters of belief.

 

doesn't it? What are other options?

[InfiniteNow]

Dick,

 

My main point is that you are not very good at presenting your concept. When others ask questions, or criticize, you essentially call them baffoons or morons. It's not that others are incapable of understanding your presentation or are holding to preconceived notions and blinded to your insight, it's that people don't often care too much for a prickly person and tend to avoid you.

 

Anyway, thanks for your continued efforts.

[Qfwfq]

do you think that a premise that can't be explained and understood in a few sentences will change your life?

Have General Relativity and Cosmology changed your life? Or the Standard Model of particle physics?

 

Now that is an out and out joke! If your mind is so limited that you can come up with no better reason for not listening to logic than that, I sincerely pity you. By the way, as an aside, I believe that is called an “ad hominem argument”; something I thought this forum discuraged.

Now perhaps that could be called tit for tat, or perhaps his wasn't even ad hominem because it wasn't an attempt to refute your position but instead mainly just criticism of your efforts to comunicate it?

 

Hmm. I think DoctorDick has something important that he's trying to get across. We can have all kinds of rhetoric to the contrary but it won't change my mind.

I think his problem is at the very least one of being unable to get it across. I'm still not sure whether or not what he's trying to get across actually is worthy. It could be interesting if it were. Partly it seems to be a generalization of what I already saw in my theoretical physics course, i. e. arriving at the Dirac equation from general symmetry considerations, but his claim is to do something more extended than this which would be interesting, and I still don't know how his definitions lead to his fundamental equation.

 

And that strikes at the term, 'rational'. If our perception is faulty, how rational are we?

I disagree, rational doesn't necessarily mean faithfully representing reality. One can be highly rational about totally hypothetical or imaginary things.

[questor]

It is possible that more has been written about and less learned about this subject than any issue discussed on this site. if Dr. D. has something of value, i would enjoy learning about it. the disparaging comments about ones of us who have joined in this discourse have in no way enhanced the value of

his project. instead of cloaking this seemingly empty vessel in polysyllabic

words, why not simply explain why this subject is important to anyone or can improve our society? it seems this has not been accomplished. i have no fight with Dr. or any wish to disparage him, but of what use is all this to anyone?

[ldsoftwaresteve]

It is possible that more has been written about and less learned about this subject than any issue discussed on this site. if Dr. D. has something of value, i would enjoy learning about it. the disparaging comments about ones of us who have joined in this discourse have in no way enhanced the value of

his project. instead of cloaking this seemingly empty vessel in polysyllabic

words, why not simply explain why this subject is important to anyone or can improve our society? it seems this has not been accomplished. i have no fight with Dr. or any wish to disparage him, but of what use is all this to anyone?

Ok.

Umm, if we are engaging in a rational discussion, how are we to know that? If we are not, same thing. How are we to know that too?

In other words, what makes a discussion rational. We ARE discussing here, and i believe (oops. think. am sure. guess) we are, it's a discussion.

So, putting aside the efficacy of our beliefs, what's left?

Explanation.

I explain. You explain. We weep and we repeat.

 

So, unless rational is tied to the efficacy of our beliefs, it is only tied to our explanations. To the nature of our explanations inasmuch as we can identify the elements of an explanation, qua explanation.

 

A mathematical formula is an explanation and so is a sentence.

 

What makes it rational?

[questor]

Steve, please re-read your reply to me. i do believe we are now descending into the realm of absurdity.

this is truly a conversation where the answer ''don't mean nothing''. please include me out on any further continuance on this issue. there are many things of substance to discourse on. let's move on!

[Doctordick]

Sorry about the delay of my response but I guess my personal reality had dwindled to such a small subset of reality itself that I couldn't encompass the time to find the forum. :eek: You know, those trivial things like grandchildren, dinner parties, entertainment, travel plans and, now that it's summer, lawn care on top of it all. What is left of “my personal reality” is almost chock full to the hilt. I have no idea how I managed prior to retirement. :cheer:

 

But, no problem; I managed to get this into my “dwindled schedule”.

... the option to 'suspend all my beliefs' enters in here? I don't have a problem with that. It scares me sometimes that I think I can do that quite easily.

If you can then I think we could have a rational discussion. All I ask is that you make no assertions unless you can prove they are valid. I will try to do the same. You need to understand that such a standard is extremely hard to maintain and I fully expect mistakes on both our parts; however, I will treat each of your complaints on my logic as issues to be defended in detail and am prepared to do just that. Secondly, I hope you do not become upset when I suggest that something you have said doesn't hold water.

A mathematical formula is an explanation and so is a sentence.

 

What makes it rational?

Well, I made my contribution: I said (see post #188) that the adjective “rational” means that whatever it is that is being modified by that adjective (its object) “does not generate emotional doubts as to its validity”. So the issue as to the rationality of a given statement is made by the listener (no trustworthy contributor ever puts forward an idea he himself holds to be irrational). It follows that a discussion is “rational” if the proffered statements do not raise emotional doubts as to their validity in the mind of any member of the discussion.

 

This is quite a bit looser than requiring a discussion to be factual but is still a rather extreme constraint. The reason for loosing the constraint is that the “factual” constraint is rather worthless from a philosophical perspective. The reason for requiring the constraint is that, without such a constraint, any discussion quite rapidly degenerates into what Kant referred to as “mock battles”: i.e., participants arguing about issues which cannot be settled. No squirrel decision can ever be raised to the status of valid; the best possible status any such decision can ever acquire is “rational”.

 

It follows that the real issue here is, can we have a philosophical discussion which is rational? That is to say, is there enough left, after we strip out anything which “generates emotional doubts” in the participants, to yield a worth while discussion. My point, with this thread, was merely an attempt to get people to see the difference between “justified beliefs” and “reasonable beliefs”. Let us be “reasonable”! I find very few of the threads on this (or any other forum) to be very “reasonable”.

 

Have fun -- Dick