The insecurity of ignorance

[sac beh]

I'm aware of the various theories on the Socrates-Plato relationship. You're actually not agreeing with IB at all, as he used the question of the historicity of Socrates to bar his thoughts from discussion. There is disagreement among Plato scholars about this historicity, but among none of them is there doubt that we could refer to his thoughts, as expressed by Plato, in philosophical discussions. They are rather some of the most principle.

So again, this: "Really? How DO you know? Socrates NEVER wrote anything down! You pretend to KNOW things...yet they're second hand hearsay..." is a red herring meant to bar discussion. And perhaps you read me wrong thinking that I was denying the existence of problems surrounding Socrates historicity when in fact I was acknowledging them and saying that they are in the end irrelevant to the ideas recorded by Plato.

 

[GMT]

Hey Sac, given your other posts, I felt sure that YOU would know the score, but many dont. I also felt it important to agree with the accurate statements made by someone we dissagree with while arguing against the points we dissagree with. You and I are on the same page, not trying to make out you don't know whats what in the slightest. I know sometimes I fail to respond to those points I agree with and concentrate soley on the important points, but the origin of words was a big point in IBs post, so I wanted to make the point in a way that didn't include the type of examples that are likely to be deleted. While also showing that what was said (reportedly) by socrates, couldn't be used in the way that IB was using it.

 

[Panoramical]

Bullshit...I was all ready to agree with you and then you say that... Uncalled for. As was the comment by "el dumb" (yes, you may have left out a letter when registering).

I shouldn't have laughed. That is how I often react to hearing something preposterous. But on second thoughts, it's an interesting theory I've not contemplated before. Is this an idea you've thought of or is it something you've read? I'd be interested in looking into it myself if you can provide some sources of information.

PROVE to me you're right and I'll listen. Don't show me a bunch of inconclusive "guess" studies. Don't tell me I'm wrong when you don't know how what you're talking about happens.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not asking you to believe anything I say. I'm not even telling you facts. I was merely stating how I approach learning and being told I'm wrong etc.

There are a LOT of people here who SEEM to know a lot...because they know a lot of words...but they DON'T know how it applies in the real world. They live in a "textbook" fantasy. You MUST step back and look at the big picture. See how it relates, how it effects other things. Nothing happens in a vacuum. I've said it over and over...people have trouble seeing the forest for the trees. Meaning, they get too hung up on details and lose sight of what's actually happening.

I see what you're saying here. Words doesn't equate to life experience and wisdom. I can't agree with you more.

actually, I have watched. listened to, and read a LOT of conspiracy shit...right along with the official version. Only a FOOL doesn't. And that's my problem with "you"...I'm expected to, and do read "your side", but you laugh and disregard "my" (meaning anything that upsets your precious world view) side. YOU are what you accuse ME of being...and you don't see it. The ignorant is the one who refuses to consider another possibility... That sounds like you and Head to me. You refuse to listen to my side, to even consider it, you shrug it off as nonsense.

I've read a fair amount of conspiracy and I'm very open to suggestion. Apologies to you for being closed in my response to your comment about Steven Hawking. I'm quite fond of the guy and maybe that is why I responded how I did.

I've jumped to assumptions about you from reading the discussions here and in Transhumanism between you and h3ad. Maybe unjustly so?

Those assumptions are; you don't explain yourself and you talk in circles, whilst discrediting what others are saying. Maybe those assumptions aren't reliable from reading just two discussions between you and h3ad. But nevertheless, I made them and they're reflected in my response.

'll bare in mind that maybe you and h3ad have history and those discussions were unique. I must say, in your responses to me you've been far more palatable.

Not to get political...but speaking of "disregarding", it's what "you" did with Ross Perot, Ron Paul, EVERY Libertarian or third party candidate. You dismiss them as idiots...yet they've been proven correct.

I've got news for you...there are other "silly people" out there who you won't consider listening to who are correct too.

I don't know who those people are, I know I could easily Google them, but I'm disinterested at this point. I'm in the UK if that helps.

You're being led by those who rule you. You're being fed what they want you to know. They're doing a mighty fine job with MOST of the population...because you all think that politically correct way they want you to think. They're doing it to you right now...turn on the TV, read a magazine...it's FULL of propaganda and people lying to you to sell you something...a prodiuct OR an IDEA. Whole channels are dedicated to separating you and your money...DIY, HGTV... And you swallow it hook line and sinker.

I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm being lead by those that rule me, but there's definitely truth in what you're saying. I would say the majority of western society is influenced more by the media than I am, but no one can help it. We all read books, watch TV, surf the internet, but most importantly we're all impressionable to an extent.

Fortunately for me, I use the internet for a lot of my research, which isn't controlled by any one person/corporation and therefore less likely to have ulterior motives. You and I can host anything we want. Yes that could also mean we could post bullshit, but it's the duty of the reader to verify the facts if they aren't already sourced, which is what I try to do with anything I read.

Media such a TV, papers, magazines and books are different to the internet. They are owned by huge media conglomerates and often have agenda's, which you should always bear in mind when reading anything of the sorts, especially anything under Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Are you saying conspiracy theories aren't media? Maybe not mainstream, but anything published is media. What I am typing here is media to whoever reads it.

"DIY, HGTV" - what are these acronyms?

Can I ask the same question I ask other (in my opinion gullible) people? Are you religious? The answer to that...answers my other question...

.

No I'm not religious in the sense that I don't believe there is a; God,
Heaven or Hell. I hope that answers your questions.

 

[sac beh]

Mezz, if I misrepresent you here, please correct me, I can't claim to fully understand your views.

But it sounds like your view is different and not as extreme. You emphasize the need for doubt in all matters of knowledge, as we all know that knowledge is finite and changing. And you believe that this is an important principle to remember, as it places certain limits on our knowledge. But insofar as you bring up doubt only to bar discussion and promote a fatalistic view that discussion is useless as we can't know anything, you would just be saying the same as ibjamming.

Taking Russel's statement of doubt to the extreme view of knowledge being impossible would be quite absurd, given the great force of reason he employed across his mathematical and philosophical works. Among the many things reason can be used to promote is not the idea that reason itself is fruitless.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

Mezz, if I misrepresent you here, please correct me, I can't claim to fully understand your views.

But it sounds like your view is different and not as extreme. You emphasize the need for doubt in all matters of knowledge, as we all know that knowledge is finite and changing. And you believe that this is an important principle to remember, as it places certain limits on our knowledge. But insofar as you bring up doubt only to bar discussion and promote a fatalistic view that discussion is useless as we can't know anything, you would just be saying the same as ibjamming.

Taking Russel's statement of doubt to the extreme view of knowledge being impossible would be quite absurd, given the great force of reason he employed across his mathematical and philosophical works. Among the many things reason can be used to promote is not the idea that reason itself is fruitless.

I'm just saying it's probably best not to be too sure of oneself. If someone's ego-associated view of what "facts" are "incontrovertible" is over-extended it could end up badly for them. A little psychic judo and suddenly their world is upside down.

 

[bs0]

Do you think that Hawking is coming up with all that shit? I don't. I think he's being used by others as a "spokesman". Personally...I don't think there's much left inside his brain.

I'll take a look at your article...I used to subscribe to that mag.

Hawking is one of the most brilliant minds to ever grace humanity... to underestimate him in such an egregious manner is an enormous mistake: his mind is intact inside his failing body. So, yes i do firmly believe he is "coming up" with his writings.

 

[ibjamming]

Well, not that I like to make a habbit in agreeing with IB sac lol, but the case for stating that a lot of what we refer to as the teachings of socrates, actually being the teachings of Plato does stand up. Its true that socrates did exist, and therefore isnt just a figment of platos imagination, and its true that socrates taught plato the art of philosphy. Its true that socrates was put to death for being a disruptive influence, (subversion was the actual charge) but given that Plato saw the fate of socrates, its reasonable to assume that he was keen to avoid the same fate. Also there is no account of plato and socrates ever being in disagreement. It is possible that plato wanted to give weight to his words, and escape punnishment for them by using the name of socrates as the origin of those words. Much in the same way it can be said of other groups who claim to pass on the teachings of those who died for them. However IB, when socrates said that he knew nothing, he was refering to the principles of deductive logic and concepts that later philosophers developed further. Plato developed the idea in the 4 levels of knowledge, and so separated the absolute requirements of deductive logic. Socrates himself would not have argued that science does not have a use, or that inductive logic when utilising large volumes of data, was entirely irrelevant to the aquisition of knowledge of our world.
You could say, that's because science didn't exist in his time, which is true, but had he known of it, I feel fairly confident he would have approved of it.
Though I do make one request of you IB, please dont get this thread shut down by making references to religions by name, or by using examples of a political nature, as even where we disagree, many are enjoying dissagreeing, and it would be a pitty to give someone the excuse to close it down.

If you don't have someones words...in their OWN handwriting...you DON'T know if they actually said it. All kinds of stuff in history has been changed. Every time those books were copied, mistakes were made, and changes made. Belive me, I know a LOT about how old texts have been distorted over the centuries...mistakes made, then the copy of that has mistakes...the next copy more...on and on.

Yes, I keep forgetting...half my ammunition is forbidden. I bring these up as examples because hopefully everyone is familiar with it. I'm at a loss HOW to make an example BROAD enough. Hell, some people don't know who Perot and Ron Paul are...

I have NO...repeat NO problem with science. What I DO have a problem with is people going around acting like CURRENT present day science is the be all, end all, of knowledge. Scientific method all that... I have a problem too when half the FACTS are purposefully left out to protect some group. And THAT happens all the time. Science IS a political creature. Maybe not the act of research...but what you say in your finding IS...VERY...political.

you know it's true...convince them!

I shouldn't have laughed. That is how I often react to hearing something preposterous. But on second thoughts, it's an interesting theory I've not contemplated before. Is this an idea you've thought of or is it something you've read? I'd be interested in looking into it myself if you can provide some sources of information.



Please don't get me wrong, I'm not asking you to believe anything I say. I'm not even telling you facts. I was merely stating how I approach learning and being told I'm wrong etc.



I see what you're saying here. Words doesn't equate to life experience and wisdom. I can't agree with you more.



I've read a fair amount of conspiracy and I'm very open to suggestion. Apologies to you for being closed in my response to your comment about Steven Hawking. I'm quite fond of the guy and maybe that is why I responded how I did.

I've jumped to assumptions about you from reading the discussions here and in Transhumanism between you and h3ad. Maybe unjustly so?

Those assumptions are; you don't explain yourself and you talk in circles, whilst discrediting what others are saying. Maybe those assumptions aren't reliable from reading just two discussions between you and h3ad. But nevertheless, I made them and they're reflected in my response.

'll bare in mind that maybe you and h3ad have history and those discussions were unique. I must say, in your responses to me you've been far more palatable.



I don't know who those people are, I know I could easily Google them, but I'm disinterested at this point. I'm in the UK if that helps.



I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm being lead by those that rule me, but there's definitely truth in what you're saying. I would say the majority of western society is influenced more by the media than I am, but no one can help it. We all read books, watch TV, surf the internet, but most importantly we're all impressionable to an extent.

Fortunately for me, I use the internet for a lot of my research, which isn't controlled by any one person/corporation and therefore less likely to have ulterior motives. You and I can host anything we want. Yes that could also mean we could post bullshit, but it's the duty of the reader to verify the facts if they aren't already sourced, which is what I try to do with anything I read.

Media such a TV, papers, magazines and books are different to the internet. They are owned by huge media conglomerates and often have agenda's, which you should always bear in mind when reading anything of the sorts, especially anything under Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

Are you saying conspiracy theories aren't media? Maybe not mainstream, but anything published is media. What I am typing here is media to whoever reads it.

"DIY, HGTV" - what are these acronyms?

.

No I'm not religious in the sense that I don't believe there is a; God,
Heaven or Hell. I hope that answers your questions.

I don't remember what theory you refer to.

Thank you...yes, I am reasonable...but I don't suffer fools.

Ron Paul tried to get the Republican nomination. He was the ONLY honest man in the running and the media treated him like some are treating me...like we're a fool. Ross Perot ran for president in 1992 I believe. He had all these pie charts and visual aids explaining what our current policies would do... His most famous being...if NAFTA passes...you'll hear a giant sucking sound as jobs leave the country. Our official rate is 9.5, but it's really estimated to be in the 20% range. Yup, we lost jobs overseas. Why? big business got it's candidate. Again, the media treated him like he was a loon. In fact his running mate...was portrayed as an incoherant moron who didn't know where he was or what he was saying...obviously, he was not. Just not "media savvy", not a good talker...or bullshitter.

DIY - Do It Yourself TV
HGTV - Home and Garden TV

Both are nothing more than 24 hour a day infomercials trying to get you to spend as much "improving" your house as you paid for it.

Mezz, if I misrepresent you here, please correct me, I can't claim to fully understand your views.

But it sounds like your view is different and not as extreme. You emphasize the need for doubt in all matters of knowledge, as we all know that knowledge is finite and changing. And you believe that this is an important principle to remember, as it places certain limits on our knowledge. But insofar as you bring up doubt only to bar discussion and promote a fatalistic view that discussion is useless as we can't know anything, you would just be saying the same as ibjamming.

Taking Russel's statement of doubt to the extreme view of knowledge being impossible would be quite absurd, given the great force of reason he employed across his mathematical and philosophical works. Among the many things reason can be used to promote is not the idea that reason itself is fruitless.

Wait...WHO said this?!? ME! I'm the one that says you DON'T know it all, so take what you think you know with a grain of salt. I never said it's ALL worthless and not worth pursuing. I simply said there is much more you don't know and someday you may.

I'm saying they shouldn't dismiss ANYTHING. How the hell did this get so twisted in your mind? Hell, they throw out study after study like we're supposed to throw away everything we thought we knew and believer this new evidence. I say neither can be completely relied upon as accurate.

I'm just saying it's probably best not to be too sure of oneself. If someone's ego-associated view of what "facts" are "incontrovertible" is over-extended it could end up badly for them. A little psychic judo and suddenly their world is upside down.

Yup...and a bunch of them here ARE real sure of themselves...I'm saying NOT to be so sure because every day new things come to light and sometimes they throw out the old theories on their ear.

But, like I said above...don't automatically assume new IS more correct. you need to make your own determinations. Don't rely on "authority" to tell you which is better. THEY are the ones trying to tell you "their facts are THE truth".

I'm the one with the open mind... I'm the one saying...not so fast... I'm the one saying...in some ways, on some subject, we're ALL ignorant. I'm also saying there are plans to keep us that way...in certain ways, in certain subjects.

 

[ibjamming]

Hawking is one of the most brilliant minds to ever grace humanity... to underestimate him in such an egregious manner is an enormous mistake: his mind is intact inside his failing body. So, yes i do firmly believe he is "coming up" with his writings.

Can you prove that? I tend to believe that "Hawkings writings" are a group collaboration...in his name because of his past genius. I look at him and the spark is gone. I think he's an empty shell. EVERYTHING is "pre programmed", he never does anything real time. I think he's just another front man like Obama.

It's just my own personal opinion. Another that can't be proven or dis-proven.

 

[GMT]

Damn it IB, I have to find something in there to dissagree with. Science is not a political creature, but it can be a political tool, lol, knew there'd be something. But a pencil can be used to write a play, a thesis, a musical tune or to kill someone by stabbing them with it. Tools are tools and neither good or bad in themselves. Mankind uses tools, and there are good and bad among us. So yes, while I agree, science can be used in a way that perverts its intended use, I still say it (itself rather than discussions of it by others) has more value than fairy tales when it comes to the discovery of knowledge.

 

[GMT]

Hawking still lectures and interacts with students. Do you think someone is watching and remotely controling his voice machine? lol, we have more respect for people than that here.

 

[bs0]

Really? How DO you know? Socrates NEVER wrote anything down! You pretend to KNOW things...yet they're second hand hearsay...

You REALLY don't get it...you're being fed things in anothers' name...and you're taking it as gospel. Just like Jesus...yup...NEVER wrote ONE WORD...yet there are a few billion Christians out there who are willing to give their all in his name...because of "what he said"...but NOBODY can know what he said. Because neither Jesus NOR his disciples wrote anything down. Don't you find it funny that such widely quoted people didn't write anything down? EVERYTHING attributed them...can't be verified? It's like Muhammad getting the "word from God". Pretty convenient for him huh?

Christianity isn't Jesus it's Paul

Islam isn't God, it's Muhammad

Socrates is really Plato.

And science is today's best guess.

You're ALL ignorant...I'm ignorant. We believe what we WANT to believe and hopefully we use a logical path to get there.

Nobody can be sure of anything that has happened unless they were standing right there when it happened.

You see...I've been around long enough to spot the tricks. Like the "glitches in the matrix". I can now FINALLY see through a lot of the tricks. Marketers, advertisers, handlers, EVERYONE uses them to "spin" their side, to get you on their side...or buy their product.

This should be life 101 stuff...why is it so hard for you to see the deliberate manipulation? You're being kept ignorant by those of authority.

This reminds me of a few years ago...our governor was pleading for his new taxes...he kept going on and on about how the budget is already stripped to the bone and the poor students because the teachers were broke.

Well, it turns out that it was one lie after another. The budget still had shit like a million dollars for beauty pageants...that kind of crap. Then I checked teacher pay and found that for a state with it's cost of living, the teachers were some of the best paid in the nation. WTF?

There are more lies...they're everywhere...and everyone tells them.

We're being kept ignorant. And we don't know it. We are...we're living in the damn matrix... But instead of it being fake...it's full of lies...so I guess it is fake.

So yes...you can't reason effectively because you're starting with false data.

Citing yourself as the only reliable judge of fact goes right along with the topic at hand though, which I think we all can enjoy the irony of.

 

[ibjamming]

Damn it IB, I have to find something in there to dissagree with. Science is not a political creature, but it can be a political tool, lol, knew there'd be something. But a pencil can be used to write a play, a thesis, a musical tune or to kill someone by stabbing them with it. Tools are tools and neither good or bad in themselves. Mankind uses tools, and there are good and bad among us. So yes, while I agree, science can be used in a way that perverts its intended use, I still say it (itself rather than discussions of it by others) has more value than fairy tales when it comes to the discovery of knowledge.

I'm NOT saying science is BAD...get that word out of your head!!! I'm saying it's "incomplete". But that too...was just a tengent I visited trying to explain something else. HARD science is OK in my book, it fills our needs. We know enough to do all the marvelous things we do.

The SOFT sciences...are BS...just about all of it. That is what I was trying to say. Head always twists thinks, hones in on some insignificant supporting data and pounces turning the whole conversation to just that small point, missing the big picture.

Science is great...AND it's incomplete. And ANYONE who argues and bases their argument solely of "something theorized in science" could be (and many time IS) barking up the wrong tree.

That's all. I'm not saying science is ALL full of shit. I'm saying we MAY (and probably will) change our theories down the road. Head seems to think the latest and greatest is the new gospel. That's the impression I get, and what I argue against.

Hawking still lectures and interacts with students. Do you think someone is watching and remotely controling his voice machine? lol, we have more respect for people than that here.

You've seen it? Personally? You know..."ignore the man behind the curtain" doesn't ONLY happen in OZ. Not Aussiland for you down under folks. when I see him on TV, he's CERTAINLY not doing it himself. He's not "doing" anything. Unless it's hooked up to his brain! I don't "believe" easily...I'm a skeptic. David Copperfield can make a building disappear...someone can "fake" Hawkings words even easier.

Citing yourself as the only reliable judge of fact goes right along with the topic at hand though, which I think we all can enjoy the irony of.

Yes I DO! But do YOU for judging me? Because YOU are in the same boat as I...

I'm NOT the "only reliable judge"...but I'm all I've got. Would you rather I delegate that responsibility to you? Or the guy with the degree? How about someone from the government? No, I'll use my own best judgment. Because in the long run, I'll remain ignorant either way. And I'm not out to sell myself anything...they are.

 

[GMT]

Given the way he controls the voice box, (via a tube in his mouth he moves and blows into), it takes quite some time for him to prepare responses. Thats why when you see him on tv, hes just sitting in a chair letting the pre-prepared statements play out. Given that his condition leaves his body (for the most part) out of his control, yet his mind active, and given that we know he has the training and expertise, and given that he can't go skiing, what else do think he's gonna use his brain for other than to consider his field of expertise, and write the odd book for income. To believe that its even possible for someone to use him as a puppet, is taking the disbelief principles too far.

 

[Mezz Mezzrow]

...To believe that its even possible for someone to use him as a puppet, is taking the disbelief principles too far.

Wow, I must go way, way, way too far for you because while I had never considered the possibility, I do think there is a reasonable chance it is true. I really practice not making assumptions about how the world seems if can help it. What if there never was a beginning to the universe and Steven Hawking is just a shill for a cosmic nihilistic illusion?

 

[el dub]

What if this level of the video game called "Life" takes intelligence to master and the next takes compassion?

lw

 

[HempKat]

how about...don't worry about HIV...yet now EVERYONE in the health care field wears face masks and gloves. Political lies because money is paid to garner acceptance of the gay lifestyle.

Wearing a mask and or gloves does nothing to protect one from HIV, it's not transmitted that way which has been determined thru medical scientific observation. Simply put HIV does not survive being exposed to air, long enough for it to be transmitted by breathing it in or having the outside of your skin touch it.

 

[GMT]

Mezz, you think there is a reasonable chance that in britain we use the disabled as puppets to wheel out and put voice overs on them that they have no say in, and pretend its them?
And you question whether the universe ever actually came into being in any sense whatso ever?
WOW. yeah you go too far for me. Too far for me to even bother trying to argue against it, as its like saying what if the moon really is made of cheese.

 

[sac beh]

Too far for me to even bother trying to argue against it, as its like saying what if the moon really is made of cheese.

The bar for evidence is equally extraordinary to the implausibility of the claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1tA6RxGcs&feature=related

 

[bs0]

I'm NOT the "only reliable judge"...but I'm all I've got. Would you rather I delegate that responsibility to you? Or the guy with the degree? How about someone from the government? No, I'll use my own best judgment. Because in the long run, I'll remain ignorant either way. And I'm not out to sell myself anything...they are.

I work in a professional field, and on a regular basis, based on people's credentials and verifiable experience, I take their advice and work at face value. So yes, 'the guy with the degree' is someone I often times trust.

I'm not saying listen to everyone, because vetting the sources you lend credence to is a very important step towards reaching useful conclusions.

And these rantings about Stephen Hawking from you... I mean honestly if you really think that somehow, based on your complete lack of experience, your view of the mechanics of the universe is somehow more complete than his own?

And the immaturity of assuming someone with a disability is a political shill... Is that how you talk to all people in wheelchairs? Are all deaf people retarded to you because they can't hear? Your baseless "opinion" on that matter is in all honestly completely offensive. Why don't you go tell all the people on here who smoke for their disabilities that they are brain-dead? Refraining from name-calling on this point is not an easy thing to do.

 

[HempKat]

I'm saying NOT to be so sure because every day new things come to light and sometimes they throw out the old theories on their ear.

Can you give some evidence of this? So far your only example has been the Titanic and while some slightly new info may change things (although not that new since the new info you mentioned was in the movie released 13 years ago). The new info does change the notion that it was all the fault of the iceburg but it doesn't remove the iceburg from playing the key role. Hence the iceburg theory was not thrown out on it's ear, just enhanced by the new information of the human element. Which supports what head was saying, that the new info didn't change what is, the ship still hit an iceburg and that caused it to sink. The human element was only responsible for the ship sinking faster and fewer people being saved. Had the ship not hit the iceburg then the speed the ship was traveling at would not have put people at risk or caused the ship to sink faster. I would also disagree with the sopinion that every day new things come to light about old theories. New things do come to light virtually every day but the vast majority are new explainations for things that are unexplained. Established scientific theories usually don't change that fast. Maybe once a decade if that.