Too Many Extremes in Disbelief

[Zwing]

…all blue cheeses are Gods.

Yuck!

Blue Stilton is a God.

Cheddar all the way for me.

 

[Audie]

No spoilt milk for me.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Not many cheeses I don't like but I hate that red rind on Edam.

 

[Ella S.]

Are you aware of anyone who has actually managed to transcend the obvious limitations of human cognition?

You don't need to in order to be rational all of the time, only if you want to adhere to "perfect rationality" or "ideal rationality."

It is quite possible, through practice and discipline, to remain rational at all times when it comes to bounded rationality. I think it's rather uncommon, but not too uncommon. In my experience, it's more common among statisticians, mathematicians, and economists, who gain a deeper understanding of rationality as a part of their education.

Rationality isn't some holy grail of philosophy. It's the starting point.

 

[Augustus]

News of the well known.
But as long as you accept it correct to call
him a charlatan.
And that you choose to believe the
" good faith" bit.

When people go through hardship for minimal benefit as Paul seems to have done, I’d say it makes far more sense to see it as genuine belief.

If he’d sat in a mansion taking people’s cash then it would be more questionable.

We know many people do genuinely have “mystical experiences” (even if they are “false” and the cause is mundane), and the pre-modern view of the world was very different to a modern scientific rationalistic one. I don’t really see any reason to assume he was lying.

You can say he might have been a charlatan, but for someone to assert he was a charlatan says more about the ideological prejudices of the speaker rather than anything else.

 

[Audie]

When people go through hardship for minimal benefit as Paul seems to have done, I’d say it makes far more sense to see it as genuine belief.

If he’d sat in a mansion taking people’s cash then it would be more questionable.

We know many people do genuinely have “mystical experiences” (even if they are “false” and the cause is mundane), and the pre-modern view of the world was very different to a modern scientific rationalistic one. I don’t really see any reason to assume he was lying.

You can say he might have been a charlatan, but for someone to assert he was a charlatan says more about the ideological prejudices of the speaker rather than anything else.

It makes no difference if he believed it or not,
he still fits the definition.

 

[Audie]

Not many cheeses I don't like but I hate that red rind on Edam.

Worse than what's inside???

 

[Mock Turtle]

Worse than what's inside???

Well it does seem to be made out of some kind of wax or plastic. Edam isn't that bad actually.

 

[Augustus]

It makes no difference if he believed it or not,
he still fits the definition.

Words are inherently flexible so you are free to use them outside of standard usage if it floats your boat.

The term is not commonly used to be a neutral term for someone who is simply wrong though.

So used in its standard manner or used polemically to criticise someone who is simply mistaken would still say more about the ideology of the speaker than about Paul.

 

[Audie]

Words are inherently flexible so you are free to use them outside of standard usage if it floats your boat.

The term is not commonly used to be a neutral term for someone who is simply wrong though.

So used in its standard manner or used polemically to criticise someone who is simply mistaken would still say more about the ideology of the speaker than about Paul.

Float my boat.
You just can't give it up?

Google "charlatan"

My obscure polemic mistaken ideology
usage is like literally the first freaking thing there.

 

[blü 2]

materialism is false and the material world in in actuality, an illusion

You don't appear to find your computer, your net connection, your posts at RF, the beings who respond or co-post, to be illusions.

What exactly do you say is illusory?

How do you demonstrate this illusion to someone who is a materialist but still willing to learn?

Scientists are only now beginning to scratch the surface of consciousness. E.g. Hameroff and Penrose.

Hameroff made a completely materialist claim when he said conscious states arise from quantum states, by which I take him to mean, more directly than for the rest of biological physics. What claims do you say he makes that entail immateriality? If he's made such claims, how has he demonstrated their immateriality?

Penrose is a very smart physicist, undeniably, but eg his Platonic view of maths (if he still adheres to it) is dreamy woo nonsense.

I'm trying to remember what he said in The Emperor's New Mind. I seem to recall he thought further investigation would likely show consciousness, or some other relevant brain function, might well arise from quantum phenomena too, but I'm open to correction on that point. For some reason the word 'microtubule' comes to mind as I write about him.

do you think consciousness continues after death?

Consciousness is a set of brain states and brain processes, which is why it responds to certain drugs &c. Death is the irreversible cessation of the brain/body's life support functions, including the cessation of biochemical and bioelectrical activity in the brain. And then you're dead, and there's no way you can ever be conscious, hence 'you', again. The particular connections in your brain, its editing of sensory input, its capacities, instincts, memories, language skills, its conscious and unconscious functions, all have irrecoverably ceased to exist.

I'm not aware of any contradictions to that ─ at least, not in reality.

What can you offer?

 

[Augustus]

Float my boat.
You just can't give it up.
Google "charlatan"

My obscure polemic mistaken ideology
usage is the first freaking thing there.
LOOK.

An apple is defined as a round fruit with firm, white flesh and a green, red, or yellow skin.

Not all green fruits with white flesh are apples.

This is the problem of simply looking at a dictionary then assuming anything that can technically fit the given definition must therefore be the correct usage of the term and there is no need to pay attention to real world usage.

If you think charlatan is a neutral term that can be used every time someone is mistaken in good faith about their knowledge or skills, try it in real life and see where that gets you.

As for his " vision" and sincerity, you don't
know. You choose how your ideology directs you
to believe.

Or you could look if the evidence seems to better fit someone conning folk for his own benefit, or seems to suggest they believed what they said or that we should withhold judgement, etc.

Me, I don't believe in " god" so the whole thing
is something he made up.
Iike the snake story like the " GoLden books
and all the angels " prophesizing" to him.

I don't believe in god either, but that doesn't mean we need to think the entire history of human religious/mystical experiences is best explained by the assumption of charlatanism, lies, idiocy and so forth, especially in the pre-modern world.

used the word correctly on all counts.

Well you said he just made it up, if you think that you used it in its normal sense.

 

[Audie]

Well it does seem to be made out of some kind of wax or plastic. Edam isn't that bad actually.

Cheese is not for me.

An apple is defined as a round fruit with firm, white flesh and a green, red, or yellow skin.

Not all green fruits with white flesh are apples.

This is the problem of simply looking at a dictionary then assuming anything that can technically fit the given definition must therefore be the correct usage of the term and there is no need to pay attention to real world usage.

If you think charlatan is a neutral term that can be used every time someone is mistaken in good faith about their knowledge or skills, try it in real life and see where that gets you.



Or you could look if the evidence seems to better fit someone conning folk for his own benefit, or seems to suggest they believed what they said or that we should withhold judgement, etc.



I don't believe in god either, but that doesn't mean we need to think the entire history of human religious/mystical experiences is best explained by the assumption of charlatanism, lies, idiocy and so forth, especially in the pre-modern world.



Well you said he just made it up, if you think that you used it in its normal sense.

Charlatan noun
"a person who falsely claims
to have a special knowledge
or skill. "


Google is your friend.
Or enemy, in this case.

 

[Augustus]

Charlatan noun
"a person who falsely claims
to have a special knowledge
or skill. "


Google is your friend.
Or enemy, in this case

False: not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people:

That’s what the dictionary said anyway so it’s incontrovertible apparently.

But like I said, try using it in real life every time someone makes a good faith error about their knowledge or skills and see where that gets you.

When they respond negatively you can just point to Google and tell them the “real” meaning of the term.

No doubt they’ll be thankful you have corrected their previous misunderstanding of the term and accept you were simply pointing out a neutral fact.

 

[Audie]

False: not true, but made to seem true in order to deceive people:

That’s what the dictionary said anyway so it’s incontrovertible apparently.

But like I said, try using it in real life every time someone makes a good faith error about their knowledge or skills and see where that gets you.

When they respond negatively you can just point to Google and tell them the “real” meaning of the term.

No doubt they’ll be thankful you have corrected their previous misunderstanding of the term and accept you were simply pointing out a neutral fact.

Again, you August one, is foiled by goog.

False: not according to truth or fact; incorrect

I'm thinking of a pregnancy test.
A false positive, say.

No matter how August of a swab someone
thinks he is theres always more that a Asian
knows.

It's late here. Byefer

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not many cheeses I don't like but I hate that red rind on Edam.

I don’t think you’re supposed to eat it.




Or the red rind…

 

[Mock Turtle]

I don’t think you’re supposed to eat it.




Or the red rind…

Nah, Edam is OK - they should just package it better - given some idiot might eat the red stuff.

 

[Ella S.]

This is the problem of simply looking at a dictionary then assuming anything that can technically fit the given definition must therefore be the correct usage of the term and there is no need to pay attention to real world usage.

If you think charlatan is a neutral term that can be used every time someone is mistaken in good faith about their knowledge or skills, try it in real life and see where that gets you.

There are plenty of good-faith charlatans. Many witch doctors, chiropractors, acupuncturists, hypnotherapists, essential oils salesmen, and other quacks do genuinely believe in the efficacy of what they're doing.

Cult leaders are pretty much all charlatans, yet many of them end up believing their own hype, even the ones who might have started out dishonestly. It's a rather interesting process.

Or you could look if the evidence seems to better fit someone conning folk for his own benefit, or seems to suggest they believed what they said or that we should withhold judgement, etc.

Ordinarily, it's best to avoid trying to guess the internal mental states of others and stick to describing their behaviors. "Charlatanry" is a behavior, not an essence.

I don't believe in god either, but that doesn't mean we need to think the entire history of human religious/mystical experiences is best explained by the assumption of charlatanism, lies, idiocy and so forth, especially in the pre-modern world.

It doesn't mean we have to make excuses for them and adopt apologetic temperaments towards them, either. Western religion is founded in falsehood, and spreading misinformation is one of its chief practices. That's charlatanry, aka "The practices of a charlatan; fraudulent or impudent pretension to knowledge or skill; quackery."

 

[Augustus]

There are plenty of good-faith charlatans. Many witch doctors, chiropractors, acupuncturists, hypnotherapists, essential oils salesmen, and other quacks do genuinely believe in the efficacy of what they're doing.

Cult leaders are pretty much all charlatans, yet many of them end up believing their own hype, even the ones who might have started out dishonestly. It's a rather interesting process.



Ordinarily, it's best to avoid trying to guess the internal mental states of others and stick to describing their behaviors. "Charlatanry" is a behavior, not an essence.



It doesn't mean we have to make excuses for them and adopt apologetic temperaments towards them, either. Western religion is founded in falsehood, and spreading misinformation is one of its chief practices. That's charlatanry, aka "The practices of a charlatan; fraudulent or impudent pretension to knowledge or skill; quackery."

I accepted that the term can be used polemically, just not a neutral description of good faith error.

When we look at the past we can label all natural philosophers, doctors, or basically any educated person a charlatan because they certainly believed and promoted falsehoods based on perceived superior knowledge.

I don’t think that is a particularly helpful way of thinking about the past though. It is largely about congratulating ourselves for being smart enough to have been born in modern times.

But then again, most scientists today will later be found to have been wrong in numerous ways, charlatans the lot of them?

And it’s not just practitioners of alternative medicines that have problems, all GPs certainly promote false health advice at times, all GPs are charlatans?

It doesn't mean we have to make excuses for them and adopt apologetic temperaments towards them, either. Western religion is founded in falsehood, and spreading misinformation is one of its chief practices.

I don’t think the study of the history of religion, cognitive science of religion etc. is best served by thinking of it as being driven by charlatanry, lies, idiocy, etc.

I don’t think that attitude constitutes “apologetics”.

The practices of a charlatan; fraudulent or impudent pretension to knowledge or skill;

I personally don’t think we should see all ancient beliefs in their historical context as “fraudulent or impudent” simply because we now have the benefits of a modern scientific rationalist worldview.

 

[Ella S.]

I accepted that the term can be used polemically, just not a neutral description of good faith error.

When we look at the past we can label all natural philosophers, doctors, or basically any educated person a charlatan because they certainly believed and promoted falsehoods based on perceived superior knowledge.

I don’t think that is a particularly helpful way of thinking about the past though. It is largely about congratulating ourselves for being smart enough to have been born in modern times.

But then again, most scientists today will later be found to have been wrong in numerous ways, charlatans the lot of them?

And it’s not just practitioners of alternative medicines that have problems, all GPs certainly promote false health advice at times, all GPs are charlatans?




I don’t think the study of the history of religion, cognitive science of religion etc. is best served by thinking of it as being driven by charlatanry, lies, idiocy, etc.

I don’t think that attitude constitutes “apologetics”.



I personally don’t think we should see all ancient beliefs in their historical context as “fraudulent or impudent” simply because we now have the benefits of a modern scientific rationalist worldview.

I wouldn't call an organization that makes a habit of suppressing dissent as heresy one that simply doesn't have the benefit of a modern worldview. Plenty of philosophers before them and during their existence saw the error in that pattern of behavior. That's not a modernist take.

Do you really think Epicurus or Pyrrho would have supported the Christian metaphysical doctrine that they enforced in their education programs? Do you think the Stoics would have supported what the Catholic Church did to Baruch Spinoza and Giordano Bruno?

No, it's not about modern sensibilities. They were always frauds.