Truth will be put on trial four times over the next 30 days.
3
Average: 3(4 votes)
Comments
Ozmen (Long Spike)
Not claiming to know what Harris thinks about(if anything) but fact based morality doesn't require moral judgement if we assume that 'not beating others leads to more social cohesion' is a tested fact as is 'beating others leads to more social cohesion'. Then choosing the one that leads to more social cohesion isn't 'moral judgement' because at no point was anything described as evil or good.
It's just something that was tested to see if it works for the intended purposes. Just as if you want to drop a ball efficiently you're better off releasing the ball than not releasing it. No moral judgement required about the ball release and the fact that it drops.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
Good video to watch on 1.5X speed. Based on what's said here, JP's definition is far more valid than Harris'. Harris' framework of scientifically provable facts is far too narrow.
In essense I'd say truth is a set of agreed upon assumptions. It's fluid, as JP says.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"Harris' framework of scientifically provable facts is far too narrow."
No, it is not. Science is all we have to find out as much "truth" about the universe as we can.
The problem with the religious and their way of thinking is that they use the old "can't explain so god did it" still as a basis to give their biased search for a truth credibility.
Rather than taking a step back and letting go of this burden they hang on to it, and try to defend and justify it, or at least some part of it. I find this sad really but sometimes also funny.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Your approach is only valid with serious reductionism in play. It's starting to look like the reductionists jumped the gun on claiming a final resolution to the question of Truth, which has always been my position here. But perhaps nwe'll find out during the talks, which you will not watch, but which you will one star when they're posted here like you did this video LOL. Your representation of what religious people think is completely off base when it comes to Peterson, myself, and the phenomenological approach. You need that strawman because if you don't have it everything falls apart for you. I don't think that's funny at all, but it's definitely sad.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
"the phenomenological approach"
This is exactly what I am talking about. Fancy names. Whatever you call it, it will stay what it is: biased on something superior being involved.
Since you have your hero peterson you spam the site with his shit. Nobody else does this, not even fullauto (any more) or ninjiz.
This is berg level....
If I'm bored enough and can be bothered I will show you what I mean by spamming.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
There is every indication that you are deeply hurting DaftCunt. I'm positive you haven't even watched this video that you continue to comment on - you one-starred it early this morning my time but you didn't watch it. So all of your comments are bizarrely inapplicable to this video: God is not referenced in this video, either implicitly or explicitly.
The fact that the very discussion terrifies you deeply is something you need to work through bud. Just don't announce again that you're leaving for good and then come crawling back after you've missed the Pokaroo. That would be tragic.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
daftcunt (Old Spike)
Oh boy....
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
skeptoid (Old Spike)
Religion is also not discussed in the video. Why don't you watch it?
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
danmanjones (Old Spike)
For the purposes of discussion you have to allow more than just scientific theory to be assumed as true. Eg. "harming children for fun is immoral" - this we can assume is true in order to discuss a topic. In order to have some clarity on moral truths it's good to have a framework - in this case, Peterson has chosen the Darwinian framework which is kinda like "what's healthy for carbon-based lifeforms is good".
Both men agree that science is true but even that in itself is an assumption because it's relative to human experience. So it's not like it's "Peterson vs science", it's just a case if finding an intelligent framework to agree on in order to further a discussion.
Taking the scientific approach, truth exists outside of human experience but science is bound to human experience, therefore it's still fundamentally a set of assumptions.
Harris has confused ther word 'truth' with the word 'fact' - it's philosophy 101 to recognize the distinction.
+1
0
-1
Vote comment up/down
Muchos Munchbagger (Short Spike)
"Both men agree that science is true but even that in itself is an assumption because it's relative to human experience."
That's simply because humans are the only species who need, revere and struggle to understand their own presented reasoning.
No other creature on earth needs truth, because they don't NEED to understand it.
By living in and guided by instinct, they are the embodiment of it, as existential practice.
Comments
(Long Spike)
Not claiming to know what Harris thinks about(if anything) but fact based morality doesn't require moral judgement if we assume that 'not beating others leads to more social cohesion' is a tested fact as is 'beating others leads to more social cohesion'. Then choosing the one that leads to more social cohesion isn't 'moral judgement' because at no point was anything described as evil or good.
It's just something that was tested to see if it works for the intended purposes. Just as if you want to drop a ball efficiently you're better off releasing the ball than not releasing it. No moral judgement required about the ball release and the fact that it drops.
(Old Spike)
Good video to watch on 1.5X speed. Based on what's said here, JP's definition is far more valid than Harris'. Harris' framework of scientifically provable facts is far too narrow.
In essense I'd say truth is a set of agreed upon assumptions. It's fluid, as JP says.
(Old Spike)
"Harris' framework of scientifically provable facts is far too narrow."
No, it is not. Science is all we have to find out as much "truth" about the universe as we can.
The problem with the religious and their way of thinking is that they use the old "can't explain so god did it" still as a basis to give their biased search for a truth credibility.
Rather than taking a step back and letting go of this burden they hang on to it, and try to defend and justify it, or at least some part of it. I find this sad really but sometimes also funny.
(Old Spike)
Your approach is only valid with serious reductionism in play. It's starting to look like the reductionists jumped the gun on claiming a final resolution to the question of Truth, which has always been my position here. But perhaps nwe'll find out during the talks, which you will not watch, but which you will one star when they're posted here like you did this video LOL. Your representation of what religious people think is completely off base when it comes to Peterson, myself, and the phenomenological approach. You need that strawman because if you don't have it everything falls apart for you. I don't think that's funny at all, but it's definitely sad.
(Old Spike)
"the phenomenological approach"
This is exactly what I am talking about. Fancy names. Whatever you call it, it will stay what it is: biased on something superior being involved.
Since you have your hero peterson you spam the site with his shit. Nobody else does this, not even fullauto (any more) or ninjiz.
This is berg level....
If I'm bored enough and can be bothered I will show you what I mean by spamming.
(Old Spike)
There is every indication that you are deeply hurting DaftCunt. I'm positive you haven't even watched this video that you continue to comment on - you one-starred it early this morning my time but you didn't watch it. So all of your comments are bizarrely inapplicable to this video: God is not referenced in this video, either implicitly or explicitly.
The fact that the very discussion terrifies you deeply is something you need to work through bud. Just don't announce again that you're leaving for good and then come crawling back after you've missed the Pokaroo. That would be tragic.
(Old Spike)
Oh boy....
(Old Spike)
Religion is also not discussed in the video. Why don't you watch it?
(Old Spike)
For the purposes of discussion you have to allow more than just scientific theory to be assumed as true. Eg. "harming children for fun is immoral" - this we can assume is true in order to discuss a topic. In order to have some clarity on moral truths it's good to have a framework - in this case, Peterson has chosen the Darwinian framework which is kinda like "what's healthy for carbon-based lifeforms is good".
Both men agree that science is true but even that in itself is an assumption because it's relative to human experience. So it's not like it's "Peterson vs science", it's just a case if finding an intelligent framework to agree on in order to further a discussion.
Taking the scientific approach, truth exists outside of human experience but science is bound to human experience, therefore it's still fundamentally a set of assumptions.
Harris has confused ther word 'truth' with the word 'fact' - it's philosophy 101 to recognize the distinction.
(Short Spike)
"Both men agree that science is true but even that in itself is an assumption because it's relative to human experience."
That's simply because humans are the only species who need, revere and struggle to understand their own presented reasoning.
No other creature on earth needs truth, because they don't NEED to understand it.
By living in and guided by instinct, they are the embodiment of it, as existential practice.
(Old Spike)
Kinda related, some other primates have entered the stone age
(Short Spike)
"I will never submit to those damn dirty apes."
Charlton Heston
- He who fought and lost to damn dirty apes.
(Site Moderator)
God did everything... God did it how? Is science