• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Specific Forms of Lying Must be Criminalized and Opened to Lawsuits in any Democracy

Heyo

Veteran Member
Do you see that take on opinions as something you or anyone could find necessary and sufficient grounds for concluding it was true, or do you see that take more in the way of being a 'best guess' or 'reasonable assumption'?
Neither. It is a convention, a thing the people who thought up human rights agreed upon and declared axiomatically true.
But please don't tell me you're the Einstein of epistemology, unless you are. It would confirm for me my two ex-wife's independently arrived at, but common take on my ego.
I'm neither an Einstein, nor a constitutional lawyer but I think I understood the difference between an axiom and a derived law by the age of 13.

Having said that, I think I know where you want to go. While opinions can be disconnect from any facts, they usually aren't. People arrive at an opinion because of informations they have. And if they have wrong informations they arrive at "wrong" opinions.
And the danger lies in the backwards thought that if I like the opinion a pundit has, the informations that drove that opinion must be true.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Do you see that take on opinions as something you or anyone could find necessary and sufficient grounds for concluding it was true, or do you see that take more in the way of being a 'best guess' or 'reasonable assumption'?

If the former, could you offer a rough guess at how many years you studied the matter before you thought you understood why and how that take was true?

I never kept track of the time it took me, but I cannot believe it was much less than a decade before I was able to understand the relationship of opinions to truth, and truth to facts well enough not to be surprised about anything new I might learn about the subject.

I honestly know I'm one of the slower thinkers on these things, so maybe it didn't take you nearly as long as it did me. But please don't tell me you're the Einstein of epistemology, unless you are. It would confirm for me my two ex-wife's independently arrived at, but common take on my ego.

I am not sure, I get, how you use truth, fact and opinion.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
I am not sure, I get, how you use truth, fact and opinion.

More or less according to the most standard variations of The Coherence Theory of Truth. Anyone of them will get you close enough. Even the core idea should get you far enough.

A truth bears almost exactly the same relationships to a fact, as a map bears to the features of its terrain. The differences are highly technical.

By logical extension, an opinion can be more or less true or accurate in its relationship to a set of facts, as a truth can be in its relationship to a fact.

Basically, if you know what a 'model' means to a scientist, and especially how it can differ to some scientists from an hypothesis, then you know what an opinion is likely to mean to an epistemologist, especially if the epistemologist holds anyone of the theories of truth that come closest to the notion of truth as being like a map to its terrain.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
More or less according to the most standard variations of The Coherence Theory of Truth. Anyone of them will get you close enough. Even the core idea should get you far enough.

A truth bears almost exactly the same relationships to a fact, as a map bears to the features of its terrain. The differences are highly technical.

By logical extension, an opinion can be more or less true or accurate in its relationship to a set of facts, as a truth can be in its relationship to a fact.

Basically, if you know what a 'model' means to a scientist, and especially how it can differ to some scientists from an hypothesis, then you know what an opinion is likely to mean to an epistemologist, especially if the epistemologist holds anyone of the theories of truth that come closest to the notion of truth as being like a map to its terrain.

Now I get what you mean by an opinion. Will reread the thread.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Well, no. There is no consensus in philosophy as to how reason, logic, truth and so on work. And likewise on what philosophy is.

In a sense, there is no consensus among humans that 2 + 2 = 4, given that infants aren't likely to consistently agree with the more better informed view. That is no grounds for assuming the issue is any honest doubt.

There are similarly no grounds for assuming philosophical diversity is good grounds for concluding extraordinary subjectivity.

If it helps, you're in good company. There cannot be more than a relative handful of people worldwide willing to risk being bored to death in order to sustain the years of study anyone would need to genuinely understand the points you've posted about philosophy much different and better than you do.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Neither. It is a convention, a thing the people who thought up human rights agreed upon and declared axiomatically true.

I'm neither an Einstein, nor a constitutional lawyer but I think I understood the difference between an axiom and a derived law by the age of 13.

Having said that, I think I know where you want to go. While opinions can be disconnect from any facts, they usually aren't. People arrive at an opinion because of informations they have. And if they have wrong informations they arrive at "wrong" opinions.
And the danger lies in the backwards thought that if I like the opinion a pundit has, the informations that drove that opinion must be true.

I think we're in two different ballparks here. That's ok with me. But I'm staying in mine, as I assume you will in yours.

For instance, understanding an axiom, etc. isn't even relevant to anything I've said. Two ballparks.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
In a sense, there is no consensus among humans that 2 + 2 = 4, given that infants aren't likely to consistently agree with the more better informed view. That is no grounds for assuming the issue is any honest doubt.

There are similarly no grounds for assuming philosophical diversity is good grounds for concluding extraordinary subjectivity.

If it helps, you're in good company. There cannot be more than a relative handful of people worldwide willing to risk being bored to death in order to sustain the years of study anyone would need to genuinely understand the points you've posted about philosophy much different and better than you do.

I haven't reread all of the thread, so my take may change.

  1. Don't do meta-physics/ontology as if it is about truth. Simply treat your experiences as generally matching the everyday world.
  2. Don't take for granted that there is only one methodology or set of methodologies that add up to only making positively sense. I.e. don't take for granted that all of the everyday world must make sense in toto.
  3. Figure out the limits of any one way to understand the world including different claims to truth, knowledge, reason, logic and so on.
  4. Make a list of methods A, B, C and so on, but don't treat the "and" as if it must add up to necessary and sufficient. Just treat it as it works good enough. Don't stop trying to do it better, but accept that it in all likelihood always will be only good enough. I.e. it appears to work in practice, then that is it and so far it in all likelihood will get..
  5. Learn to differentiate between objective, inter-subjective, subjective, abstract logic/reasoning and what matters as good and useful and how they appear to connect.
Now if you as I believe in democracy, human rights and so on, then there is a "bed-rock" of assumptions and values needed to achieve a democracy that works. Off course it is possible to have another society than a democracy, but that is another set of assumptions and values. So what some people don't understand, is the set of assumptions and values needed to achieve a democracy. Off course there are also those, who don't believe in democracy.

Regards
Mikkel
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I think we're in two different ballparks here. That's ok with me. But I'm staying in mine, as I assume you will in yours.
When you want to restrict free speech, you should be able to at least understand different positions and ideally compromise with them.
For instance, understanding an axiom, etc. isn't even relevant to anything I've said. Two ballparks.
Maybe you just don't understand the relevance?
When you want to change laws, you should try to understand the axiomatic nature of constitutional law.
 
Top