My new meta-debate hammer, anti-dogmatism

[Jimmy]

You have met me. You are doing it now. We are meeting on the Internet. And I don't want us to think alike. I want us to agree on being different individuals with a common set of rules.

What does us agreeing on being different individuals with a common set of rules have anything to do with what we were talking about? Wow. I’m out.

 

[George-ananda]

I think some of these things are "real" and some are not. MOST of what humans can do, they cannot - yet - explain how they do.

A couple of thoughts:

- take your list and examine each item in isolation. some might be true, others not.
- for each item, ask yourself how reliable or repeatable the ability is. if an ability has a low repeatability rate, it's hard to claim that it's actually an ability.

My older daughter does tarot readings. My more scientific explanation for her ability is that she's VERY empathetic and can read people very well. The tarot cards are a vehicle for her to express that which she cannot otherwise explain.

But to reiterate: scientists who study skill acquisition, performance, expertise and so on, acknowledge that skills and abilities most frequently are NOT explainable. We can ask a gymnast how they do a floor exercise. They will not be able to explain it, but the skill is real and repeatable.

My only point in this thread was to say Scientism/Materialism (or whatever imperfect term) can be held dogmatically by some and is something to resist. To quote yourself in the OP: I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

Science types like to hold religions as being dogmatic, but I think sometimes they cannot see it in themselves.

 

[Alien826]

All know murder is wrong. Everyone has an opinion on self defense.

Murder is wrong by definition. It describes killing that is forbidden by law. Try "killing is wrong".

How bout spittin in a strangers face? Is anyone uncertain about if that’s right or wrong?

What if his face was on fire?

 

[Alien826]

How do you discern between dogmatists and people holding "unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms"?

I'll try with a few examples. In each case Bill of likely being dogmatic.

John has identified as an atheist. He states something. Bill responds with Bible verses. (This does not apply if they are discussing the Bible itself).

Bill states that "God is love". Many examples are given the might show the opposite. He has tortured explanations for everything. In the next thread he once again says "God is love".

Bill has a pet argument that he considers to be the final word on something. Nothing will get him to admit that any contrary argument has any value.

Bill (different person) won't allow anything to be "evidence" if it isn't able to be directly investigated scientifically. He never wavers from this.

Note: It is logically possible for a dogmatic person to be correct. It's the attitude that makes him dogmatic.

 

[Heyo]

Spoilsport. I was thinking of bringing a persuader to my next debate:

View attachment 76442

I have one of those:

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're asking me to defend claims I'm not making. At least not in this thread

I'm not saying that eliminating dogmatism would end disagreements - far from it. What I'm saying is that when the inevitable disagreements crop up, the chances of peaceful resolution go way up if the disagrees are not dogmatic. The lack of dogmatism allows more opportunity for discussion

Okay, dogma first in the formal sense with how that works and how to spot it. What I have done is to remove the particulars and I will show you an example of how dogma works in practice in general.
Someone: I know X is Y and not Z.
Someone else: No, I know X is Z and not Y.
Me: I suspect both cases are dogma because I can do that in a 3rd way and that is also dogma in effect.

That is how you spot dogma. Someone will claim that it can't be different that X is Y or X is Z and so on for all the cases of X is ... You then test if you can avoid all the cases of X must be an universal factor for all times, places and in only one sense.
Now a real life example for that in practice for this forum:
Someone: I know the universe is physical and not from God.
Someone else: No, I know the universe is from God and not physical.
Me: I suspect both cases are dogma since I can do it in a 3rd way that is also a kind of dogma.

So I will not move on to the next step, but stop here and do the following. We can now agree or disagree and that is the point of all this. There are different sets of axioms possible and your idea is that we agree on one set for a we. But even that we can be a case of dogma in effect. I.e. I speak for a we, that is the correct way to do it(dogma) and they don't as they are not correct(dogma).

So you decide as you, not as a we. How can you do it for X is Y and not Z for which there is no case in reverse?
I will listen to you, but here it is. I have now done these kinds of debate for close to 30 years and read a lot of books on that in effect for what we are really playing: I know and you don't. The problem is than in some cases that also works in the reverse direction even for the dogma of I know and you don't.
That is the game in the end. You have a method(dogma) and I can do it differently(other version of dogma). It is not that I am without dogma. I have just learned to spot it in all humans for relevant cases including myself and not just everybody else. So I am not that special when it comes to dogma, rather I am just honest about it.

Regards.

PS I am neuro diverse and this is my obsessive compulsive habit. I do a lot of not that we know, but how do we know, that we know. That is the science of science in your world view. So for nature and nurture I am a result of over 2000 years of how do we know that we know. Pro tip: We don't!!! We just have limited yet not universal sets of different dogma. Go figure.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll try with a few examples. In each case Bill of likely being dogmatic.

John has identified as an atheist. He states something. Bill responds with Bible verses. (This does not apply if they are discussing the Bible itself).

Bill states that "God is love". Many examples are given the might show the opposite. He has tortured explanations for everything. In the next thread he once again says "God is love".

Bill has a pet argument that he considers to be the final word on something. Nothing will get him to admit that any contrary argument has any value.

Bill (different person) won't allow anything to be "evidence" if it isn't able to be directly investigated scientifically. He never wavers from this.

Note: It is logically possible for a dogmatic person to be correct. It's the attitude that makes him dogmatic.

Yeah, the same can be the case for the universe is physical and natural science is the correct way to do what the universe really is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wow your whole conversation on peoples authority has been pointless.

To you. That is your authority speaking and declaring my authority pointless.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does us agreeing on being different individuals with a common set of rules have anything to do with what we were talking about? Wow. I’m out.

Well, that is what we are disagreeing on. If there is a we at all and how that works?

 

[Jimmy]

Well, that is what we are disagreeing on. If there is a we at all and how that works?

You’re totally lost. All I said in this thread was that everyone has their own authority. Peace

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You’re totally lost. All I said in this thread was that everyone has their own authority. Peace

Yes, but that is in effect a half-truth. It is a part of the universe, but not the only part. War.

 

[Alien826]

Yeah, the same can be the case for the universe is physical and natural science is the correct way to do what the universe really is.

I'm not sure if you are missing the point or not. First, dogma, here's a dictionary definition.

1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.


The bold parts are me, note that the common factor is that the beliefs are presented as true and not to be questioned.

A dogmatic person, on the other hand, is someone who presents the dogma in the same way, steeled truth, not to be questioned. I would suggest that simply presenting a dogmatic belief is not necessarily dogmatic. The dogmatism (?) of the person is determined by how he presents the dogma. If he he says or implies "this is what my church believes" or "current scientific research suggests" then he is not being dogmatic, and a discussion is possible with someone that believes differently. If he presents it as absolute truth, not to be questioned, he is dogmatic, and the discussion ends before it begins.

Edit: Obviously the word "steeled" is a typo. I can't for the life of me remember what I meant to type.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not sure if you are missing the point or not. First, dogma, here's a dictionary definition.

1. an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc., as of a church.
2. a specific tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, as by a church.
3. prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group.
4. a settled or established opinion, belief, or principle.


The bold parts are me, note that the common factor is that the beliefs are presented as true and not to be questioned.

A dogmatic person, on the other hand, is someone who presents the dogma in the same way, steeled truth, not to be questioned. I would suggest that simply presenting a dogmatic belief is not necessarily dogmatic. The dogmatism (?) of the person is determined by how he presents the dogma. If he he says or implies "this is what my church believes" or "current scientific research suggests" then he is not being dogmatic, and a discussion is possible with someone that believes differently. If he presents it as absolute truth, not to be questioned, he is dogmatic, and the discussion ends before it begins.

Yeah, to some people it is unquestionably true that the universe is physical. I mean I get what they are saying, but they won't even debate the finer points of that in practice.
You don't get it, do you? Even truth can be done dogmatically and have nothing to do with the 2 first ones.
Here is an example from philosophy:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

The problem is the 2 first ones is that they are the subset of the 2 last ones.
So that is that.

I mean we have one poster for which truth is the objective version of correspondence and that can't be doubted. It has nothing to do with religion as such. It is in effect psychology if you want modern science.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeah, to some people it is unquestionably true that the universe is physical. I mean I get what they are saying, but they won't even debate the finer points of that in practice.
You don't get it, do you? Even truth can be done dogmatically and have nothing to do with the 2 first ones.
Here is an example from philosophy:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

The problem is the 2 first ones is that they are the subset of the 2 last ones.
So that is that.

I mean we have one poster for which truth is the objective version of correspondence and that can't be doubted. It has nothing to do with religion as such. It is in effect psychology if you want modern science.

Eh, space is infinite so it does has a quality of being a touch above reality but space is physical as well.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eh, space is infinite so it does has a quality of being a touch above reality but space is physical as well.

Yeas, space is all there is. In fact there is nothing but empty space even in the heads off all people, including you and I. And that is nothing but nothing and that is The Truth. You are just space and you are nothing but empty space and so am I. Nothing but empty space. Nothing!!!

 

[Alien826]

Yeah, to some people it is unquestionably true that the universe is physical. I mean I get what they are saying, but they won't even debate the finer points of that in practice.
You don't get it, do you? Even truth can be done dogmatically and have nothing to do with the 2 first ones.

Actually I get it perfectly well. I believe I said (can't be bothered to find it) that the truth of what is stated has nothing to do with the concept of dogmatism, which related to how the person presents it.

We actually agree I think. I'd be delighted to debate the nature of reality with you, but it's not the subject of this thread.

 

[sayak83]

Call me reductionist if you will, but I'm seeing a common thread across many ideas or opinions or behaviors with which I disagree. The common thread I'm seeing is dogmatism. For years my RF avatar read "anti-theist". That's still true for me, but I think a broader perspective is "anti-dogmatist".

There's a blindingly obvious truism that I first heard from Sam Harris. (AFAIK he does NOT claim to be the creator of this truism.):

"Humans have come up with two basic ways to settle disputes; talking it out, or violence."

As a general rule, when a person is behaving dogmatically, they are shutting down the possibility of "talking it out". So I'll claim that dogmatism often leads to violence.

And I see dogmatism coming from all corners of social, political, religious spectrums. The DEI folks are often dogmatic. The MAGA types as well. Religious people almost by definition.

With all that said, I also acknowledge that I think we need a few unfalsifiable, philosophical axioms to have any sort of discussion at all. I acknowledge I have mine. But I'm willing to admit to these axioms and I'm willing to revise them if I see good evidence.

So, long story short, I think we should all call out the dogmatists wherever and whenever we see them

This is an improvement. I am anti-dogmatist as well. But I do identify with Hindu religion. So I would suggest that the claim that religious folks by definition are dogmatic is not correct. But yes, dogmatism is encountered frequently within religious people.

 

[Jimmy]

Yeas, space is all there is. In fact there is nothing but empty space even in the heads off all people, including you and I. And that is nothing but nothing and that is The Truth. You are just space and you are nothing but empty space and so am I. Nothing but empty space. Nothing!!!

Eh, I’m a man thanks

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually I get it perfectly well. I believe I said (can't be bothered to find it) that the truth of what is stated has nothing to do with the concept of dogmatism, which related to how the person presents it.

We actually agree I think. I'd be delighted to debate the nature of reality with you, but it's not the subject of this thread.

Sorry, but some non-religious people are as dogmatic as some religious people. So I overreacted, but you handled it well. Thanks.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eh, I’m a man thanks

No, you are nothing but physical stuff happening. That "I" is an illusion and not real. You and I are nothing but mindless stuff happening and it is all physical. Learn The Truth.