The Necronomicon
-
"Of course. But when we're talking about accepting a claim, one either does or does not. Someone who isn't sure or doesn't know is in the I-dont-accept-it-(at-least-not-yet) camp.
It's sort of like being a Yankees fan. If you're not sure that you like the Yankees, you are outside of the group labeled "Yankee fans."
Not accepting a claim simply means that -- right now, at this moment, with the evidence you have -- you don't accept it as true. It's not a statement of absolute certainty that the claim is false...it's just a statement that right now there's insufficient evidence to convince you."
I think this idea is more of your opinion than reality. Just because someone is unsure, doesn't automatically put them in the "I don't accept it as true" team.
Someone may be indifferent, or simply unable to understand the situation to make a judgement, which in reality we all are in when it comes to ultimate truth about the world. For example, someone may say a machine will revolutionize the computer industry. I am not good at computers, so without any type of real expertise I may reserve any type of judgement. This doesn't mean I feel it isn't true, I may look at the guy, and take into account what I know about him, and how the machine seems to suggest it just may be what he claims, yet I am not sure.
If I'm a Yankees fan, I still may know they suck, or some bit of information that makes me doubt they may win. There so many variables we take into account, and so many ways to view and consider something. I think your over simplifying things a bit. It's simply unrealistic to view everything this way.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
""you can't affect the weather by doing a rain dance."
You make frequent positive statements of belief like this. Then you conflate that position with one of agnostic neutrality.
In short, you are making a logical leap between "don't accept" and "reject". It's a little trick you use so that you can turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence."
Exactly, well said. You hit the nail on the head here.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
""you can't affect the weather by doing a rain dance."
You make frequent positive statements of belief like this. Then you conflate that position with one of agnostic neutrality.
In short, you are making a logical leap between "don't accept" and "reject". It's a little trick you use so that you can turn absence of evidence into evidence of absence."
Well, I'm speaking in different contexts when I make each of those statements, and it's true that I don't always go out of my way to make it clear which context I'm speaking in.
When I say, "There is insufficient evidence to convince me of this claim, but it is theoretically possible," I'm speaking in a super-abstract philosophical context, in which I'm talking about the most theoretical sense of "theorically possible" (as in, "It's theoretically possible that a race of pixies watches my TV after I go to sleep").
But when I say things like, "C'mon, wake up -- you can't make it rain by doing a jig in your living room," I'm speaking in terms of practical knowledge, where the massive amount of evidence that we have -- for example, the fact that nobody has ever demosntrated that there's even any mechanism whereby a merry old jig might affect the weather -- gives me license to say that, for all practical intents and purposes, this is so.
A comparison I often make is to the claim "Leprechauns exist."
Technically, in the most abstract of philosophical sense, I have to admit that it's possible that there could be a leprechaun somewhere in the universe and so I reserve judgment.
But in terms of practical knowledge -- in the context of useful things to know about the day-to-day world -- I would be comfortable, in any day-to-day context, with saying that I know there are no leprechauns.
In the same context that I can say that I know there are no leprechauns, I can say that I know you can't make it rain by doing a merry old jig.
-
@Jason R said
" someone may say a machine will revolutionize the computer industry. I am not good at computers, so without any type of real expertise I may reserve any type of judgement."
Right, you reserve judgment. That is to say, you don't accept it as true (you can't, in this situation, because you simply don't have enough information).
When I say that a person doesn't accept a claim as true, it doesn't mean that the person accepts it as false. There's a huge difference between "I don't accept X as true" and "I think X is false."
-
@Los said
"I can say that I know you can't make it rain by doing a merry old jig."
Jigga what?
$$$
My ex could (surprisingly) make it rain from dancing. They were usually all singles though.
$$$
-
Los,
I understand your point of view. I'm just pointing out that your reasoning, by switching between rules and arbitrarily choosing the goalposts, is showing evidence of serving something other than pure logic.
It seems to be serving a deeper need not to feel foolish, or gullibly believe in stupid things.
Many of the people you're engaging with are not trying to debate or convince you of the existence of goblins or the like even though that's the debate you keep trying to have with everyone.
I'm just pointing out that exploring out the unconscious roots of your need to debate reality is much more fertile ground when it comes to discovering True Will than the debate itself.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
" someone may say a machine will revolutionize the computer industry. I am not good at computers, so without any type of real expertise I may reserve any type of judgement."Right, you reserve judgment. That is to say, you don't accept it as true (you can't, in this situation, because you simply don't have enough information).
When I say that a person doesn't accept a claim as true, it doesn't mean that the person accepts it as false. There's a huge difference between "I don't accept X as true" and "I think X is false.""
So by this logic you do not "like" a food you have never tasted? Makes no sense. Your applying your own spin on it. It's simply a matter of semantics, and figure of speech. If I say I reserve judgement, and therefore, am saying I do not know, this does no automatically mean I do not believe it is true. If someone tells me a food is good, and it looks good, I may still wonder if it is, but I certainly do not disagree. After tasting a food I have never tasted, then, my "confusion" or ideas, are either confirmed "I liked it", or proven wrong "I do not like it". Your using a sort of computer type reasoning, that's much much too restrictive.
-
@Avshalom Binyamin said
"I understand your point of view. I'm just pointing out that your reasoning, by switching between rules and arbitrarily choosing the goalposts, is showing evidence of serving something other than pure logic."
Well, I was trying to be clear that I'm not "arbitrarily choosing goalposts" -- my statements each occur in one of two primary registers, one super-abstract-philosophical and the other practical.
For what it's worth, I never claimed to be motivated by "pure logic." I talk about this stuff because I enjoy talking about it.
"It seems to be serving a deeper need not to feel foolish, or gullibly believe in stupid things."
I'm not sure I would call that "deep": I'm quite conscious of my desire not to be an idiot. I would assume that most intelligent people similarly do not wish to be idiots, but I could always be wrong on that point.
"Many of the people you're engaging with are not trying to debate or convince you of the existence of goblins or the like even though that's the debate you keep trying to have with everyone."
I agree that they're not trying to convince me, but what they are doing is discussing amongst themselves, as if it were self-evident fact, some of the most ridiculous and far-flung pieces of fantasy I've ever heard (practical register, on this one). Some guy claimed the other week that a goblin fired a gun at him and that he almost got into a fist-fight with the creature, for crying out loud.
Of course people like that aren't trying to "debate" anyone else, because they would immediately look ridiculous if they tried to justify these beliefs.
But that's part of my point: they don't need to worry about demonstrating it to me -- they need to be able to demonstrate it to themselves and they can't.
Like it or not, a person who makes wild, unsupportable claims in a public forum -- one that welcomes dissenting opinion, as this forum evidently does -- should expect to be challenged on it.
I understand that the "Thelemic community" in general -- and the inhabitants of this forum in particular -- usually allow such claims to pass unchallenged out of either a misguided sense of politeness or a desire to encourage these sorts of beliefs, for whatever reason. But it really is high time for that to change. This is the twenty-first century, after all. Reasonable people in this day and age don't believe in dueling with goblins, receiving "transmissions" from "Inner Plane Contacts," or ghostbusting a house with the awful power of the mind. Again, practical register.
"I'm just pointing out that exploring out the unconscious roots of your need to debate reality is much more fertile ground when it comes to discovering True Will than the debate itself."
With all due respect, I have experienced in the past that when people run out of arguments to justify their position, they try -- clumsily -- to make the conversation about me (or, rather, about their unfounded speculations about my motivations). My motivations are irrelevant to the discussion of the claims themselves. And far from "fertile ground," speculation about my motivations inevitably leads to fantasy-mongering that distracts from the subject at hand.
-
@Jason R said
"So by this logic you do not "like" a food you have never tasted?"
I don't think we can compare liking a food to accepting a claim because they're two entirely different activities: one is predicated on a physical reaction to an experience, while the other is a mental state.
The way I conceive of it, a person -- by default -- "does not accept" a claim until that person is convinced that it is true. Think of accepting a claim as "being convinced that it is true." Until I'm convinced that a claim true, I'm not convinced that it's true...by definition.
-
"Technically, in the most abstract of philosophical sense, I have to admit that it's possible that there could be a leprechaun somewhere in the universe and so I reserve judgment.
But in terms of practical knowledge -- in the context of useful things to know about the day-to-day world -- I would be comfortable, in any day-to-day context, with saying that I know there are no leprechauns."
Again, this doesn't make sense really. You admit it's at least "possible" there are leprechauns somewhere in the universe, and reserve judgement, and yet if someone, somewhere in the world says the found one, you laugh and point at them and call them loony. So in other words, you make fun of others who believe in goblins, and mock them etc., and even seek to wipe Thelema clean of this sort of "oogity boogity" belief, and yet you admit its possible.
Imagine for a moment there really WAS leprechauns somewhere. Yet, no one found them. Just pretend, for the sake of argument. Now, some have heard of these beings, and come to believe for themselves, for whatever reasons, right or wrong, that they exist. Ultimately in this example, they are right. Yet, the skeptic is right in denying their evidence, either way, who is the skeptic to call them crazy, when in fact, regardless they were right?
Your position of calling others crazy, or outright denying something based on a failure for evidence is silly. Your logical position should be one of a calm respectful and open minded opinion. You may choose not to believe, yet you are hardly the bearer of all knowledge. The gorilla was thought to be a legend only a couple hundred years ago, likewise for many species. This of course is a physical example, and yet we still do not know all the possibilities of the universe.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
"So by this logic you do not "like" a food you have never tasted?"I don't think we can compare liking a food to accepting a claim because they're two entirely different activities: one is predicated on a physical reaction to an experience, while the other is a mental state.
The way I conceive of it, a person -- by default -- "does not accept" a claim until that person is convinced that it is true. Think of accepting a claim as "being convinced that it is true." Until I'm convinced that a claim true, I'm not convinced that it's true...by definition."
Are you kidding me? It's a perfect example! Someone may sit a bowl of unrecognizable food in front of me and claim I'll love it. I have no idea what it is, or if I will. It sort of looks good, but I reserve judgement in whether or not I'll like it, until of course I taste it. YUCK! I hate it. Now I know, and I am certain. The "physical reaction" your talking about is comparable to the actual proof of a thing. Until I taste it, and know I like it, I am clueless. Before I taste it, my apprehension, and confusion, IS a mental state. Taste is my determining factor. C'mon.
-
@Jason R said
"You admit it's at least "possible" there are leprechauns somewhere in the universe, and reserve judgement, and yet if someone, somewhere in the world says the found one, you laugh and point at them and call them loony."
Well, context: if some guy says he found one and then he demonstrates it by producing the leprechaun and convincing the leprechaun to do an interview on TV, I wouldn't call him a loony at all. I'd probably call him a new up-and-coming expert who has expanded human knowledge.
If a guy says he found one and his evidence is that he had a daydream about one -- and he seriously thinks it's more than a daydream -- yeah, that's a loony, alright.
"Imagine for a moment there really WAS leprechauns somewhere. Yet, no one found them. Just pretend, for the sake of argument. Now, some have heard of these beings, and come to believe for themselves, for whatever reasons, right or wrong, that they exist. Ultimately in this example, they are right. Yet, the skeptic is right in denying their evidence, either way, who is the skeptic to call them crazy, when in fact, regardless they were right? "
Until there's sufficient evidence, it's not correct to think that there are leprechauns. Once there is sufficient evidence, it not correct to remain a non-believer in them.
"Your position of calling others crazy, or outright denying something based on a failure for evidence is silly."
Okay. Thanks for your feedback.
-
@Jason R said
"Are you kidding me? It's a perfect example!"
No, it's not.
A better comparison would be a jury voting -- because that's an example of a judgment about a claim, which is what we're talking about.
Juries don't vote "innocent" or "guilty." They vote "guilty" or "not guilty." That is to say, they are only debating one single claim: "The defendent is guilty." They either accept that claim or they don't accept the claim. The default position is not accepting the claim: if they are persuaded, they accept the claim and vote "guilty." If they are not persuaded, they have to vote "not guilty" ("I do not accept the claim that the defendent is guilty").
Voting "not guilty" doesn't mean that they necessarily think the defendent is innocent: it just means that they don't think the evidence is good enough to compel them to accept the claim. They don't accept the claim.
-
@Los said
"
@Jason R said
"Are you kidding me? It's a perfect example!"No, it's not.
A better comparison would be a jury voting -- because that's an example of a judgment about a claim, which is what we're talking about.
Juries don't vote "innocent" or "guilty." They vote "guilty" or "not guilty." That is to say, they are only debating one single claim: "The defendent is guilty." They either accept that claim or they don't accept the claim. The default position is not accepting the claim: if they are persuaded, they accept the claim and vote "guilty." If they are not persuaded, they have to vote "not guilty" ("I do not accept the claim that the defendent is guilty").
Voting "not guilty" doesn't mean that they necessarily think the defendent is innocent: it just means that they don't think the evidence is good enough to compel them to accept the claim. They don't accept the claim."
You have a lot of faith in our justice system lol. SO if a jury says they are innocent, they must be? OJ would love you.
But, it's a sad example, because as we know, as every jury also knows, these "facts" are often twisted, or missing, or biased, and no one really knows for sure (at least in some cases), and guess what?
Even your "better" example can result in a hung jury. Guess what THAT'S comparable to? Yep, they DON'T KNOW. there's no doubt, at least in my example, if I like something or not when I taste it. What we are talking about, is the question of being uncertain about something, and reserving judgement. Not trying to convince a jury.
That's why some* defendants* are wrongly convicted, or get away with murder. I certainly wouldn't want you on my jury, that's for sure. lol
-
@Los said
"With all due respect, I have experienced in the past that when people run out of arguments to justify their position, they try -- clumsily -- to make the conversation about me (or, rather, about their unfounded speculations about my motivations). My motivations are irrelevant to the discussion of the claims themselves. And far from "fertile ground," speculation about my motivations inevitably leads to fantasy-mongering that distracts from the subject at hand."
Not really. That's an unqualified generalization. I believe you don't make it that much of a mystery:
@Los said
"But that's part of my point: they don't need to worry about demonstrating it to me -- they need to be able to demonstrate it to themselves and they can't."
Why are you prescribing what you think other people need? This doesn't sound like moral nihilism.
@Los said
"I understand that the "Thelemic community" in general -- and the inhabitants of this forum in particular -- usually allow such claims to pass unchallenged out of either a misguided sense of politeness or a desire to encourage these sorts of beliefs, for whatever reason. But it really is high time for that to change."
It will change -- evolution guarantees that. But not necessarily in the way that you think it should, simply because you hold an opinion -- which definitely *seems *self-righteous.
Why do you feel that you need to save others from themselves?
Or, maybe it is better to ask: do you feel that your experience has given you a superior position to be able to educate others in a beneficial way? Do you feel that your way of perceiving reality is more relevant to another person's existence, despite their own experiences? Again, doesn't sound like moral nihilism.
@Los said
"For what it's worth, I never claimed to be motivated by "pure logic." I talk about this stuff because I enjoy talking about it."
Now that's more like it. Me too.
When I first read Av's psychoanalysis, I was like "Los argues these points because he likes to..."
It is FUN...but there aren't any earth changing events coming from these conversations -- so, come off the "high time for change" as if we're all about to spin off of our orbit -- like the "points" that 20 people contribute in this pseudo-intellectual cacophony count in the grand scheme of things. It is mostly entertainment and a sense of community...
I have to admit the "high time for change" shit was hilarious.
And I, for one, really appreciate your input on this forum. I really appreciate everyone's actually -- regardless of their beliefs or how strongly they hold them...
-
"Until there's sufficient evidence, it's not correct to think that there are leprechauns. Once there is sufficient evidence, it not correct to remain a non-believer in them."
Yet, my main point is there are (and was all throughout history) things that are "real" and simply have not been proven yet. To tease or look down your nose at, or mock those who have a legitimate model that explains how it may be POSSIBLE, seems silly.
If you ultimately agree something is possible, no matter how unlikely, why mock it? Unless, of course you have a whole other hidden motive. THAT, is really my point.