How Are Your Views More Correct Than Another's?

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Yeah, that is all there is. Now you, heretic, get on your place on the fire stack, so we can burn you!!!

The list of things we banned because society deems them evil is so long I used the word etc to indicate their vastness.

Living in a well-organised society requires the imposition of laws, based on the societies values, are imposed on society. Of course, religion is all about imposing one set of rules on the rest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The list of things we banned because society deems them evil is so long I used the word etc to indicate their vastness.

Living in a well-organised society requires the imposition of laws, based on the societies values, are imposed on society. Of course, religion is all about imposing one set of rules on the rest.

No, religion is not that. Because religion is not one set of rules.
Religion is this if you want to play science:
religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you know more about pragmatic reality than they do? Why...or how?

It isn't about knowing more. Knowledge can even be corrupting
if one culls only that which reinforces one's weltanschauung.
I say the most important thing is to cultivate a perspective free
from fear, anger & hatred at politicians, religions, & baseball teams.
This frees one from us-vs-them & sky-is-falling feelings.
Instead of calling it "more correct", I'll say "preferred".


Yesterday, my helper said that if Biden wins, he'll get a large
tent, move to a wilderness, & live off the grid to escape the
"evil" socialist takeover. Other friends fear Trump becoming
Hitler, inciting civil war. Both are wrong...I guarantee it.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

No, religion is not that. Because religion is not one set of rules.
Religion is this if you want to play science:
religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions

Agreed each religion comes up with its own set of rules. With some very basic ones that are prevalent in most. Such as do not kill, steal, etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agreed each religion comes up with its own set of rules. With some very basic ones that are prevalent in most. Such as do not kill, steal, etc.

We can't have that!!! I want to steal and kill you. Get your religion out of my life.

 

[Polymath257]

Expertise is a good argument. But what do you think makes one an expert in a particular subject?

That isn't as easy to answer as might be thought.

I was surprised when I was first called an expert in my subject in math. I felt like I knew very little and that there were so many open questions still to answer.

But, I was, in fact, an expert on that particular subject: I knew more than most people, even most mathematicians on that particular subject. And I had contributed new knowledge to the subject that surprised other experts.

So, to begin with, to be an expert in a subject, the subject has to be one where knowledge is possible. And, there has to be a way in which that knowledge can be learned. Even then, expertise is relative: an MS in math might well be considered an expert to some people, but would not be so in a group of research mathematicians.

Also, experts can be wrong, even in their area of study. they are human, just like the rest of us, and can make mistakes. When confronted with a new situation, the experts are more likely to be right than others, but it is still possible they will be wrong, especially if that new situation is unexpectedly different than the norm.

And this leads to another thing about experts: they keep learning and updating their information. True experts are very aware of the limits of their knowledge and attempt to push those limits any chance they get. They are much more likely to speak about what is likely as opposed to what is. This is often seen as a sign of doubt and confusion, when it is actually honesty and humility.

Also, I will assume the views you "impose" upon people as an educator are not in opposition to their views, and, for the most part, they are there to learn about the subject you're teaching. I'll guess you don't make it a habit to walk into the history professor's classroom and start "imposing" mathematics on their pupils.

*laughs* That does depend on the class. Many students are 'forced' to pass math classes and feel the subject to be useless to what they want to know. I am the one that stands in the way of their degree. So it is quite likely that many feel I am 'imposing' a viewpoint on them.

One of the goals of education is to change how people think. That can look very similar to indoctrination to those outside (or even those inside).

 

[Polymath257]

Well, some say dark chocolate is good for the heart. Maybe there are minuses to that, too, I don't know. But I like chocolate sometimes in my coffee and think I will make a cup of decaf w/some nice melted (dark) chocolate in it for sweetness and flavor now.

And, probably, if we took a large enough sample size and a long enough study of a wide variety of people, we could learn if it is actually 'good for the heart' and in what circumstances. it may not be a simple yes/no question.

My father had a joke. It's an old one about Communist Russia back in the days. The dictators would tell the people, "We're giving you strawberries and cream," but the people said, "We don't like strawberries and cream." And the dictator would say, "We're giving you strawberries and cream and you're GOING to like it!" (That settles that.)

And this is another aspect of this. ANY law can seem like an imposition to those who disagree with the law. And, if that law is backed up by 'experts', it becomes a case of the experts imposing their viewpoints.

A number of issues: to what extent are those experts actually experts? On what do they base their knowledge? How confident can we be in their conclusions? Is it based on ideology or is it based on scientific study? Are the 'scientists' being yes-men for the politicians?

One of the big issues today in the US is the politicization of science. When a scientific statement is politically unpopular, the scientists are trashed as biased. This is usually done by people with no expertise.

 

[Polymath257]

At this time military service is voluntary in the US.

Does that matter? Even if I volunteer to be in the armed services, I may not agree with any particular action.

 

[Secret Chief]

Woah...umm...
2 quick things...

1) I'm not sure what you actually meant
2) One of the examples I had in mind involved a turtle, and I am not even joking. At all.

That is uber weird. Please tell me I have told you the turtle story before, and that's what you were referring to. It seems unlikely, but otherwise I am confused.
And...again...not even joking.

I reckon the two most likely explanations are:
1. I have globe-spanning psychic abilities.
2. You've recounted the turtle story before.
I'm going with the second one.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That isn't as easy to answer as might be thought.

I was surprised when I was first called an expert in my subject in math. I felt like I knew very little and that there were so many open questions still to answer.

But, I was, in fact, an expert on that particular subject: I knew more than most people, even most mathematicians on that particular subject. And I had contributed new knowledge to the subject that surprised other experts.

So, to begin with, to be an expert in a subject, the subject has to be one where knowledge is possible. And, there has to be a way in which that knowledge can be learned. Even then, expertise is relative: an MS in math might well be considered an expert to some people, but would not be so in a group of research mathematicians.

Also, experts can be wrong, even in their area of study. they are human, just like the rest of us, and can make mistakes. When confronted with a new situation, the experts are more likely to be right than others, but it is still possible they will be wrong, especially if that new situation is unexpectedly different than the norm.

And this leads to another thing about experts: they keep learning and updating their information. True experts are very aware of the limits of their knowledge and attempt to push those limits any chance they get. They are much more likely to speak about what is likely as opposed to what is. This is often seen as a sign of doubt and confusion, when it is actually honesty and humility.



*laughs* That does depend on the class. Many students are 'forced' to pass math classes and feel the subject to be useless to what they want to know. I am the one that stands in the way of their degree. So it is quite likely that many feel I am 'imposing' a viewpoint on them.

One of the goals of education is to change how people think. That can look very similar to indoctrination to those outside (or even those inside).

So here is a problem for you:
Can you be an expert in this:
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience."

I am not an expert in that. I doubt you can find one for all of philosophy. But on a scale from 5(low) to 1(high) I can properly do a 4 to 2 with variance of the subject within philosophy. And on a good day I can understand a part of 1.

But I do relativity good on subjectivity as one of the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
Now, is that knowledge? Well, I know that there is subjectivity and I do it and I can explain it not just for me, but as a part of the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

And as always for truth. Subjectivity is not knowledge in any form. That is a subjective claim, because you can learn to study subjectivity and explain it with the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of what it is.
It is just not natural/hard science and therefore to your sub-culture, it is not knowledge? Or is it?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Polymath257]

So here is a problem for you:
Can you be an expert in this:
"Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience."

I would say that you can be an expert on the *history* of philosophy. You can be an expert on the variety of views past philosophers have expressed.

But no, I don't think it is possible to be an expert in philosophy because I don't think that knowledge is possible for the vast majority of philosophy.

I am not an expert in that. I doubt you can find one for all of philosophy. But on a scale from 5(low) to 1(high) I can properly do a 4 to 2 with variance of the subject within philosophy. And on a good day I can understand a part of 1.

But I do relativity good on subjectivity as one of the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.
Now, is that knowledge? Well, I know that there is subjectivity and I do it and I can explain it not just for me, but as a part of the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience.

And as always for truth. Subjectivity is not knowledge in any form. That is a subjective claim, because you can learn to study subjectivity and explain it with the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of what it is.
It is just not natural/hard science and therefore to your sub-culture, it is not knowledge? Or is it?

Regards
Mikkel

I think that the study of psychology and subjective views *could* become an area of knowledge, but that, overall at least, it is not currently so. It would be knowledge in the same way that the history of philosophy is knowledge, but philosophy itself is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I would say that you can be an expert on the *history* of philosophy. You can be an expert on the variety of views past philosophers have expressed.

But no, I don't think it is possible to be an expert in philosophy because I don't think that knowledge is possible for the vast majority of philosophy.



I think that the study of psychology and subjective views *could* become an area of knowledge, but that, overall at least, it is not currently so. It would be knowledge in the same way that the history of philosophy is knowledge, but philosophy itself is not.

So basically we are back, where we always end up. You subjectively think...

Please give a base explanation of how knowledge works. Not a definition, but an explanation.
If you don't want to play, that is okay. If you want me to take a crack at it, ask.

PS as back to the OP. I don't want your view of it. I want your knowledge about knowledge.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I reckon the two most likely explanations are:
1. I have globe-spanning psychic abilities.
2. You've recounted the turtle story before.
I'm going with the second one.

Whew.
I was freaking out there for a moment!!

 

[amorphous_constellation]

And this leads to another thing about experts: they keep learning and updating their information. True experts are very aware of the limits of their knowledge and attempt to push those limits any chance they get. They are much more likely to speak about what is likely as opposed to what is. This is often seen as a sign of doubt and confusion, when it is actually honesty and humility.

What about when the mathematician is in the position where they have to focus purely on solid information? The examples are pretty numerous.. the architect who wants to build a cantilever building, the engineer designing the spaceship. Chances are, you probably don't want them to have as much of an experimental attitude, or a sense that their work is subjective. There are lives on the line, and/or the possibility of serious litigation, as they are doing something where the rubber really meets the road.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have no issue with one believing social distancing and wearing a mask is useless...as long as they wear a mask in public and stay 6 feet away from me.

There's still an issue with what leads to that. The mentality that "I shouldn't have to." That is a highly problematic level of selfishness and entitlement that needs to be worked on. It reflects a very unhealthy society that is a symptom of things being highly competitive here and everyone in it for themselves. It's a symptom of a culture that has been led to be broken and separate for some time now (even before technology exploded - think of how the normalization of the nuclear family greatly shrunk and diminished family - think of the alienation of labor Marx wrote about). And now we've reached a point where global destruction doesn't matter because it's what "I believe."
And this is the season of imposing views on others. Up to the point of losing civil rights and liberties. It happens, it's been done. Even the Civil Rights Act did impose upon others, such as those who believed it their religious right to not mingle with black people, serve them at their restaurants, or learn with them in school. Just as--as it should be but likely won't happen now--store owners today are told the same thing and they can't discriminate based on reason x, y, and z.

 

[SalixIncendium]

There's still an issue with what leads to that. The mentality that "I shouldn't have to." That is a highly problematic level of selfishness and entitlement that needs to be worked on.

By whom?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

By whom?

Yeah, that is the tricky question. The realistic answers is that either it won't "boil over" and with time become less OR the different sides will start fighting.
There is no other side "side" in such cases, when 2 or more sides within a culture go at loggerheads. In general people will be force to choose sides, if it doesn't diminishes.

Where the current US situation ends, I don't know. But it is not just American. You can also spot in other parts of the world. It is the "dark side" of individual rights.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I'm confused by this statement. Can you rephrase or expand on this?

That thought is born out of what I see is given by God through the Messengers.

If one adopts that Message as Truth, what they share is bigger than their own self. When it is shared, it is only beneficial if it does not contain any of one's personal views. That is not an easy thing to do, it takes a lot of self reflection to rid oneself of personal negative aspects, of life giving Messages.

If as stated by the Messengers they are from God, then it is the fabric of existence, by which all of us exist.

Awareness of those Messengers may offer a reply to part of your OP, as in each age a Message is given, at the start there is only a handful that accept and they are the ones that must share that new reality, a veiw far beyond their own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[Polymath257]

What about when the mathematician is in the position where they have to focus purely on solid information? The examples are pretty numerous.. the architect who wants to build a cantilever building, the engineer designing the spaceship. Chances are, you probably don't want them to have as much of an experimental attitude, or a sense that their work is subjective. There are lives on the line, and/or the possibility of serious litigation, as they are doing something where the rubber really meets the road.

On the contrary, I would expect the architect and the engineer to be continually updating their knowledge of the various materials available, their characteristics, the local laws, best practices, etc.

It is precisely because lives are on the line that I would expect the experts to be continually re-evaluating their procedures and figuring if they can be improved.

And, the top level engineers *do* have an experimental attitude to determine these characteristics. The experiments are, of course, prior to actual use in critical systems. But the experiments must be done to guarantee that things work as intended.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

On the contrary, I would expect the architect and the engineer to be continually updating their knowledge of the various materials available, their characteristics, the local laws, best practices, etc.

It is precisely because lives are on the line that I would expect the experts to be continually re-evaluating their procedures and figuring if they can be improved.

And, the top level engineers *do* have an experimental attitude to determine these characteristics. The experiments are, of course, prior to actual use in critical systems. But the experiments must be done to guarantee that things work as intended.

Fair enough, but I'm talking about when all that gets boiled down to a plan. At that point, something is going to be created where maybe you can't alter what was made