Well, I mean, we don't really have "proof" of a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they are not true.
If you don't have proof that something is true or false, then you don't know if it's true or false, and you need to treat it as though you don't know if it's true or false, or one day, you'll discover that it's true when you treated it as if it was false, or you'll discover that it's false when you treated it as if it was true, and you'll realise that you've been going against reality all that time.
It seems the PoV that works against my own is that if we simply educate people then they will change. But that PoV also would require proof. So I could turn it on you and say, "Do you have proof that the opposite PoV is correct?"
If you notice, I agree that that which is not conclusively proved true and not conclusively proved false is something where it could be true or could be false and we don't know if it's true or false.
Right, but you were willing to have the conversation?
Not particularly.
That is what it sounds like to me. It was based on you wanting to better yourself to have the conversation.
No. It was based on the fact that the person talking to me, talked to me in a way that I understood, not just theoretically, but in a practical way that I could actually implement for myself in my life.
So while the conversation was not a complete answer for you, it did get you into uni (IIRC) because you were willing to have a conversation.
No, because other people said that I should go to uni, and yet that had no effect for almost 5 years. It was the way he said it that made the difference.
You could be right that people who are mostly ordinary don't have the tools to get to a high place. But I think in some sense society in the west is meant to get ordinary people to a high place. That's why we have universities and such.
I would say that Western countries are liberal, and liberalism seems to include not oppressing people by keeping them down. But I keep hearing of lots of examples when that isn't the case, so much so, that many people, like African-Americans, are said to be kept down by "hidden racism" and "systemic racism".
About drug addiction: yes, many people go through treatment centers all the time and don't quit drugs. The question is why don't they quit? Because if it is simply a matter of education to get people to improve, then drug addicts wouldn't have to go through treatment so many times before they quit.
Depends on the teacher, and thus, on the way they've been taught. I've had students who were unable to grasp even basic arithmetic all the way through school into their 40s, who gained very good competency in arithmetic in only 8 lessons.
Also, 8 out of 10 gained remarkable success. I was unable to teach 2 of them. There seems to be no magic formula for education. Different people need different styles of teaching.
The people who have success to quit drugs is because they want to get rid of drugs. Let me illustrate it this way: The difference is in a court order to go to treatment vs voluntarily going to treatment because the person wants to get off drugs. Now, these are not hard and fast lines, but I think it is evidence for my view (as opposed to proof) because often times people who are forced to do something, well, their heart isn't in it, so they don't take it seriously.
If they volunteered, then they've decided that they'll do whatever it takes to get off drugs. So even if there are no treatments, they'll seek out their own means of getting off drugs. But that kind of willpower is very rare. If that's your ansewr, then 99% of humanity is doomed to never overcome any one of their problems, and that means the chance of any one person overcoming all of their problems is less likely than Hell freezing over.
Also, I met someone who was forced to get off drugs, and did get off drugs. So forcing people to do things can work, as long as they recognise afterwards that it's in their interest to not go back to doing drugs.
