I find this very interesting

[MikeF]

IMO

Why do you keep assuming that we are supposed to "reconcile our differences"? Compromise and form consensus? Why not just accept that we each invent our own piece of the story, and respect that in doing so we are stronger and wiser than had we all been always telling the same story?

We can kill each other trying to force everyone to abide by 'the one right story', or we can accept and respect that we are all going to develop our own stories and it's not about who's story is right, but about balancing mutual cooperation and autonomy regardless of our stories..

I noticed in the first quote above that you are arguing against a need for compromise and consensus and in the second quote there is an acknowledgement that some compromise is required.

Valid according to what? They are all valid according to those that hold them, and invalid according to those who hold to a different story. This is what we need to finally accept, and accommodate.
We are all still deriving our stories from our experience of existing, though, so that is bound to limit and determine the stories we invent. And help keep us unified. We are all as much the same as we are different, after all.

And in this quote above you seem to express value in keeping humanity unified to some degree, that there is some value to operating within a shared, agreed upon framework. I would suggest that objective external reality is the best candidate for that shared framework. Acknowledging and accepting objective reality does not dictate how we *feel* about it, nor does it dictate our individual values, needs, wants, and desires. It simply provides an objective framework upon which to balance "mutual cooperation and autonomy regardless of our stories" and "help keep us unified."

I would also like to point out that we have not addressed how we arrive at, and all the factors that inform, our individual "stories". How much of each persons story is directly attributable to whom they were born to, where they were born, and when they were born? What percentage of an individuals "story" is pre-written for them to learn and adopt and how much is their own unique creation? Much of the instruction and dictation in "stories" is done before an individual is deemed mature and independent.

You asked "Why not just accept that we each invent our own piece of the story", and I would say because we don't invent our own stories, by and large. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe try meeting them where they are, and as they are

I don't know what you are recommending here. Meet who how? Are you referring to the list I made, the election hoax people, the antivaxxers, the climate deniers, Republican voters, the gun people, and the anti-choice people? You don't meet with such people. That's a cooperative effort, and they are uninterested.

Do you mean try to understand them? I do understand them. They think by faith, and the groups I named are characterized by their sociopathy and anti-social, confrontational orientation to life. None of those kinds of people cares about what those not like them want. They don't care about the fears or concerns of people afraid of the guns or worried about losing rights. They tantrum on airplanes. They don't care who they hurt. These aren't people one can find common ground with.

Or maybe you are talking about the religious, like many we encounter here on RF. That's a difficult group to communicate with as well, since they rarely cooperate at dialectic. You've seen my sincere effort to try to understand the people talking about spiritual truth and the like. It's like pulling teeth to get any information from them. You, too. How many times have I commented to you in our discussions about large parts of posts written to you where arguments aren't rebutted or even acknowledged, and questions go unanswered? How many times have you seen my collection of "crickets" comments emphasizing the nonresponse? How many times have I finally just given up and announced my educated guess as to what the other person was thinking, you included, offering them a chance to modify or correct whatever they disagreed with if they cared to have any input into the process, and gotten yet more "crickets"?

"Meeting them where they are, and as they are" bespeaks of the asymmetry of the relationship, and sounds like validation therapy, which is where when one is dealing with people of limited mental capacity who are living in a make-believe world, such as children, the schizophrenic, the demented, and the like, you accept their reality and interact with them as if it were your reality as well as much as possible. You don't correct mistakes, for example, unless there is a need to, and even then, it's done in the context of their reality.

We humans are story makers, and story tellers. We ARE fiction. Our very existence IS fictional. Our identity is fictional. Our culture is fictional. Our sense of love and justice are fictional. Without the story of us we are just a bunch of hairless apes. But because we can imagine ourselves to be so much more then that, we ARE so much more then that. Our fiction is what makes us great, and makes us human.

Sorry, but I don't relate to that at all. And I am doing my best to understand why you think so. Our inner lives must be very different. What is a fictional identity? I don't know why you call love and justice fictional. Much of fiction believed as fact is hurting us. America is moving toward theocracy based on one fiction. Climate denial is widespread based on another. Clamping down on voter access is based in a fear of the loss of white privilege but is couched in the language of another fiction, election integrity. The bulk of the Republican party spins fictions about infected immigrants and the gun problem not only not being related to guns, but solved with more guns. There is an entire industry of conservative indoctrination media that is all fiction. Greatest country in the world is fiction. The home of freedom is a fiction. My uniformed opinion is as good as any so-called expert is a fiction. The Democrats are Communists is a fiction.

Yet philosophical materialism keeps trying to dismiss all that fiction as nothing. As nonsense. As irrelevant fantasy.

As you see, I didn't. It's nonsense, but very relevant to many contemporary problems and why they seem intractable.

I still don't know what it is you are praising here, and why you thinks it's desirable. You must be doing something that you consider fictitious, which you find valuable. Like others posting here, I try to avoid that. I find no value in such ideas. They don't comfort or entertain me. They're never helpful and at times have been a problem, as when I was a Christian, and made bad decisions due to believing that fiction.

 

[PureX]

I noticed in the first quote above that you are arguing against a need for compromise and consensus and in the second quote there is an acknowledgement that some compromise is required.

I will try to clarify.

In my story of 'The Way Things Are' God did not write any holy books. People wrote them, inspired by what they imagined God to be and to do and to want of us. But my neighbor down the road has a very different story of the 'The Way Things Are'. And in his story God wrote the Bible through the minds, hands, and pens of men, and only the Bible. So when he reads it, he reads each word as if it came directly from God's own mouth.

Now, I have no intention of compromising with him about this, and he has no intention of compromising with me, either. And neither of us is ever going to reach any sort of consensus about it. And if we insist that there can only be "one truth" about whether or not God wrote the Bible, we will remain in unresolved antipathy with each other. But if we can recognize that everyone's story of the 'The Way Things Are' is just a small piece of a very big and complex story that extends far beyond the grasp of any one of us, we can accept and understand each other's differences, and appreciate what each of us adds to the whole. Because the truth is that neither he nor I have any knowledge of what God is, or does, or has or has not done, on the whole. We're all just making up stories based on our personal experience of existence, and on how we have chosen to understand those experiences.

My neighbor and I can still cooperate for our mutual benefit because we are humans that share many of the same needs and abilities. Or, we can decide that only one "truth" can be allowed to stand, and go to war with each other to see who's truth wins. But in the end, if we choose that course, we only eliminate the other possibility by force. And eliminating possibilities is a fools task that will sooner or later come back to haunt us. A wise human seeks to increase possibility, not eliminate it.

And in this quote above you seem to express value in keeping humanity unified to some degree, that there is some value to operating within a shared, agreed upon framework.

Cooperative. Able to work together to meet our mutual needs and desires.

I would suggest that objective external reality is the best candidate for that shared framework. Acknowledging and accepting objective reality does not dictate how we *feel* about it, nor does it dictate our individual values, needs, wants, and desires. It simply provides an objective framework upon which to balance "mutual cooperation and autonomy regardless of our stories" and "help keep us unified."

I agree. But I don't need to agree to or compromise with my neighbor's story of God writing the Bible to help him dig a well for his house and his family. Nor he, with me. But we are humans, and our stories of the 'The Way Things Are' do define us, and do determine how we interact with the world and each other to some degree. And so mutual cooperation and respect is often rejected as a way of living with others. In fact, humanity may destroy itself because it just cannot learn to cooperate instead of fighting for dominance and control, and for all the goodies.

I would also like to point out that we have not addressed how we arrive at, and all the factors that inform, our individual "stories". How much of each persons story is directly attributable to whom they were born to, where they were born, and when they were born? What percentage of an individuals "story" is pre-written for them to learn and adopt and how much is their own unique creation? Much of the instruction and dictation in "stories" is done before an individual is deemed mature and independent.

Doesn't matter, really. Everyone's route and capacities are unique to them.

You asked "Why not just accept that we each invent our own piece of the story", and I would say because we don't invent our own stories, by and large. Wouldn't you agree?

Yes and no.

But keep in mind my answer to nearly every question you could ask would be both yes and no. Because that's how it is in the "real world". Binary responses and solutions like "yes and no" only exist as a phenomenon in our brains, by the way our brains cognate experiential information. We humans are part of a continuum of humanity, even as we are each individuals within that continuum. So of course our stories are also part of the continuum of human story-making, even as they are also unique to us.

 

[PureX]

We humans are story makers, and story tellers. We ARE fiction. Our very existence IS fictional. Our identity is fictional. Our culture is fictional. Our sense of love and justice are fictional. Without the story of us we are just a bunch of hairless apes. But because we can imagine ourselves to be so much more then that, we ARE so much more then that. Our fiction is what makes us great, and makes us human.

Sorry, but I don't relate to that at all. And I am doing my best to understand why you think so. Our inner lives must be very different. What is a fictional identity? I don't know why you call love and justice fictional. Much of fiction believed as fact is hurting us. America is moving toward theocracy based on one fiction. Climate denial is widespread based on another. Clamping down on voter access is based in a fear of the loss of white privilege but is couched in the language of another fiction, election integrity. The bulk of the Republican party spins fictions about infected immigrants and the gun problem not only not being related to guns, but solved with more guns. There is an entire industry of conservative indoctrination media that is all fiction. Greatest country in the world is fiction. The home of freedom is a fiction. My uniformed opinion is as good as any so-called expert is a fiction. The Democrats are Communists is a fiction.

Sadly, you keep choosing to equate fiction with lies. They are not the same, at all. Fiction seeks to represent the truth, while lying seeks to misrepresent it.

Fiction is what we imagine the truth to be since we can never know for sure what the truth of anything is. What is the truth of a man? That's a mighty big and complicated question. With answers that would change by the moment, and by the circumstances, and by who is asking whom. Which is why the answers we give are fictional: representational as opposed to certain knowledge. And this is how it is with everything that matters to us. What is love, what is justice, what is beauty, what is 'perfection'? And on and on and on. All questions that are too big for us to answer with certain knowledge. So we answer them with representational fiction. Not to mislead, but to try and clarify. Lies are for misleading people, not so of fiction.

 

[MikeF]

I will try to clarify.
My neighbor and I can still cooperate for our mutual benefit because we are humans that share many of the same needs and abilities. Or, we can decide that only one "truth" can be allowed to stand, and go to war with each other to see who's truth wins. But in the end, if we choose that course, we only eliminate the other possibility by force. And eliminating possibilities is a fools task that will sooner or later come back to haunt us. A wise human seeks to increase possibility, not eliminate it.
Cooperative. Able to work together to meet our mutual needs and desires.
I agree. But I don't need to agree to or compromise with my neighbor's story of God writing the Bible to help him dig a well for his house and his family. Nor he, with me. But we are humans, and our stories of the 'The Way Things Are' do define us, and do determine how we interact with the world and each other to some degree. And so mutual cooperation and respect is often rejected as a way of living with others. In fact, humanity may destroy itself because it just cannot learn to cooperate instead of fighting for dominance and control, and for all the goodies.

Thanks for the clarification. I understand, I think, the value you express in keeping possibilities open in a generic sense. However, to my mind, that would be more applicable to subjective areas as opposed to our understanding of objective reality. In trying to understand objective reality we are explicitly trying to narrow our ideas down to those that actually correspond to, and describe it. In fact, winnowing ideas down to those that are most resilient to testing and corroboration actually open up viable and fruitful possibilities for further exploration, as opposed to following non-viable ideas that diverge wildly from reality or lead to dead ends.

As to tolerance and cooperation, those values must be a part of group members "stories". The greater the disparity in our individual "stories", the harder it is to overcome some basic instinctual behaviors. Our set of instincts are optimized for small group family/tribe membership. We are wired to sort between those who are in-group and those that are other. The greater the differences in our "stories", the more "other" we become to each other.

So, in then end, there must be some shared values among members of society, be that democratic values, rule of law, etc., and those shared values must take precedence over non-shared or divergent values if we are going to avoid humanities self-destruction.

MikeF said: ↑
I would also like to point out that we have not addressed how we arrive at, and all the factors that inform, our individual "stories". How much of each persons story is directly attributable to whom they were born to, where they were born, and when they were born? What percentage of an individuals "story" is pre-written for them to learn and adopt and how much is their own unique creation? Much of the instruction and dictation in "stories" is done before an individual is deemed mature and independent.​

Doesn't matter, really. Everyone's route and capacities are unique to them.

Really? You're just going to shrug this point off?

Since its all "fiction" (your word) that is man-made, and we all are being indoctrinated and trained in "stories" curated for us, can we not examine this process and make decisions about which "fictions" are used? Especially in light of my comments above where shared values facilitates cooperation and meeting group needs, group harmony and the avoidance of self-destruction. If it is preferable to have a progressive and adaptable society built within a framework of objective reality, should this not be part of what is indoctrinated into each up and coming generation?

 

[MikeF]

Sadly, you keep choosing to equate fiction with lies. They are not the same, at all. Fiction seeks to represent the truth, while lying seeks to misrepresent it.

Fiction is what we imagine the truth to be since we can never know for sure what the truth of anything is. What is the truth of a man? That's a mighty big and complicated question. With answers that would change by the moment, and by the circumstances, and by who is asking whom. Which is why the answers we give are fictional: representational as opposed to certain knowledge. And this is how it is with everything that matters to us. What is love, what is justice, what is beauty, what is 'perfection'? And on and on and on. All questions that are too big for us to answer with certain knowledge. So we answer them with representational fiction. Not to mislead, but to try and clarify. Lies are for misleading people, not so of fiction.

My preference would be to use the word 'abstraction' in place of your use of the word 'fiction'. Obviously you can use whatever word you wish as long as those who read it understand what you mean.

For me, abstraction generically refers to all thoughts and ideas, some of which represent phenomena in our world of experience, and others that do not.

Fiction, on the other hand, would represent that set of abstract thoughts and ideas that specifically do not represent real phenomena or possible phenomena.

Love, beauty, and justice are abstract concepts that represent real psychological states or subjective values in human beings (who are real and not fictitious ).

 

[PureX]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand, I think, the value you express in keeping possibilities open in a generic sense. However, to my mind, that would be more applicable to subjective areas as opposed to our understanding of objective reality. In trying to understand objective reality we are explicitly trying to narrow our ideas down to those that actually correspond to, and describe it. In fact, winnowing ideas down to those that are most resilient to testing and corroboration actually open up viable and fruitful possibilities for further exploration, as opposed to following non-viable ideas that diverge wildly from reality or lead to dead ends.

First we need to clear some of the terms up, a bit. There is no "subjective" or "objective" reality. There is reality: everything known and unknown to us, and there is the "Story of What Is" that we each invent and hold in our minds in response to our limited experience and understanding of reality. And like it or not, we humans never get beyond that story. It is everything we think we know to be true, and everything we think we know to be untrue. So the idea that there is an "objective reality" that exists beyond what we know, that we can somehow discover and come to know, is false. That just isn't how it works. Everything we know, and ever will know, is in our story.

When people refer to "objective reality" what they really mean most of the time is physical functionality. And that we can learn about and experience collectively. My neighbor and I can cooperate to dig a well for him or me because shovels function the same way for him as they do for me. And because as humans we both desire easy access to water. So that within the realm of physical function, we can agree on what works, and what doesn't, and we can cooperate for our mutual benefit if we so choose. But when it comes to the question WHY, as opposed the HOW, that's when the answers fall under the jurisdiction of our "Story of What Is" and what we think that story means. And unless we can allow everyone else to have their own stories, and appreciate all their differences, cooperation will become very difficult for us. As it often does.

As to tolerance and cooperation, those values must be a part of group members "stories". The greater the disparity in our individual "stories", the harder it is to overcome some basic instinctual behaviors. Our set of instincts are optimized for small group family/tribe membership. We are wired to sort between those who are in-group and those that are other. The greater the differences in our "stories", the more "other" we become to each other.

Yes, but the greater those differences the greater the possibilities they represent. The Chinese invented 'gun powder' a thousand years before anyone invented a gun. But all they ever used it for were fireworks for rights and celebrations. When Europeans finally made it into China and saw their fireworks, they immediately realized it could be weaponized, and did so. "Sameness" tends to stifle possibility and stagnate cultural and technical advancement. And stagnant systems tend to be soon overwhelmed and defeated by more dynamic and adaptable systems. Our desire to find the "one right way" is an expression of that sort of rigidity and stagnation, and it's difficult to overcome precisely because it is rigid and stagnant. It does seek to reject and rebuff dynamism and change.

So, in then end, there must be some shared values among members of society, be that democratic values, rule of law, etc., and those shared values must take precedence over non-shared or divergent values if we are going to avoid humanities self-destruction.

I don't see why you think so. We will automatically share in many of our basic desires, because we are all humans. And we will automatically share some understanding of how physical existence functions because it functions the same way for all of us. but I see no need for us to agree on the meaning or value of any of that, necessarily. And I don't believe that we do. I think we disagree a lot when it comes to the meaning and value and purpose of our existence. And maybe we are a lot stronger ans wiser for it. We need the nihilists to help us appreciate romance of life. We need the psychopaths to show us what insanity really is, and does. We need the see the delusions of others to remind that we are living in delusions of our own.

Really? You're just going to shrug this point off?

Since its all "fiction" (your word) that is man-made, and we all are being indoctrinated and trained in "stories" curated for us, can we not examine this process and make decisions about which "fictions" are used?

Aren't we doing this all the time? We are always developing and editing our "Story Of What Is". Who isn't doing that? And the fact the obtain bit and pieces of it from other people only serves to exemplify the value of our sharing them, and debating them, and even arguing over them. In fact, it shows the value of there being all those "other" stories out there. The value of having no consensus.

Especially in light of my comments above where shared values facilitates cooperation and meeting group needs, group harmony and the avoidance of self-destruction.

Shared values don't facilitate cooperation. Shared desires do. Along with shared functional knowledge. People help others to help themselves. They can see that through cooperation for mutual benefit, everyone's lot improves. But this is all in the physical function realm. In the metaphysical realm of meaning, and value, and purpose, we do not 'cooperate'. We 'incorporate'. And I think that's as it should be.

If it is preferable to have a progressive and adaptable society built within a framework of objective reality, should this not be part of what is indoctrinated into each up and coming generation?

There is no "objective reality". There is physical functionality, and there are the many stories of What Is (what it means, why it matters, and what it's all for).

 

[PureX]

My preference would be to use the word 'abstraction' in place of your use of the word 'fiction'. Obviously you can use whatever word you wish as long as those who read it understand what you mean.

For me, abstraction generically refers to all thoughts and ideas, some of which represent phenomena in our world of experience, and others that do not.

Fiction, on the other hand, would represent that set of abstract thoughts and ideas that specifically do not represent real phenomena or possible phenomena.

Love, beauty, and justice are abstract concepts that represent real psychological states or subjective values in human beings (who are real and not fictitious ).

But "real psychological states" are also fictitious in that they are fictionalizations based on a set of experiences. "Resentment" as a psychological condition is a fictionalized state of being; created as a response to our feeling or perceiving ourselves being 'hurt' or harmed in some way. It is a "real" psychological state in that we really do think and feel as it describes. Yet it is also fictional in that it is an imaginary reaction to a real or possibly imagines experience of hurt/harm/loss/etc., much the same way as we might imagine a character in a story reacting to a similar insult.

 

[MikeF]

First we need to clear some of the terms up, a bit. There is no "subjective" or "objective" reality. There is reality: everything known and unknown to us, and there is the "Story of What Is" that we each invent and hold in our minds in response to our limited experience and understanding of reality.
There is no "objective reality". There is physical functionality, and there are the many stories of What Is (what it means, why it matters, and what it's all for).

We coin and use words in hopes of communicating as effectively as possible. Although you often like to create your own definitions of common and technical words, for many, the term 'objective reality' explicitly means all that is real and existent, independent of what anyone thinks about it. A term like 'subjective reality' would refer to someone's personal thoughts and experience in reality, the world, the cosmos etc.

The main problem with your scheme is that most people do not make up there story, their story is given to them. The very idea of there being "one right way" is exactly what the majority of people are exposed to, which I agree makes society susceptible to rigidity and stagnation. Yes, they alter and adapt that story to fit more comfortably to suit their unique personality, but by and large it is the rare person that wholly rejects the base story they are instructed in. Many of these force fed stories do not comport with reality, such that the one thing we should all theoretically agree on because it is consistent and independent of what any one thinks about it, becomes a source of conflict and disagreement.

Fortunately, in secular democracies, most of our force fed stories are supplemented with instruction in critical thinking skills, as well as instruction in our current level of understanding of reality, and how we know it and verify that knowledge. Although change is slow and difficult, I think the overall trend will be a continual weaning away from our primitive ancestral stories towards an increasingly progressive and adaptable society.

 

[MikeF]

But "real psychological states" are also fictitious in that they are fictionalizations based on a set of experiences. "Resentment" as a psychological condition is a fictionalized state of being; created as a response to our feeling or perceiving ourselves being 'hurt' or harmed in some way. It is a "real" psychological state in that we really do think and feel as it describes. Yet it is also fictional in that it is an imaginary reaction to a real or possibly imagines experience of hurt/harm/loss/etc., much the same way as we might imagine a character in a story reacting to a similar insult.

Yeah, no. They are not fictitious, and that is why you have to put everything in quotes in your misrepresentation.

In all cases we are talking about real psychological and physiological experiences and reactions, no air quotes required. Yes, these very real psychological and physiological responses can be triggered by both external stimuli, or triggered solely through the imagination of the individual. It is only in this latter category of an imagined trigger that you would correctly apply the adjective 'fictitious'.

 

[PureX]

We coin and use words in hopes of communicating as effectively as possible.

No, we don't. We very often choose the words we do to deliberately mislead each other, ourselves, and to bend a discussion the way we want it bent. And just because a popular abuse of a word gets catalogued in a dictionary doesn't change that fact. Homosexuals are still no more or less "gay" than anyone else, and gay people are no more likely to be homosexual that anyone else. Yet now, the term "gay" has come to imply homosexual simply by it's common misuse.

When I disagree with the way some words are commonly used, it's for this reason. It's because the common usage is misleading, and often intended to be so.

Although you often like to create your own definitions of common and technical words, for many, the term 'objective reality' explicitly means all that is real and existent, independent of what anyone thinks about it.

That is an incoherent and illogical definition, as it refers to a state that we cannot know to exist, because by definition, it exists beyond the scope of our knowledge. So it's a pretense: that we can know that what exists beyond our knowledge is "objective". When, of course, if it's beyond our the realm of our knowledge we can't know anything of it. Not even that it exists at all.

There is what we think we know of existence, and there is the great mystery of our unknowing. That's it. And even what we think we know is subjectively derived, not "objective". So this mythical "objective reality" is just an intellectual bias, maintained by hubris. Which is why I do not accept it. When you can show me how you have ascertained that it exists, and is "objective" in any way apart from some common semantic nonsense, I'm all ears.

A term like 'subjective reality' would refer to someone's personal thoughts and experience in reality, the world, the cosmos etc.

Yes, and since not a single one of us can think with anyone else's mind, every thought we have is "subjective", i.e., subject to the limitations and bias of our own particular mind.

The main problem with your scheme is that most people do not make up there story, their story is given to them. The very idea of there being "one right way" is exactly what the majority of people are exposed to, which I agree makes society susceptible to rigidity and stagnation.

It doesn't matter. We chose to accept the stories we were given, or we chose to reject them, according to how they "fit" within our own personal experience of being. So in the end, the stories become our own. In some ways we support the collective cultural story of what is, and in other ways we contribute our own 'spin' on it. And we do both of these at the same time.

Yes, they alter and adapt that story to fit more comfortably to suit their unique personality, but by and large it is the rare person that wholly rejects the base story they are instructed in. Many of these force fed stories do not comport with reality, such that the one thing we should all theoretically agree on because it is consistent and independent of what any one thinks about it, becomes a source of conflict and disagreement.

The point is that we are all living in a story. ALL OF US. And the fact that we agree on some parts of the story doesn't change that. And doesn't make those parts of the story any more or less true. This is what so many of us refuse to acknowledge, because we are desperate to believe that we are in control of our own fate thanks to our "knowledge of what is". When in fact we would be wiser to acknowledge that we do not possess any great "knowledge of what is". All we really possess are our stories of what is. Both collectively and independently. Because that is the truth of it.

 

[wellwisher]

Why are you thinking a spiritual path isn't part of the physical world? Could this assumption be part of your ongoing confusion that you post about quite often?

The thing about truth is that it applies to all. If an idea is not factual and can't be determined to be true by rational minds, then the idea might not be true, nor believable.

Truth is relative to your reference and data that you can see. As an example, say you were walking in the forest, and you notice all the trees along the trail, as far as you can see, were pine trees. You may conclude this is a pine forest. This is reasonable and may well be true.

The next day, you take a different path, which leads you up to the top of a nearby ridge. From there, you look down at the same forest, but now from a much wider angle above the forest. Now you notice that the pine trees were only following the creek that had been paralleling your path from yesterday. The majority of the forest were actually various hardwood trees. The truth changes again due to more data.

This analogy is applicable to science, in the sense, science approaches reality via a wide range of specialties, each of which can see the tiniest details closest to itself. They can see the pine trees down to the details on the bark and leaves, but after that, the data get sparse, as they enter a new specialty that is not their own. The pitfall of this specialty approach is its creates lots of nearsighted theory, that may work up close, but not necessarily from the bigger picture on the hill.

There are far fewer Generalists in science. The Generalists approach is up on the top of the ridge looking at all the pockets of specialities, but in the context of the whole forest. They may not see all the detailed data from there, but they can see how things, out of sight of each other, are related.

In the world of specialists, the biologists may not know about the latest physics, nor the physicists know much about about psychology and consciousness, etc. Physics has discovered quarks which are the substructure of matter, but these are rarely used in chemistry, which is a next door specialty, in the forest of specialists. The truth in each specialty, is limited to their niche, without sufficient extended checks and balances, they cannot see. Beyond the niche, data become more sparse and ideas more speculative, due to no wide angle perspective that could change the nature of each specialties, since global considerations now appear, that are not under anyone's nose.

Religion takes the opposite approach, in the sense these begin on the top of the ridge, overlooking the forest of human nature. In real life, our world is more near sighted, and similar to a specialty, called our life.

We may not be able to see very far from the POV of the ego, and we can get sucked into the ebb ebb and flow of fads that are close by; specialty theory. The religious doctrine, give offer us a more generalists POV, so we can see both the high and low roads, even when the real time data of our specialty POV, confuses us due to being way to nearsighted in terms of the data.

Science is also near sighted due to being placed into specialities. Education lacks that place on the hill, that can see all the specialties and how they are globally connected, in time and space, so we refine specialty theories, so they can better coordinate with data in areas, the specialty may not be aware. This is often the reason obsolete theory lingers ; it look good from here, even if not as good up there, where few can go.

I like the generalists approach that is used by religion, and try to bring this to science. The short sighted nature of specialty makes this a challenge.

 

[F1fan]

Truth is relative to your reference and data that you can see. As an example, say you were walking in the forest, and you notice all the trees along the trail, as far as you can see, were pine trees. You may conclude this is a pine forest. This is reasonable and may well be true.

The next day, you take a different path, which leads you up to the top of a nearby ridge. From there, you look down at the same forest, but now from a much wider angle above the forest. Now you notice that the pine trees were only following the creek that had been paralleling your path from yesterday. The majority of the forest were actually various hardwood trees. The truth changes again due to more data.

This analogy is applicable to science, in the sense, science approaches reality via a wide range of specialties, each of which can see the tiniest details closest to itself. They can see the pine trees down to the details on the bark and leaves, but after that, the data get sparse, as they enter a new specialty that is not their own. The pitfall of this specialty approach is its creates lots of nearsighted theory, that may work up close, but not necessarily from the bigger picture on the hill.

Yes, science follows facts and changes as more facts and data is collected. Science changes as it progresses. It becomes more accurate. Science is the search for truth.

There are far fewer Generalists in science. The Generalists approach is up on the top of the ridge looking at all the pockets of specialities, but in the context of the whole forest. They may not see all the detailed data from there, but they can see how things, out of sight of each other, are related.

Well, not entirely accurate. The more learns the more specifics are uncovered. There is a point where there is too much to know, so specialties have been created. But these specialists can't ignore the truth of all science. For example evolution is called a unifying theory. Even though evolution is part of biology the theory still works within what geology concludes, and what chemistry concludes, and what physics reveals, and what cosmology understands, and what archaeology concludes, etc. Nothing is inconsistent with what other sciences reveal, and that is crucial to all of science.

In the world of specialists, the biologists may not know about the latest physics, nor the physicists know much about about psychology and consciousness, etc. Physics has discovered quarks which are the substructure of matter, but these are rarely used in chemistry, which is a next door specialty, in the forest of specialists. The truth in each specialty, is limited to their niche, without sufficient extended checks and balances, they cannot see. Beyond the niche, data become more sparse and ideas more speculative, due to no wide angle perspective that could change the nature of each specialties, since global considerations now appear, that are not under anyone's nose.

There are still questions in some sciences that are not yet answered, but thus far there is nothing in all sciences that contradict each other. As you suggest what is wrong that branches of science advance within their own timelines of progress? To my mind it is a way to maintain objectivity, as the various sciences can be assessed in a sort of meta assessment and see if there is any contradictions in the conclusions. I can't think of any problems.

Creationists would be very motivated to point out inconsistencies if they arose, and that is because creationism isn't science, nor does it do work. It functions largely as disinformation of science. I have seen articles by creationists that exploit errors or apparent inconsistencies in science and these are exaggerated and inflated in importance. Yet scientists are good at exposing the fraud of creationism and its misleading statements. So creationists do not have an interest in truth, just disinformation and disservice to Christians.

Religion takes the opposite approach, in the sense these begin on the top of the ridge, overlooking the forest of human nature. In real life, our world is more near sighted, and similar to a specialty, called our life.

Religions have made many conclusions about life and nature that are incorrect. It is not correct or truth to assert any gods exist, yet religions assume sort of god exists without offering any fact or data to support this. The belief by believers is an evolved human behavior where citizens adopt the basic assumptions and beliefs of the culture they were raised in. This is why there are so many different religions with different gods. This also explains why Christianity has over 40,000 sects, from very liberal to extreme racists, and all with a belief they are saved by Jesus. The "truth" in Christianity is very broad and the majority of Christians do not agree with each other.

We may not be able to see very far from the POV of the ego, and we can get sucked into the ebb ebb and flow of fads that are close by; specialty theory. The religious doctrine, give offer us a more generalists POV, so we can see both the high and low roads, even when the real time data of our specialty POV, confuses us due to being way to nearsighted in terms of the data.

Well it differs among believers. Some can categorize themselves as Christian but have never read the Bible, don't go to church, believe they are saved, are pro-choice, etc. Other more extreme Christians will be church goers, do Bible study every Tuesday night, oppose abortion because it's immoral, be pro-gun because it's a right by God, be opposed to gay marriage because it is also immoral, think Democrats are evil because they hear they are socialists and against God, etc. This category of believer is VERY specific and invested in a narrow view of "truth". This "truth" is invalid for many other Christians.

Science is also near sighted due to being placed into specialities. Education lacks that place on the hill, that can see all the specialties and how they are globally connected, in time and space, so we refine specialty theories, so they can better coordinate with data in areas, the specialty may not be aware. This is often the reason obsolete theory lingers ; it look good from here, even if not as good up there, where few can go.

This is misleading and inaccurate because when a person goes into university for a specific science degree they still have to take many, many basic science courses. They learn history of science, they learn the basics of science in general, how to conduct experiments, and ethics. As a person goes into more specific types of science the courses are more relevant to THAT type of expertise. So a chemist will have some knowledge of the history of science, but might not have much knowledge about social sciences. That won't cause any disadvantage.

I like the generalists approach that is used by religion, and try to bring this to science. The short sighted nature of specialty makes this a challenge.

How, are you going to demand a Ph.D. to spend four more years in university so they have more understanding of a variety of sciences? Explain how this will be an advantage to the work.

Let's note we don't see Christian theologians learning about Hinduism and Islam, do we? Your idea of a generalist view doesn't follow for what you want science to do. Let's not forget religion doesn't deal with facts and data, it deals with a tradition of culture and belief. Religion deals with stories and meaning. This is a vastly different priority than to science, and there is no fair comparison.

 

[MikeF]

No, we don't. We very often choose the words we do to deliberately mislead each other, ourselves, and to bend a discussion the way we want it bent. And just because a popular abuse of a word gets catalogued in a dictionary doesn't change that fact. Homosexuals are still no more or less "gay" than anyone else, and gay people are no more likely to be homosexual that anyone else. Yet now, the term "gay" has come to imply homosexual simply by it's common misuse.

When I disagree with the way some words are commonly used, it's for this reason. It's because the common usage is misleading, and often intended to be so.
That is an incoherent and illogical definition, as it refers to a state that we cannot know to exist, because by definition, it exists beyond the scope of our knowledge. So it's a pretense: that we can know that what exists beyond our knowledge is "objective". When, of course, if it's beyond our the realm of our knowledge we can't know anything of it. Not even that it exists at all.

Language evolves and changes over time. In addition, there is great leeway in language use for literary and poetic usage, which I would think you are in favor of. For academic and technical disciplines, I would argue the intent is to be clear and concise. You may disagree, which is your prerogative. I would suggest that it is a minority view.

There is what we think we know of existence, and there is the great mystery of our unknowing. That's it. And even what we think we know is subjectively derived, not "objective". So this mythical "objective reality" is just an intellectual bias, maintained by hubris. Which is why I do not accept it. When you can show me how you have ascertained that it exists, and is "objective" in any way apart from some common semantic nonsense, I'm all ears.

That there is much that we do not know and may never know is our one main point of mutual agreement.

I advocate that we can know some things objectively, despite our flaws and fallibilities, through the application of scientific inquiry and intersubjective corroboration. And since I and others assert that we can objectively know some things, we like to have words to differentiate between objective and non-objective thought or understanding.

The point is that we are all living in a story. ALL OF US. And the fact that we agree on some parts of the story doesn't change that. And doesn't make those parts of the story any more or less true. This is what so many of us refuse to acknowledge, because we are desperate to believe that we are in control of our own fate thanks to our "knowledge of what is". When in fact we would be wiser to acknowledge that we do not possess any great "knowledge of what is". All we really possess are our stories of what is. Both collectively and independently. Because that is the truth of it.

I and others thing that we, humanity, can build an objective understanding of reality. We believe that despite our flaws and fallibilities, we can take steps to actively mitigate them and acquire a non-fictional understanding of not only external reality, but of ourselves, humanity, as well. I and others believe that we can make distinctions between objective reality, intersubjective abstract constructs and ideas that we mutually create to communicate and function in large group societies, and those ideas that are fictional and/or purely imaginary. You seem to want to treat all three categories as fiction. I can only assume the purpose of that is to allow the imaginary to be held with equal value or weight as the other two categories.

 

[PureX]

That there is much that we do not know and may never know is our one main point of mutual agreement.

I advocate that we can know some things objectively, despite our flaws and fallibilities, through the application of scientific inquiry and intersubjective corroboration. And since I and others assert that we can objectively know some things, we like to have words to differentiate between objective and non-objective thought or understanding.

The only kinds of things we can objectively know is which end of the shovel digs in the dirt better. That is; physical functionality. Pretending that this is any more than it is, is foolish. Calling it "objective reality" is also foolish and misleading, as there are many instances where we dig with the wrong end of the shovel because we haven't learned to do it with the other end and perhaps we never will.

There is nothing wrong with attaining knowledge of physical functionality. But it is not to be confused with attaining a grasp of truth, or wisdom, which is what we really need, especially right now, far more than we need more physical functionality. And this is my main argument against the materialists that want to insist that physics is all that exists, and that understanding physicality is understanding truth. They are dangerously wrong on both counts.

I and others think that we, humanity, can build an objective understanding of reality.

The problem is that you confuse an understanding of physical functionality with an understanding of reality as a whole. And you want that to be true so badly that you then start dismissing everything that is not physical as "irrelevant make-believe". And as fiction (meaning lies). (The "you" refers to all materialists, not you specifically.) Physicality is a part of existence, surely, but it is not all that exists. And especially not to the extent of ignoring the meta-physicality of existence.

We believe that despite our flaws and fallibilities, we can take steps to actively mitigate them and acquire a non-fictional understanding of not only external reality, but of ourselves, humanity, as well.

And you are wrong about that. You cannot escape the fact that you live in a story of What Is. Physical functionality is just a part of that story.

I and others believe that we can make distinctions between objective reality, intersubjective abstract constructs and ideas that we mutually create to communicate and function in large group societies, and those ideas that are fictional and/or purely imaginary. You seem to want to treat all three categories as fiction. I can only assume the purpose of that is to allow the imaginary to be held with equal value or weight as the other two categories.

That's because it's all imaginary, even our physical functionality is imaginary. Our imagination is what makes us who we are, literally. We are humans as opposed to hairless apes because we are able to imagine ourselves to be. We are more functional that hairless apes because we can imagine how to be. What we're missing is truth, and wisdom. And we are reaching a point where our lack of these, combined with out obsession with physical functionality as it's stand-in, is likely to destroy us.

The last thing humanity needs right now is a cult of physical functionality obsessed zealots trying to dismiss all things metaphysical so they can pretend they can control their own fate. Because it's that obsession with control that's threatening to destroy us.