The Meaning of Life

[Reluctantly]

Often, people will suggest on here, using one form of argument or another, that life has no objective meaning. But I wonder, if they don’t know what that objective meaning is from the start, they wouldn’t know what they are looking for and then how can they know it doesn’t exist just because they never found it?

Because of this, I realize, when it comes to things like this there are expectations people can have that is tied to the idea; those that conclude no objective meaning want an objective meaning, which is why they care to begin with (and why they feel let down and declare it doesn’t exist)...because why would you assert a universal truth if you didn't care about it, to begin with? And I then want to ask, if you decided there is no objective meaning, what is it that you want?

 

[TheScornedReflex]

What is it I want? To survive. The only meaning to life I have observed is to survive. The continued survival of ones species, it is instinctual. Turn your attention to nature. What is it you see?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Okay, then we need to define the the prerequisites for something to be the meaning of life. If we define it as the purpose of sentient life, then it cannot be objective. Being sentient requires that you make decisions. If there is some objective meaning of life, you can rebel against it, making it not your meaning, which also makes it not objective. If there is some sort of proclaimed authority figure tossing our purposes for people's lives, they are not forced to do as this supposed authority deems. Objective meaning, in this sense, contradicts itself.

 

[Reluctantly]

What is it I want? To survive. The only meaning to life I have observed is to survive. The continued survival of ones species, it is instinctual. Turn your attention to nature. What is it you see?

So a form of security?

Okay, then we need to define the the prerequisites for something to be the meaning of life. If we define it as the purpose of sentient life, then it cannot be objective. Being sentient requires that you make decisions. If there is some objective meaning of life, you can rebel against it, making it not your meaning, which also makes it not objective. If there is some sort of proclaimed authority figure tossing our purposes for people's lives, they are not forced to do as this supposed authority deems. Objective meaning, in this sense, contradicts itself.

If we define the preprequisites, then how do we know we're going to be objective? We defined them...

 

[snafupants]

Because of this, I realize, when it comes to things like this there are expectations people can have that is tied to the idea; those that conclude no objective meaning want an objective meaning, which is why they care to begin with (and why they feel let down and declare it doesn’t exist)...because why would you assert a universal truth if you didn't care about it, to begin with? And I then want to ask, if you decided there is no objective meaning, what is it that you want?

That's probably correct for nihilists - there's a saying that every cynic is a broken idealist. I'm a realist. I have no problem seeing the world as it is rather than how it isn't or how it should be. To change things, though, you can't be disaffected and alienated; you need to throw some punches. All that glitters is not gold, and the exorbitant valuation of gold itself is silly.

 

[SpaceYeti]

If we define the preprequisites, then how do we know we're going to be objective? We defined them...

Consensus, just like with everything else. Either way, if we don't define what we're looking for, how are we going to find it? We make the language, we define the words.

 

[Duxwing]

That's probably correct for nihilists - there's a saying that every cynic is a broken idealist. I'm a realist. I have no problem seeing the world as it is rather than how it isn't or how it should be. To change things, though, you can't be disaffected and alienated; you need to throw some punches. All that glitters is not gold, and the exorbitant valuation of gold itself is silly.

That statement certainly holds true for me.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

That statement certainly holds true for me.

-Duxwing

@Duxwing

There's some emotionality there and idealism turns into sour grapes in this depraved society, unless the person is highly deluded and congenitally upbeat/oblivious to the problems, in which case they're seen as naive; but, really, idealism and cynicism are two sides of the same coin. Someone truly apathetic wouldn't care either way but the cynics, at some point, felt disaffected and wanted to change things; they couldn't or didn't feel it was worth the effort, and became disgruntled with the entire process. I can understand where the cynics are coming from but I choose a more realistic path. It also makes sense that leaders desire a cynical, effectively docile, citizenry. In my opinion, acting cynically is politically disadvantageous for the population's long-term welfare. Like The Clash were wont to say, anger can be power! People still have power, or else Super PACs and the media wouldn't be scrambling to affect their opinions. Cynicism is personally and politically suicidal.

 

[own8ge]

Reluctantly: You own. Here, hang on... I'll do the honors: "I hereby declare you own8ge."
You may rise now.. Don't be scared.

 

[Duxwing]

There's some emotionality there and idealism turns into sour grapes in this depraved society, unless the person is highly deluded and congenitally upbeat/oblivious to the problems, in which case they're seen as naive; but, really, idealism and cynicism are two sides of the same coin. Someone truly apathetic wouldn't care either way but the cynics, at some point, felt disaffected and wanted to change things; they couldn't or didn't feel it was worth the effort, and became disgruntled with the entire process. I can understand where the cynics are coming from but I choose a more realistic path. It also makes sense that leaders desire a cynical, effectively docile, citizenry. In my opinion, acting cynically is politically disadvantageous for the population's long-term welfare. Like The Clash were wont to say, anger can be power!

Snafupants, have you ever watched Star Wars? For, at the risk of sounding like an idealist, tempting someone with the power of giving in to anger is exactly what Palpatine did to Anakin in Star Wars, and look how he turned out.

More logically, I agree that my cynicism is a product of impotent frustration and anger decaying inside me, but there is a better road than anger, for it drains you more than it lifts you up and leaves you addicted to the power that it brings; you become one of the very monsters that you'd sought to destroy at the beginning of your furious quest. Therefore, I won't give in to my anger, for the roaring fire that it unleashes is ruinous. Ruin of course, being entirely counterproductive to any end save for ruin itself.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

Snafupants, have you ever watched Star Wars? For, at the risk of sounding like an idealist, tempting someone with the power of giving in to anger is exactly what Palpatine did to Anakin in Star Wars, and look how he turned out.

Ha, but the full Clash quote is thus: anger can be power, do you know that you can use it? Changes and revolutions are neither good nor bad.

You can channel anger or sexual energy into real results. You don't like where you live? How much you weigh? Pissed off about it? Use that as fuel to make some alterations!

You can turn off the anger when you achieve results. It doesn't need to define you.

More logically, I agree that my cynicism is a product of impotent frustration and anger decaying inside me, but there is a better road than anger, for it drains you more than it lifts you up and leaves you addicted to the power that it brings; you become one of the very monsters that you'd sought to destroy at the beginning of your furious quest. Therefore, I won't give in to my anger, for the roaring fire that it unleashes is ruinous. Ruin of course, being entirely counterproductive to any end save for ruin itself.

This is sounding like Star Wars but it drains you because you turn it on yourself. You almost conflate cynicism and anger though. I, for one, am sometimes angry but cynicism doesn't really undergird my personality. I let people in until they disappoint or betray me.

 

[Duxwing]

Ha, but the full Clash quote is thus: anger can be power, do you know that you can use it? Changes and revolutions are neither good nor bad.

You can channel anger or sexual energy into real results. You don't like where you live? How much you weigh? Pissed off about it? Use that as fuel to make some alterations!

You can turn off the anger when you achieve results. It doesn't need to define you.



This is sounding like Star Wars but it drains you because you turn it on yourself. You almost conflate cynicism and anger though. I, for one, am sometimes angry but cynicism doesn't really undergird my personality. I let people in until they disappoint or betray me.

Oh, I see where you're going with this: If nothing else works, try anger.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

Oh, I see where you're going with this: If nothing else works, try anger.

-Duxwing

Almost but that sounds defeatist and cynical in itself. You basically have it - I'm saying that if nothing else works, try anger, not out of abject frustration, but with an overarching telos of beneficial change in mind. Anger is a tool and no constructive endpoint in itself.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

So a form of security then?

I guess so, yeah.

 

[Duxwing]

Almost but that sounds defeatist and cynical in itself. You basically have it - I'm saying that if nothing else works, try anger, not out of abject frustration, but with an overarching telos of beneficial change in mind. Anger is a tool and no constructive endpoint in itself.

Understood. I guess that'll be a tool in my belt if I need it. I hope that I won't need it.

-Duxwing

 

[Reluctantly]

Consensus, just like with everything else. Either way, if we don't define what we're looking for, how are we going to find it? We make the language, we define the words.

And this is what's funny about the scientific method. It knows what it's looking for, but claims it's objective.
See, if someone doesn't know what they are looking for, they can find anything; but if someone already knows what they are looking for, they will look to find it, but not look to find anything else. And if they do find it, but miss what they weren't prepared to look for and find, are they objective?

And I wonder, what does the scientific method want? Consensus? If so, hilarious - I must not be very scientific.

That's probably correct for nihilists - there's a saying that every cynic is a broken idealist.

That's interestinng; you're probably right.

I'm a realist. I have no problem seeing the world as it is rather than how it isn't or how it should be. To change things, though, you can't be disaffected and alienated; you need to throw some punches. All that glitters is not gold, and the exorbitant valuation of gold itself is silly.

But as a realist, do you then not assume you see the world as it is rather than how it isn't or how it should be? I can't imagine the other philosophies would believe they don't see something real about the world either or they wouldn't believe/follow them.

Reluctantly: You own. Here, hang on... I'll do the honors: "I hereby declare you own8ge."
You may rise now.. Don't be scared.

Thanks, I guess.

Snafupants, have you ever watched Star Wars? For, at the risk of sounding like an idealist, tempting someone with the power of giving in to anger is exactly what Palpatine did to Anakin in Star Wars, and look how he turned out.

More logically, I agree that my cynicism is a product of impotent frustration and anger decaying inside me, but there is a better road than anger, for it drains you more than it lifts you up and leaves you addicted to the power that it brings; you become one of the very monsters that you'd sought to destroy at the beginning of your furious quest. Therefore, I won't give in to my anger, for the roaring fire that it unleashes is ruinous. Ruin of course, being entirely counterproductive to any end save for ruin itself.

-Duxwing

Anger actually uplifts me. It's when my batteries run out, but my anger doesn't that it becomes destructive to me.

I guess so, yeah.

You guess so? Heh, you sound like me now. I say this so much it annoys the hell out of people because I won't allow anything to mean anything in my mind. It's kind of funny because if you think about it, it makes sense; if someone is making an effort to know and you remind them they know nothing, it's like taking the chair out from under them while they are sitting.

 

[SpaceYeti]

And this is what's funny about the scientific method. It knows what it's looking for, but claims it's objective.
See, if someone doesn't know what they are looking for, they can find anything; but if someone already knows what they are looking for, they will look to find it, but not look to find anything else. And if they do find it, but miss what they weren't prepared to look for and find, are they objective?

And I wonder, what does the scientific method want? Consensus? If so, hilarious - I must not be very scientific.

You're saying that if I asked if Hobasnatches cause Fwibdibbles, you wouldn't want me to define what those things are such that the sentences makes sense?

You need to look into how experiments are done, with double blind tests and what-not, specifically to avoid bias. You're claiming you can't be objective if you understand what it is you're looking for? That's just plain absurd. How do you know what you've found if you don't know what it is? Exactly what is your claim, here?

 

[snafupants]

The meaning of life is to gravitate towards knowledge and eradicate inhibitors.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

You guess so? Heh, you sound like me now. I say this so much it annoys the hell out of people because I won't allow anything to mean anything in my mind. It's kind of funny because if you think about it, it makes sense; if someone is making an effort to know and you remind them they know nothing, it's like taking the chair out from under them while they are sitting.

Hahaha it definitely is. But your reply seemed accurate enough. I was going to argue it but, then thought to myself, in this day and age a feeling of security is equal to surviving. When you have a solid income you know food is going to be on the table or bills payed off. You feel some what secure. Unless you live in poverty but they still fight to survive. Okay so it might not be exactly the same but for us that's what our survival is. Only because its easier for us to survive than others.

I probably could say that better but was trying to keep up with my thoughts and to lazy to edit/redo it.

 

[redbaron]

The meaning of life is...

Spoiler

YOLO BITCHES​

​

 

[SpaceYeti]

 

[Reluctantly]

You're saying that if I asked if Hobasnatches cause Fwibdibbles, you wouldn't want me to define what those things are such that the sentences makes sense?

You need to look into how experiments are done, with double blind tests and what-not, specifically to avoid bias. You're claiming you can't be objective if you understand what it is you're looking for? That's just plain absurd. How do you know what you've found if you don't know what it is? Exactly what is your claim, here?

And this is what is so funny about the scientific method. It attempts to verify what it's looking for by defining the parts "to verify" how it wants. Recursively then, it never can fully verify anything as there are always assumed parts behind anything it reveals. And this is why if you understand what you are looking for, you are more likely to find it because you've already framed the truth in that light.

Have you ever heard the idea that we tend to get what we want, but not what we need? Well, unless what we want is what we need, but it doesn't have to be. Once you know what you want, you're motivated to make it happen, to make it true, even if it's through the scientific method.

Maybe then I feel that the only way to truly be objective is to be aware of what one's assumptions are. But the Scientific Method as a ... tool ... again, is to achieve what? Can it have assumptions?

 

[SpaceYeti]

And this is what is so funny about the scientific method. It attempts to verify what it's looking for by defining the parts "to verify" how it wants. Recursively then, it never can fully verify anything as there are always assumed parts behind anything it reveals. And this is why if you understand what you are looking for, you are more likely to find it because you've already framed the truth in that light.

Have you ever heard the idea that we tend to get what we want, but not what we need? Well, unless what we want is what we need, but it doesn't have to be. Once you know what you want, you're motivated to make it happen, to make it true, even if it's through the scientific method.

Maybe then I feel that the only way to truly be objective is to be aware of what one's assumptions are. But the Scientific Method as a ... tool ... again, is to achieve what? Can it have assumptions?

I recommend speaking to someone who's actually a scientist, but lacking those, I suppose I know enough to start you off. Yes, science does begin with assumptions, as any method of acquiring knowledge would need to. Namely, science assumes that we're witnessing reality, and that we can understand it.

After that, you have an observation. An observation is witnessing something happen.

Now, you form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess as to what's causing your observation, or at least some aspect of the observation. Of course, how much education can support that guess depends entirely on how much science has been done on it in the past.

Now, we test it. This is the big difference between science and non-science. In science, you conduct an experiment by controlling as many variables as you can, and trying to disprove your hypothesis. That is, in theory, you're supposed to try to show yourself that you're wrong.

After your hypothesis passes the test (if it does... most hypotheses don't), you write it all up and have your scientist buddies ("peers") try to prove you wrong. After a significant number of experiments have been done, and it seems the hypothesis is true, the hypothesis is assumed to explain the observation after all, and is thus elevated to the status of "theory" (which means something different in the scientific community than it does to average Joe, who uses the same word to mean "guess". Obviously, that's not what we're discussing, here).

Now, you're not done. The experiments constantly continue. Your theory begins to explain more as more and more becomes understood about it, and more and more of the aspects you had wrong get corrected. The scientific method is never done with an idea. You can, and should, always question and attempt to disprove things. This is a never ending cycle.

 

[Reluctantly]

How do you know what you've found if you don't know what it is?

I just remembered now. This is answered by Socrates in Meno's Paradox. The answer is intuitive, but valid.

I recommend speaking to someone who's actually a scientist, but lacking those, I suppose I know enough to start you off.

I'm technically a computer scientist, not that I was able to use the degree to find work because it's all mostly theory I learned, but I guess it counts. But I know what the scientific method is and regurgitated in school how I was told it to work, but how it truly works is a matter of perspective for me.

Yes, science does begin with assumptions, as any method of acquiring knowledge would need to. Namely, science assumes that we're witnessing reality, and that we can understand it.

After that, you have an observation. An observation is witnessing something happen.

Now, you form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess as to what's causing your observation, or at least some aspect of the observation. Of course, how much education can support that guess depends entirely on how much science has been done on it in the past.

Now, we test it. This is the big difference between science and non-science. In science, you conduct an experiment by controlling as many variables as you can, and trying to disprove your hypothesis. That is, in theory, you're supposed to try to show yourself that you're wrong.

After your hypothesis passes the test (if it does... most hypotheses don't), you write it all up and have your scientist buddies ("peers") try to prove you wrong. After a significant number of experiments have been done, and it seems the hypothesis is true, the hypothesis is assumed to explain the observation after all, and is thus elevated to the status of "theory" (which means something different in the scientific community than it does to average Joe, who uses the same word to mean "guess". Obviously, that's not what we're discussing, here).

Now, you're not done. The experiments constantly continue. Your theory begins to explain more as more and more becomes understood about it, and more and more of the aspects you had wrong get corrected. The scientific method is never done with an idea. You can, and should, always question and attempt to disprove things. This is a never ending cycle.

As long as "scientists" have no problem admitting their assumptions, I guess I have no problem with it then. But a lot of people think that because it attempts to verify truth, it must lead to it; these people are like members of a religion that won't stop pestering for new supporters. But yet they think they aren't, that somehow they have a more noble cause. It's so very funny because every religion seems to think the same thing as well.

As a tangent,
I wonder then, we've gotten a lot out of science in the last couple millenia. In a lot of ways, this could make it our contemporary religion for those that believe it is some kind of answer. It would be funny then, if science were to lead to great chaos, destruction, or suffering, would people feel disillusioned by it and villainize it like all religions before it? ...reminds me now of the gun debates - THE GUNS ARE BAD OMG! MUST GET RID - OUR NEW ANSWER! All it would take is a quick nuclear war and suddenly science, which caused it, becomes demonized. Well, guns are a product of science too, aren't they? So I guess it already happened then...hilarious.

 

[Duxwing]

I just remembered now. This is answered by Socrates in Meno's Paradox. The answer is intuitive, but valid.



I'm technically a computer scientist, not that I was able to use the degree to find work because it's all mostly theory I learned, but I guess it counts. But I know what the scientific method is and regurgitated in school how I was told it to work, but how it truly works is a matter of perspective for me.



As long as "scientists" have no problem admitting their assumptions, I guess I have no problem with it then. But a lot of people think that because it attempts to verify truth, it must lead to it; these people are like members of a religion that won't stop pestering for new supporters. But yet they think they aren't, that somehow they have a more noble cause. It's so very funny because every religion seems to think the same thing as well.

As a tangent,
I wonder then, we've gotten a lot out of science in the last couple millenia. In a lot of ways, this could make it our contemporary religion for those that believe it is some kind of answer. It would be funny then, if science were to lead to great chaos, destruction, or suffering, would people feel disillusioned by it and villainize it like all religions before it? ...reminds me now of the gun debates - THE GUNS ARE BAD OMG! MUST GET RID - OUR NEW ANSWER! All it would take is a quick nuclear war and suddenly science, which caused it, becomes demonized. Well, guns are a product of science too, aren't they? So I guess it already happened then...hilarious.

Science has no will of its own. The blame for that atomic war rests squarely on the shoulders of those who started it. And if you reply that had science not produced the atomic model which lead to the availability of atomic weapons, then I preempt you with the following: anything, anything can be turned into a weapon-- salt shakers, pillows, trash can lids, anything-- and if we stopped producing new technology and knowledge because it could eventually come to harm us-- even if our initial intentions in developing it were altruistic-- will leave us stagnating. Yes, the fruit of science could eventually be rammed down someone's throat, but so has the fruit of nature: rock, bone, water, and sand. Therefore, the progress of science is worth the risks to humans or even human kind, for we can and must control ourselves if we are to survive-- science or not.



-Duxwing

 

[Reluctantly]

Science has no will of its own. The blame for that atomic war rests squarely on the shoulders of those who started it. And if you reply that had science not produced the atomic model which lead to the availability of atomic weapons, then I preempt you with the following: anything, anything can be turned into a weapon-- salt shakers, pillows, trash can lids, anything-- and if we stopped producing new technology and knowledge because it could eventually come to harm us-- even if our initial intentions in developing it were altruistic-- will leave us stagnating. Yes, the fruit of science could eventually be rammed down someone's throat, but so has the fruit of nature: rock, bone, water, and sand. Therefore, the progress of science is worth the risks to humans or even human kind, for we can and must control ourselves if we are to survive-- science or not.



-Duxwing

I will agree that anything can be a weapon, but the degree to which things become weapons differs; because of this, many people clearly choose to take a stance on the potential risks involved in turning certain things into weapons. A pillow, for example, can be a lot harder to hurt someone with than a pen. And I don't think anyone really disputes such a difference.
The thing I find interesting then is in seeing how people choose to solve such problems. Do they just blame the people who made the choices, do they blame themselves to some degree, or do they blame the object turned into a weapon? And just watch as the majority focuses on one aspect, while ignoring the others.

And, how do you know that the progress of science is worth the risks to humans or even human kind? You may see it that way, but a fallout baby might grow up to see it's not.

And some people don't see their human manifestation as what they truly are and don't care too much about surviving; they are fine to die and become other things, as they never really die then, but change.

 

[Duxwing]

I will agree that anything can be a weapon, but the degree to which things become weapons differs; because of this, many people clearly choose to take a stance on the potential risks involved in turning certain things into weapons. A pillow, for example, can be a lot harder to hurt someone with than a pen. And I don't think anyone really disputes such a difference.
The thing I find interesting then is in seeing how people choose to solve such problems. Do they just blame the people who made the choices, do they blame themselves to some degree, or do they blame the object turned into a weapon? And just watch as the majority focuses on one aspect, while ignoring the others.

And, how do you know that the progress of science is worth the risks to humans or even human kind? You may see it that way, but a fallout baby might grow up to see it's not.

And some people don't see their human manifestation as what they truly are and don't care too much about surviving; they are fine to die and become other things, as they never really die then, but change.

The fallout baby should blame the person who ordered the bomb dropped and the person who dropped the bomb. The fact that Einstein's theory of relativity produced the potential for atomic weapons doesn't mean that it produced nothing else (see my previous posts) and more pertinently, humans have demonstrated that they are capable of preventing their own destruction. Nuclear weapons weren't used to destroy mankind. Soman (the world's deadliest nerve gas) isn't seen on the modern battlefield. Therefore, we can induct that humans are worthy of possessing 'dangerous' knowledge gleaned from science.

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

I just remembered now. This is answered by Socrates in Meno's Paradox. The answer is intuitive, but valid.

Meno is one of my least favorite Platonic dialogues ever. You've already illustrated one of the reasons why. The whole "You either know something and need not learn it or you don't know it and thus cannot query it" is a false dichotomy. We witness people acquiring new knowledge all the time. We witness things happen, and then later we can recall it happening. We learned of that event through witnessing it. We don't even have to understand what happened to know what we saw, but that does not mean we cannot investigate and figure it out. The claim is, frankly, silly.

I'm technically a computer scientist, not that I was able to use the degree to find work because it's all mostly theory I learned, but I guess it counts. But I know what the scientific method is and regurgitated in school how I was told it to work, but how it truly works is a matter of perspective for me.

How so?

As long as "scientists" have no problem admitting their assumptions, I guess I have no problem with it then. But a lot of people think that because it attempts to verify truth, it must lead to it; these people are like members of a religion that won't stop pestering for new supporters. But yet they think they aren't, that somehow they have a more noble cause. It's so very funny because every religion seems to think the same thing as well.

Well, there's one major thing you're missing, too. Science works. Science produced the computers we're using, the internet we're using them on, your vehicle, airplanes, buildings, home electricity, running water, etc, etc, etc. Science produces results. So, yes, it's technically possible that science is wrong about how this stuff actually works, but if that's the case, it still got results. Results the likes of which no religion has ever even superficially duplicated.

As a tangent,
I wonder then, we've gotten a lot out of science in the last couple millenia. In a lot of ways, this could make it our contemporary religion for those that believe it is some kind of answer. It would be funny then, if science were to lead to great chaos, destruction, or suffering, would people feel disillusioned by it and villainize it like all religions before it? ...reminds me now of the gun debates - THE GUNS ARE BAD OMG! MUST GET RID - OUR NEW ANSWER! All it would take is a quick nuclear war and suddenly science, which caused it, becomes demonized. Well, guns are a product of science too, aren't they? So I guess it already happened then...hilarious.

... That's not even possible. Science is a method of obtaining information. A very useful, pragmatic, and functional one. How we use the information we get from science is on us, not science. It's like blaming guns for murder. A decrease in private gun ownership may reduce homicides, but not because the guns did anything. It's because people who would otherwise have murdered were denied their means. Science is an answer. It's an answer how to verifiably get useful results and information. It is not an answer of purpose or values. Purpose and values, like one's taste for pizza, is subjective.

 

[Reluctantly]

The fallout baby should blame the person who ordered the bomb dropped and the person who dropped the bomb. The fact that Einstein's theory of relativity produced the potential for atomic weapons doesn't mean that it produced nothing else (see my previous posts) and more pertinently, humans have demonstrated that they are capable of preventing their own destruction. Nuclear weapons weren't used to destroy mankind. Soman (the world's deadliest nerve gas) isn't seen on the modern battlefield. Therefore, we can induct that humans are worthy of possessing 'dangerous' knowledge gleaned from science.

-Duxwing

And I previously said

The thing I find interesting then is in seeing how people choose to solve such problems. Do they just blame the people who made the choices, do they blame themselves to some degree, or do they blame the object turned into a weapon? And just watch as the majority focuses on one aspect, while ignoring the others.

So thanks for proving my point that people focus on what they want to, while ignoring the other philosophical aspects.

Meno is one of my least favorite Platonic dialogues ever. You've already illustrated one of the reasons why. The whole "You either know something and need not learn it or you don't know it and thus cannot query it" is a false dichotomy. We witness people acquiring new knowledge all the time. We witness things happen, and then later we can recall it happening. We learned of that event through witnessing it. We don't even have to understand what happened to know what we saw, but that does not mean we cannot investigate and figure it out. The claim is, frankly, silly.

Well, the point Socrates made was that we can recall information about the world as it pertains to our human capability to perceive the world. This recollection is our form of perception where no previous knowledge is known or assumed.

Now, when you base what you are going to see upon some idea of what you have already seen, you are framing what you perceive and not just recollecting what your brain is capable of doing so.

You either know something and need not learn it or you don't know it and thus cannot query it

And I don't know even know how you inferred this because it has nothing to do with what I just said or what Socrates was showing. The idea is that you recollect and once you do, only then do you know it and only then did you learn it.

How so?

The most appalling thing I can think of is,

When I see it applied to things like psychiatry, I see how scientists can use the scientific method to justify abusing people with drugs and harmful destructive treatments. They justify it with reaffirming studies and other such things that create the results they want, but forget to mention or accept the notion that their ideas of "mental illness" are as abstract as what an INTP is exactly. And they aren't finding truth or even getting closer to it in this way when they won't question the philosophical basics their scientific method stand on. And they won't listen because it doesn't involve the scientific method, but a reframing of the beliefs behind their scientific process.

I mean, would you consider someone who took MBTI as gospel and framed all their science of how a human works behind it, as finding the truth? as being objective?

Well, there's one major thing you're missing, too. Science works. Science produced the computers we're using, the internet we're using them on, your vehicle, airplanes, buildings, home electricity, running water, etc, etc, etc. Science produces results. So, yes, it's technically possible that science is wrong about how this stuff actually works, but if that's the case, it still got results. Results the likes of which no religion has ever even superficially duplicated.

Whether something works depends on how well it works toward some aim you have. I think you're mistaking the creation of a tool as meaning that it works. Science creates tools, yes, but that doesn't mean "it works". And yes, religion doesn't create tools and toys, but it has at times kept communities together and helped people through their problems. It has worked and gotten results.

... That's not even possible. Science is a method of obtaining information. A very useful, pragmatic, and functional one. How we use the information we get from science is on us, not science. It's like blaming guns for murder. A decrease in private gun ownership may reduce homicides, but not because the guns did anything. It's because people who would otherwise have murdered were denied their means. Science is an answer. It's an answer how to verifiably get useful results and information. It is not an answer of purpose or values. Purpose and values, like one's taste for pizza, is subjective.

I feel you should realize that we are never completely free. To be without restrictions is to be without a form - being human would be a form of restriction. In that sense, guns are part of the restrictions on reality and it's ignorant to suggest they have no blame, while just blaming the people who used them, or even the people who influenced these people to make those decisions. You're proving the point I made to Duxwing again that you guys are framing things the way you want instead of seeing the greater picture; and that is quite subjective compared to someone who sees blame in all ways.

 

[Duxwing]

And I previously said


So thanks for proving my point that people focus on what they want to, while ignoring the other philosophical aspects.

You proved that I have an opinion. Well done. Care to actually see whether it checks out?

Well, the point Socrates made was that we can recall information about the world as it pertains to our human capability to perceive the world. This recollection is our form of perception where no previous knowledge is known or assumed.

Now, when you base what you are going to see upon some idea of what you have already seen, you are framing what you perceive and not just recollecting what your brain is capable of doing so.


And I don't know even know how you inferred this because it has nothing to do with what I just said or what Socrates was showing. The idea is that you recollect and once you do, only then do you know it and only then did you learn it.



The most appalling thing I can think of is,

When I see it applied to things like psychiatry, I see how scientists can use the scientific method to justify abusing people with drugs and harmful destructive treatments. They justify it with reaffirming studies and other such things that create the results they want, but forget to mention or accept the notion that their ideas of "mental illness" are as abstract as what an INTP is exactly. And they aren't finding truth or even getting closer to it in this way when they won't question the philosophical basics their scientific method stand on. And they won't listen because it doesn't involve the scientific method, but a reframing of the beliefs behind their scientific process.

I mean, would you consider someone who took MBTI as gospel and framed all their science of how a human works behind it, as finding the truth? as being objective?

Declaring that something is objective does not make it science, and the credulity inherent in such an action leaves it not at all comparable to the decades of toil and research that go into scientific breakthroughs. I highly recommend reading The New England Journal of Internal Medicine and contemplating the sheer amount of detail that the authors of its technical sections go into. Everything is documented.

And you have failed to maintain a strong argument based upon either evidence or reason. First, by arguing only against the mistakes, errors, and foibles of human beings practicing science (the falsification of data being one of them) you fail to recognize that if all of science rested upon the manipulation of statistics, then our world would grind to a screeching halt because engineers use scientific principles to achieve their aims; in other words science gets done. Moreover, your claim of vast disingenuity in the scientific community is idle speculation until you can substantiate it with anything more than tenuous comparisons to religion (they are both systems of thought-- you must point out similarities peculiar and significant to both). And don't give me the "nothing can be proven" retort; if we are arguing about the real world, then, for the sake of the argument, we assume that we can observe and know about it. In summary, your argument lacks evidence and uses very, very tenuous logic to compare very different ideas.


Whether something works depends on how well it works toward some aim you have. I think you're mistaking the creation of a tool as meaning that it works. Science creates tools, yes, but that doesn't mean "it works". And yes, religion doesn't create tools and toys, but it has at times kept communities together and helped people through their problems. It has worked and gotten results.

Unfortunately, you've got confounding variables working against you, and the means that the Church used to achieve these "results" are Orwellian. What religion accomplished during those times could have been equally well accomplished by a Platonic Noble Lie; that is, a set of statements-- even ones that completely ignore the supernatural-- that the populace of a town must believe. Examples of Noble Lies are: nationalism, jingoism, racism, and all other forms of "Us Against Them"ism. What you're really in favor of, actually, is a homogenization of the community and its opinions in order to reduce intra-communal conflict. Therefore, if you value freedom of thought, then I suggest that you revise your position; if you don't, then that's fine, too. Just be clear on your assumptions next time, please.


I feel you should realize that we are never completely free. To be without restrictions is to be without a form - being human would be a form of restriction. In that sense, guns are part of the restrictions on reality and it's ignorant to suggest they have no blame, while just blaming the people who used them, or even the people who influenced these people to make those decisions. You're proving the point I made to Duxwing again that you guys are framing things the way you want instead of seeing the greater picture; and that is quite subjective compared to someone who sees blame in all ways.

Your reasoning could really use some work. I sense that there's some Ni or Ne monkey-business going on, so please, for the good of your own argument, go through and carefully state what you want to prove.

-Duxwing

 

[Reluctantly]

I'm not proving anything Duxwing, quite the contrary actually; I'm disproving what people claim science to be. I'm showing counter-evidence to the claims that science using the scientific method always leads to truth, that we can ever really assume that what science has taught us is true. That is all.

And as for the gun argument, I never said you have an opinion. I merely showed that your argument for blaming the person who you decided made the choice to use them poorly and not blaming anyone else who influenced this person or even blaming the ease with which people can kill with a gun is philosophically biased. And "see whether it checks out" - what does that even mean? That could mean so many things and it reminds me of consensus; if everyone stupidly believes something, it doesn't mean they aren't all being stupid.

As for me, I use science for "reliability". I understand that this reliability will change and may not always be as it was before. But reliability doesn't require things be true, nor does it require consensus among you all for me to use what I find reliable, even if you don't.

 

[Duxwing]

I'm not proving anything Duxwing, quite the contrary actually; I'm disproving what people claim science to be. I'm showing counter-evidence to the claims that science using the scientific method always leads to truth, that we can ever really assume that what science has taught us is true. That is all.

And as for the gun argument, I never said you have an opinion. I merely showed that your argument for blaming the person who you decided made the choice to use them poorly and not blaming anyone else who influenced this person or even blaming the ease with which people can kill with a gun is philosophically biased. And "see whether it checks out" - what does that even mean? That could mean so many things and it reminds me of consensus; if everyone stupidly believes something, it doesn't mean they aren't all being stupid.

As for me, I use science for "reliability". I understand that this reliability will change and may not always be as it was before. But reliability doesn't require things be true, nor does it require consensus among you all for me to use what I find reliable, even if you don't.

If you use science correctly and provide scientists proper resources, then science will almost certainly (scientists assume a few things that could, in theory, trip us up, but if those assumptions are wrong, then the point is moot). If you speak of matters beyond the scope of science, then I agree, science is useless there.

I didn't say that the person is the only one responsible for the use of the gun, I said that the person who made it, provided that the maker has no other role, is not responsible for its use. I can certainly imagine that torturing someone into temporary insanity would put the blame for any murders committed in that state squarely on your shoulders. Let's not move the goalposts.

-Duxwing

 

[SpaceYeti]

Well, the point Socrates made was that we can recall information about the world as it pertains to our human capability to perceive the world. This recollection is our form of perception where no previous knowledge is known or assumed.

No, Socrates was arguing that we already have the knowledge, that it comes from the everlasting soulish part of us, we simply need a catalyst to remember the information, to draw it out. Socrates makes several arguments for an everlasting part of humans, all of which are flawed. This is one of the more terrible ones.

Now, when you base what you are going to see upon some idea of what you have already seen, you are framing what you perceive and not just recollecting what your brain is capable of doing so.

Confirmation bias is something the scientific community is very aware of, and is the reason for studies being "double blind".

And I don't know even know how you inferred this because it has nothing to do with what I just said or what Socrates was showing. The idea is that you recollect and once you do, only then do you know it and only then did you learn it.

And where do you recall it from? Socrates thinks (thought) it's the everlasting spirit. I think it's simply new information you assimilate into the information you already possess in your mind.

The most appalling thing I can think of is,

When I see it applied to things like psychiatry, I see how scientists can use the scientific method to justify abusing people with drugs and harmful destructive treatments. They justify it with reaffirming studies and other such things that create the results they want, but forget to mention or accept the notion that their ideas of "mental illness" are as abstract as what an INTP is exactly. And they aren't finding truth or even getting closer to it in this way when they won't question the philosophical basics their scientific method stand on. And they won't listen because it doesn't involve the scientific method, but a reframing of the beliefs behind their scientific process.

I mean, would you consider someone who took MBTI as gospel and framed all their science of how a human works behind it, as finding the truth? as being objective?

Define "abuse". Yes, sometimes medications are prescribed when they ought not be, but, at the same time, it's usually for the correct reasons instead. Those being, of course, it works. Due to the fact that we cannot control many of the variables of human physiology, psychology and neurology tends to be more trial and error than any other science, and it the reason it's a "soft" science. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't follow the scientific method, and it doesn't mean there's any abuse happening.

Further, the mind is necessarily a subjective thing. We can mess around with brains and see the results, but we cannot know what the mind contained in the brain is thinking or feeling. We can only listen to what it says it's thinking and feeling. More of the reason it's a soft science. I mean, it's already categorized as a soft science, what more do you want? It's not like it just plain doesn't work or otherwise ignores the scientific method, and thus cannot be considered to be science. It is science, just not "hard" science.

Whether something works depends on how well it works toward some aim you have. I think you're mistaking the creation of a tool as meaning that it works.

"Duuurrr, this tool does what I want it to do, but does it work?"

"Deeeeeehhh, I dunno Jimmy, do it do the doodoo?"

""Deerrr... der?"

"Blah blah blee bloo!"

That's what you sound like. If a tool does what it's made to do... it works. Science figures out how things function so that we may utilize them for our ends, successfully, and that's it's purpose, so it works.

Science creates tools, yes, but that doesn't mean "it works". And yes, religion doesn't create tools and toys, but it has at times kept communities together and helped people through their problems. It has worked and gotten results.

Yes, science doing the thing we use it do successfuly means that it does work. Religion may work as a way to feel better and pull people together, but it's also claimed to be used as an explanatory tool... which it utterly fails at. And even as an emotional, sociel tool, it's not the only thing that works, and some things work better. hobbies, for example, bring many people together. Politics exists for that express purpose.

I feel you should realize that we are never completely free. To be without restrictions is to be without a form - being human would be a form of restriction. In that sense, guns are part of the restrictions on reality and it's ignorant to suggest they have no blame, while just blaming the people who used them, or even the people who influenced these people to make those decisions. You're proving the point I made to Duxwing again that you guys are framing things the way you want instead of seeing the greater picture; and that is quite subjective compared to someone who sees blame in all ways.

So what do we do, throw the gun in jail? I think you're not arguing because you think you have some point, or else you'd have stated, in no ambiguous terms, what your point is. Instead, you're using sophistic arguments to blame a gun for what the guy who pulled the trigger did. No, it wouldn't have happened if there was no gun, but that's true for any tool. Tools don't work when they're not involved in the process. Dhoy.

 

[redbaron]

I'm showing counter-evidence to the claims that science using the scientific method always leads to truth, that we can ever really assume that what science has taught us is true. That is all.

What the fuck? How many people actually make this claim anyway? Theories are always being refined and improved and there are plenty of things that science isn't capable of covering.

And if you are going to try and discount the scientific method, maybe you could show how another method of reasoning could yield the same results as the scientific method in doing something.

For example, you might be taken more seriously if you build a rocket based on all the knowledge we've discovered through the teachings of Socrates. One that is just as fast - if not faster and better than the rockets built from the knowledge of science.

 

[SpaceYeti]

^ That's equally silly. If anything works in a manner to gain a proper understanding of how things work, then it's automatically going to be part of the scientific method, or, at least, reasoning.

 

[Da Blob]

That's not always true. Humans will use whatever works for them without any reasoning, rationality or scientific method being involved at all. A proper understanding is often limited to remembering which button one hits to make it happen again.

 

[snafupants]

^ That's equally silly. If anything works in a manner to gain a proper understanding of how things work, then it's automatically going to be part of the scientific method, or, at least, reasoning.

So, if crystal balls gave good information...doesn't the SM lean on observation and hypothesizing?

 

[SpaceYeti]

So, if crystal balls gave good information...doesn't the SM lean on observation and hypothesizing?

If crystal balls gave accurate information, then that. It would thus fall under scientific scrutiny, as it does anyway, except they're not accurate the way things really are. Let's say there was something very like crystal balls, except they don't work via magic, they work via electricity and radio-waves/cable. It could send you images that other people are doing at that time, or which they can even record somehow and then broadcast to these crystal ball alternates at a later time.

Yes, TVs.

The difference is that we know how TVs work. If crystal balls did work, they'd work for a reason. Just like TVs work for a reason. We may not know why they work, but if they do, they do. Maybe we'd eventually figure it out, maybe we wouldn't. That's irrelevant.

 

[snafupants]

@SpaceYeti

The difference is that we know how TVs work. If crystal balls did work, they'd work for a reason. Just like TVs work for a reason. We may not know why they work, but if they do, they do. Maybe we'd eventually figure it out, maybe we wouldn't. That's irrelevant.

Weren't TVs properly understood before they were disseminated to the public?

Also, can something really be known without comprehension of its constituent parts?

That's irrelevant.

Not really. How could something be dependable and thoroughly mysterious?

I can't endorse this teleology...you can't watch a baseball game to get into the hall of fame. Noticing is not doing or necessarily fully understanding.

Sure, there could be a semi-causal relationship but how do you know its predicates?

 

[SpaceYeti]

Well now you're just being silly. We, as a species, have looked up and seen the planets and stars since we've existed. We knew they were there, and we knew they followed particular paths after a while. We didn't know why. Then we figured it out. Yeah, we understood TVs because we made them. If we discovered them, on the other hand, we could figure them out. Just like if crystal balls actually did provide good information, then there would be a reason, and we could figure it out. I mean, maybe not, perhaps it's too much for us to grasp, but the fact remains that, in the hypothetical situation where crystal balls provided good information, then they do provide good information, and using them as a source of information is reasonable.

 

[snafupants]

@SpaceYeti

Well now you're just being silly.

Haha, what a convincing start!

More books should begin that way...

If we discovered them, on the other hand, we could figure them out.

That's not supported by evidence.

There's much theoretical physicists see without really comprehending.

then they do provide good information, and using them as a source of information is reasonable.

It's reasonable and I would do it but such an activity is neither knowledge nor reliable.

You are simply cashing in on an observed correlation; understanding is absent.

Noticing sunburn whilst outdoors doesn't mean you get the elliptical nature of planetary orbit.

 

[redbaron]

^ That's equally silly. If anything works in a manner to gain a proper understanding of how things work, then it's automatically going to be part of the scientific method, or, at least, reasoning.

That was sort of the response I was going for - he obviously won't be able to do it.

I don't agree entirely with you, I think there are some things outside the realm of scientific method/reasoning that can still elucidate certain things, but I'm splitting hairs here - I get your point.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That was sort of the response I was going for - he obviously won't be able to do it.

Fair enough.

I think there are some things outside the realm of scientific method/reasoning that can still elucidate certain things

Such as?

 

[SpaceYeti]

That's not supported by evidence.

There's much theoretical physicists see without really comprehending.

Sure, but there's also plenty seen which is known. So what? Things start with seen things that aren't understood, hence science.

It's reasonable and I would do it but such an activity is neither knowledge nor reliable.

If it weren't reliable, it wouldn't be reasonable. If it was just as likely to be incorrect as correct, then there's no real correlation. At least, no correlation between what's seen and it's truth value. Further, knowledge is little more than a very reasonable probability, and we haven't discussed exactly how reliable the crystal ball is, such that we could say it either is or is not knowledge.

You are simply cashing in on an observed correlation; understanding is absent.

So? Experiments can be run, but for now they haven't. We have only the knowledge we have, and the knowledge we have dictates this thing tends to be right. Many people (most, in fact) don't understand exactly how their computer works, but they seem to use it just fine.

Noticing sunburn whilst outdoors doesn't mean you get the elliptical nature of planetary orbit.

Nope. Noticing you only get it when outside during the day can lead to hypotheses and tests, though. Why are we even arguing about this? It's been silly for the past several posts.

What's with your "I'm a unique flower" font?

 

[Reluctantly]

No, Socrates was arguing that we already have the knowledge, that it comes from the everlasting soulish part of us, we simply need a catalyst to remember the information, to draw it out. Socrates makes several arguments for an everlasting part of humans, all of which are flawed. This is one of the more terrible ones.
...
And where do you recall it from? Socrates thinks (thought) it's the everlasting spirit. I think it's simply new information you assimilate into the information you already possess in your mind.

No, I get that. But the fact that our mind sees something a particular way is arguably imprinted in the same way that you wouldn't expect a cat to invent mathematics.

Confirmation bias is something the scientific community is very aware of, and is the reason for studies being "double blind".

You missed my point though. There's a difference between studying what we believe to be inanimate objects and treating a person as if they are an inanimate object.
Psychiatry ignores the subjective aspect of a person's psyche that affects any objective aspects it might be said to have. By ignoring these subjective conditions that influence the objective conditions, the scientific data acquired is baseless, incomplete, and random in terms of repeatability. But this gets ignored anyway.

Define "abuse". Yes, sometimes medications are prescribed when they ought not be, but, at the same time, it's usually for the correct reasons instead. Those being, of course, it works. Due to the fact that we cannot control many of the variables of human physiology, psychology and neurology tends to be more trial and error than any other science, and it the reason it's a "soft" science. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't follow the scientific method, and it doesn't mean there's any abuse happening.

Further, the mind is necessarily a subjective thing. We can mess around with brains and see the results, but we cannot know what the mind contained in the brain is thinking or feeling. We can only listen to what it says it's thinking and feeling. More of the reason it's a soft science. I mean, it's already categorized as a soft science, what more do you want? It's not like it just plain doesn't work or otherwise ignores the scientific method, and thus cannot be considered to be science. It is science, just not "hard" science.

Giving people drugs that influence the brain will change some of their personality aspects. A lot of people claim antidepressants reduce their ability to think and feel. Some antipsychotics have a record of destroying brain functioning (lithium destroying frontal lobes off the top of my head) and even, in modern times, has led to involuntary muscle twitching of the face that is not correctable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tardive_dyskinesia. The fact of the matter is that these drugs are not "balancing" anything as they claim. And yet, these drugs are still considered science and still used. There are insane side effects to psychiatric drugs and yet we are to believe they "balance" things? Seriously, you're backing psychiatry up as a science?

If a tool does what it's made to do... it works. Science figures out how things function so that we may utilize them for our ends, successfully, and that's it's purpose, so it works.

You missed my point though. I'm saying there's a difference between using science to create tools and using science toward an aim. A computer, for instance, was not originally meant to be used as we use it now. It was strictly a number cruncher. Now take a computer that is designed to crunch numbers into space to use as a space computer and you might find it doesn't crunch the numbers. Why? Because of radiation, conditions that weren't known until you happened on them. Then was the science reliable? Depends on the conditions surrounding it and if those conditions change, the science should be questioned. And I don't think you disagree, but we need to be clear. But do you disagree?

Yes, science doing the thing we use it do successfuly means that it does work. Religion may work as a way to feel better and pull people together, but it's also claimed to be used as an explanatory tool... which it utterly fails at. And even as an emotional, sociel tool, it's not the only thing that works, and some things work better. hobbies, for example, bring many people together. Politics exists for that express purpose.

Well, hobbies and tools can bring people together, but they can also bring them apart and even allow them to hurt and destroy each other, depending on the conditions surrounding their use. And similarly, science that works today doesn't always work tomorrow under different conditions. It's no different than religion if you talk about what conditions allow the religion to work and what conditions won't allow it to work.

So what do we do, throw the gun in jail? I think you're not arguing because you think you have some point, or else you'd have stated, in no ambiguous terms, what your point is. Instead, you're using sophistic arguments to blame a gun for what the guy who pulled the trigger did. No, it wouldn't have happened if there was no gun, but that's true for any tool. Tools don't work when they're not involved in the process. Dhoy.

I'm not against guns. I originally felt in the debates that attacking guns was mistaken. Then I opened my mind a bit and realized all the different issues. Now I blame guns, the person, and the society that helped caused it, but not ONE. How hard is this to understand? And why is it so hard for you to understand there are other philosophical arguments to make regarding gun control?

 

[Reluctantly]

What the fuck? How many people actually make this claim anyway? Theories are always being refined and improved and there are plenty of things that science isn't capable of covering.

And if you are going to try and discount the scientific method, maybe you could show how another method of reasoning could yield the same results as the scientific method in doing something.

For example, you might be taken more seriously if you build a rocket based on all the knowledge we've discovered through the teachings of Socrates. One that is just as fast - if not faster and better than the rockets built from the knowledge of science.

You obviously didn't read my posts.

First, I said I use it for reliability. If it wasn't reliable in some ways, i wouldn't use it.

Second, I'm specifically talking about people who take science as some ultimate kind of faith that should be used above all other kinds of faith. These people exist and the response to SpaceYeti about the nature of psychiatry with science in my last post is partly what I'm referring to. Now if you have a problem with that, then please explain before you go off saying shit about me that isn't true.

Lastly, you agree with me that science doesn't always lead to truth; but you are offended that the scientific method can be discounted. You contradict yourself, genius. What are you even arguing with me about?

 

[Reluctantly]

"Philosophical Trolls"

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Second, I'm specifically talking about people who take science as some ultimate kind of faith that should be used above all other kinds of faith.

Who are these people? And why do they interest you?

I haven't seen anyone like that outside of fictional television, film, or novels.

 

[SpaceYeti]

I'm not against guns. I originally felt in the debates that attacking guns was mistaken. Then I opened my mind a bit and realized all the different issues. Now I blame guns, the person, and the society that helped caused it, but not ONE. How hard is this to understand? And why is it so hard for you to understand there are other philosophical arguments to make regarding gun control?

Oh, you opened your mind. I was going to try to reply to everything, but then I came along this gem. Yes, your mind became open and you realized something, which means, of course, my mind is not open, as I disagree with you, and the only way that's possible is if my mind is closed. Let's us take us some philosophizing and intellectualizing and quantum... sophist keyword time!

I'm having a difficult time even figuring out what you're talking about, let alone discuss it with you. Pick a subject and talk about it.

 

[Reluctantly]

Who are these people? And why do they interest you?

I haven't seen anyone like that outside of fictional television, film, or novels.

Hardly. All it takes is for someone to employ The Scientific Method to support a pseudoscience as a science to qualify. Psychiatry just happens to be one of the pseudosciences that attracts such people.

Or do you actually believe psychiatry is a science? If so, explain why.

Oh, you opened your mind. I was going to try to reply to everything, but then I came along this gem. Yes, your mind became open and you realized something, which means, of course, my mind is not open, as I disagree with you, and the only way that's possible is if my mind is closed. Let's us take us some philosophizing and intellectualizing and quantum... sophist keyword time!

I'm having a difficult time even figuring out what you're talking about, let alone discuss it with you. Pick a subject and talk about it.

I can't discuss anything with you if you're going to ignore philosophical distinctions because you choose too. And you don't have to fucking agree with me, but pretending those distinctions don't exist is pretty fucking closed-minded when the subject matter is "philosophy". And nice try there calling me a sophist as a way to cover your ignorance. It's still ignorance.

And anyway, all your bullshit aside, do you believe psychiatry is a science? Answer the question by explaining why as I've already done so and yet you continue to belabor me with strawmen and slander without explaining anything yourself.