site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3313 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for July 9, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Strong «I smoke to spite Hitler» energy.

I wouldn't hide the truth or choose arguments by associates anyway, so the FC 'directed ideological cleaning' process is a mystery to me. Who knows what you guys smoke.

but most everyone accepts that social reality is socially constructed in precisely the sense that it can systematically deviate from implications of honest scientific investigation, both on the level of a domain-specific narrative and on the meta-level of occasionally prioritizing narratives over evidence and narratively compelling beliefs over epistemically sound ones.

Original motte and bailey. Motte is ‘reality is partly socially mediated’.

Because there is no principled way to delineate «the whole system». History is not a laboratory, everything is a one-off, nothing is truly replicable.

Okay I disagree, it's just a weaker signal of the exact same process as science in a laboratory. It is by categorizing and linking distinct events that we can understand the world.

So according to you, if you quote history, it's just meaningless. No conclusions are allowed if a hostile head of state repeatedly violates the terms of the appeasement he gets, while another doesn’t? All completely independent events, no predictive value?

«Postmodernists» actually make a strong, evidence-based point – because modernism fucking sucked for their generation.

I see postmodernism does exist as a distinct concept when you want it to. Please just fucking tell me what term I am allowed to use for the sweeping epistemological changes you demand.

I’m ready to compare the achievements of modernism against postmodernism anytime you want.

I wouldn't hide the truth or choose arguments by associates anyway, so the FC 'directed ideological cleaning' process is a mystery to me

It's a mystery because you don't want to look at it. You're observably doing it in this very conversation.

Motte is ‘reality is partly socially mediated’.

The motte is "reality is partly socially mediated, and that "partly" can vary considerably at different times and places, even if unmediatable reality can never be shut out permanently." The bailey is "reality is entirely socially mediated, we can think whatever we like and make it stick indefinately."

We're in the Motte.

It is by categorizing and linking distinct events that we can understand the world.

Categorization and linkage (and observation for that matter) are fraught processes. Not fraught to the point that some knowledge can't exist, but more than fraught enough that knowledge can't be solved like tic-tac-toe.

So according to you, if you quote history, it's just meaningless.

No, it's evidence. We use axioms to collate and interpret evidence, and evidence in turn narrows the range of plausible axioms, and sometimes outright discredits some of them, but it's a two-way street, and subjective choices are involved when you travel in either direction. That's how reason works, and it's one of the reasons why reason is intractably imperfect, and why skepticism and critical thinking is so very necessary. Epistemic certainty is a feeling, not a fact. You can feel entirely certain and be dead wrong.

I see postmodernism does exist as a distinct concept when you want it to.

Disagreeing with you about whether something is "postmodern" is not an argument that Postmodernism does not exist as a distinct concept; in fact, it is the exact opposite.

Please just fucking tell me what term I am allowed to use for the sweeping epistemological changes you demand.

You can call me Susan if it makes you feel better. You can even keep calling me a Postmodernist; I think you're wrong, but I'm far less interested in arguing about whether I'm a postmodernist or not than in arguing about how reason works, because I think we share enough common ground that you can be persuaded to see the truth of the matter.

OK you’re answering each other’s replies, this thread has a bad case of mitosis. I’m not complaining at all, but I’m not going to be able to keep generating replies of the superlative caliber you’re now used to, plus it’s getting a bit repetitive and line-by-line-y.

But I want to thank everyone for answering my question, and you two in particular for humouring me at length, it’s been fun and informative.

Not fraught to the point that some knowledge can't exist, but more than fraught enough that knowledge can't be solved like tic-tac-toe.

I don’t think ideological questions are ‘obvious’ or can be solved like tic-tac-toe, but I’ll let it go without accusing you of rounding my arguments to absurdities . The way I see it, this sort of ‘strawmanning’ is often an honest attempt at gauging the other guy’s position.

Seems to me he was saying it was fraught to the point knowledge can’t exist, and you implied earlier it tailed off to nothing, but okay, I’ll agree to the above. Still a massive gap between these two extremes.

I’ll leave your ‘unorthodox’ use of the word ‘axiom’ to another comment, when I get to it.

You can even keep calling me a Postmodernist

Okay because I need to call you something. I think the thread shows there is some real divergence in our epistemologies.

this thread has a bad case of mitosis. I’m not complaining at all, but I’m not going to be able to keep generating replies of the superlative caliber you’re now used to, plus it’s getting a bit repetitive and line-by-line-y

(Observe the apparent tractability of the question fading!)

...But seriously, this is inevitable. I'm doubtful this thread of discussion itself will actually sort the question either; like the previous discussions we've had, this one will probably taper off inconclusively, because one or both of us will get frustrated or distrated and we'll move on. But over several such, understanding grows, hopefully.

The way I see it, this sort of ‘strawmanning’ is often an honest attempt at gauging the other guy’s position.

A fair point.

I’ll leave your ‘unorthodox’ use of the word ‘axiom’ to another comment, when I get to it.

I eagerly await it. Have a good one, sir.

Grasping at straws.

More effort than this, please.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats