The Apparent Irresolvability of Debates

@Absolution phil,

Absolution,

I agree with Rich in this way, that most of what we think, or that we know as "truth," is not so much “truth,” but an agreement to agree.

We agree to call things by name, as long as they fit comfortably within agreed upon facts, (like warm blooded are mammals.) But we could have made up other rules, being far, more narrow than our present definitions. Then the poor dog might be thrown out of this exclusive club called mammals.

This is a little like we spoke of earlier, Absolution, a house of cards.

: ^ )

It is like a game that we are all playing in order to disguise how little we actually know, and (please God) to chase away chaos.

Subjectivity9

1 Reply

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95213 wrote:

Absolution,

I agree with Rich in this way, that most of what we think, or that we know as "truth," is not so much "truth," but an agreement to agree.

.

Subjectivity9

We agree that the cat is on the mat, because the cat is on the mat. Otherwise, why would we agree that the cat is on the mat?

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

This is why I have a 100 reply limit. If the thread has hit 100 replies it has exhausted all new relevent information and I unsubscribe.

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Ken,

I don't know how many times I have heard a doctor say that someone’s pain was only all in their head.

If someone thinks they are right, esp. doctors, they can simply dismiss another person. Even “dog gone it,” it is their pain and “it hurts like the devil.”

So what is truth in this instance? Who decides?

Or how many people end up in marriage consoling because they require a third party to decide between them. It’s a scream fest.

But then who knows why the councilor chooses a particular side in any issue. Maybe because he is a guy too, and had a fight with his wife just this morning.

Truth is always up for grabs.

Working in medicine I can’t tell you how many times things have changed in the last few years. They used to drop cream through a little tube onto a stomach ulcer to help it heal, that is until they found out that was the exact wrong thing to do.

And that isn’t even speaking about vested interest, and how it skews our thinking.

Subjectivity9

1 Reply

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95223 wrote:

Ken,

I don't know how many times I have heard a doctor say that someone's pain was only all in their head.

Subjectivity9

How many times?
Anyway, my example was that the cat was on the mat, not that someone was in pain.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95161 wrote:

When I state that the cat is on the mat, and the cat is on the mat, then I am stating what is true. What "thing in itself" are you talking about? The cat? The mat?

The cat on the mat is the thing. We of course only have access to our perceptions of the cat on the mat, and not the actual cat on the mat.

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 03:48 PM ----------

Pain that is just in someone's head is still objectively real. ie there really are neural correlates of it, and even if you aren't a materialist, the subjective sense of pain is still real.

Of course the doctor likely is still right that the pain doesn't indicate that there is something wrong with the body part the person thinks is causing the pain.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;95161 wrote:

Isn't someone who has a degree in dentistry, and can do a good job of keeping your teeth healthy, and repairing what needs repairing, an expert? Perhaps you mean by the word, "expert" what no one ordinarily means by "expert". I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

I don't choose people because I think they are experts. I choose people who are doing things that make sense to me. In this case, she uses natural means to prevent dental problems and is minimally invasive. I don't even take x-rays.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;95288 wrote:

I don't choose people because I think they are experts. I choose people who are doing things that make sense to me. In this case, she uses natural means to prevent dental problems and is minimally invasive. I don't even take x-rays.

Rich

That's nice. Let's hope you don't need a root canal procedure. Or a hidden infection which cannot be detected without X-rays. (What are "natural means"? Does that mean that if you need an extraction, she uses a string attached to a door knob to extract the tooth?).

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Ken,

Don’t you remember speaking about how tooth pain was obvious, and indisputable?

But even that dang cat on the mat is disputable. I might say, ah contra, it is a kitten on a rug. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 09:10 PM ----------

Rich,

Remember the definition of an expert is an old drop of water?

In medicine an expert is a guy who doesn’t like the long hours and wants to charge more.

Don’t get me started. ; ^ )

I drink lots of black tea. It keeps the bacteria in our mouth that causes tooth decay down to a dull roar, and helps prevent plague build up for the same reason, because it is highly acid. But it is not so acidic as a lemon, that can remove the enamel.

Allopathic medicine in this country has a lot of us brainwashed into dependence.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 09:20 PM ----------

tim,

I have seen people die of things a doctor wouldn’t acknowledge, and the problem was right where they said it was.

Subjectivity9

3 Replies

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95324 wrote:

Ken,

Don't you remember speaking about how tooth pain was obvious, and indisputable?

But even that dang cat on the mat is disputable. I might say, ah contra, it is a kitten on a rug. : ^ )

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 09:10 PM ----------

Rich,

Remember the definition of an expert is an old drop of water?

In medicine an expert is a guy who doesn't like the long hours and wants to charge more.

Don't get me started. ; ^ )

I drink lots of black tea. It keeps the bacteria in our mouth that causes tooth decay down to a dull roar, and helps prevent plague build up for the same reason, because it is highly acid. But it is not so acidic as a lemon, that can remove the enamel.

Allopathic medicine in this country has a lot of us brainwashed into dependence.

Subjectivity9

---------- Post added 10-05-2009 at 09:20 PM ----------

tim,

I have seen people die of things a doctor wouldn't acknowledge, and the problem was right where they said it was.

Subjectivity9

You seem to be having a lot of unhappy experiences with physicians Especially since you (along with Rich) assure me that you are able to get along without them. How does that happen?

Not so disputable. Kittens are cats, and large mats are rugs. And, in any case, the issue is not disputability, but truth. A statement may be true however disputable it is.

I think that the French phrase you are looking for is, au contraire. Not what you wrote which so far as I know, is not a phrase in any language. And none of this is, just like having the sensation of pain, is in the least disputable.

0 Replies

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95324 wrote:

Rich,

Remember the definition of an expert is an old drop of water?

In medicine an expert is a guy who doesn't like the long hours and wants to charge more.

Don't get me started. ; ^ )

I drink lots of black tea. It keeps the bacteria in our mouth that causes tooth decay down to a dull roar, and helps prevent plague build up for the same reason, because it is highly acid. But it is not so acidic as a lemon, that can remove the enamel.

Allopathic medicine in this country has a lot of us brainwashed into dependence.

Subjectivity9

Hi Subjectivity9,

I agree. I would say that going to physicians is more of a habit for most people.

Thanks for the info on tea and acidity. Makes lots of sense to me. Bacteria grows in environments conducive to growth - read SUGAR. :-)

Cya,

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;95345 wrote:

Hi Subjectivity9,

I agree. I would say that going to physicians is more of a habit for most people.

Thanks for the info on tea and acidity. Makes lots of sense to me. Bacteria grows in environments conducive to growth - read SUGAR. :-)

Cya,

Rich

I think that you and Subjectivity are overgeneralizing from your own particular cases. Not everyone is a robust as you both appear to be. (I have no doubt that bacteria grow in environments in which bacteria grow).

0 Replies

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95324 wrote:

tim,

I have seen people die of things a doctor wouldn't acknowledge, and the problem was right where they said it was.

Subjectivity9

I have no doubt that happens all of the time. But this is A) besides the point regarding the philosophical question at hand, and B) given my understand of the psychology of phantom pains, given to me by my own hypochondriac tendencies I am fairly sure it is far more often that there really is nothing there.

Regarding the relevance of that case to the resolvability of debates, after we make a few basic assumptions about the actual existence of reality it becomes clear then that the death of the person by this particular cause does resolve the debate regarding whether the pain indicated that something was actually wrong.

Of course you do need to make those assumptions to draw that conclution.

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Wow this topic has flown off! I'll try to add my comments soon guys, sorry work and college suck up my philosophizing time Sad

.

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 10:24 AM ----------

timunderwood9 I think you got the idea down. To resolve a debate two people must have an agreed upon assumption. But if that is not the case then trouble occurs. So that one may say the cat is on the mat, by seeing and feeling the cat is on the mat, but another may not have those senses and would not agree to the assumption, and this is the case that Lammenranta is pointing out. That there is no good way to convince someone that has no agreement with your initial assumptions.

1 Reply

@Absolution phil,

Absolution;95487 wrote:

Wow this topic has flown off! I'll try to add my comments soon guys, sorry work and college suck up my philosophizing time .

---------- Post added 10-06-2009 at 10:24 AM ----------

timunderwood9 I think you got the idea down. To resolve a debate two people must have an agreed upon assumption. But if that is not the case then trouble occurs. So that one may say the cat is on the mat, by seeing and feeling the cat is on the mat, but another may not have those senses and would not agree to the assumption, and this is the case that Lammenranta is pointing out. That there is no good way to convince someone that has no agreement with your initial assumptions.

You keep focusing on the notion of agreement. But some people will never agree with something no matter how much evidence you pile up. There is no question about whether the Holocaust occurred. But Ahmadinejad of Iran simply won't accept the evidence. So what? Does that mean the the Holocaust did not occur? Logic is not psychology, nor torture. It doesn't force agreement. If a person is not reasonable, or if, as in Ahmadinejad's case, he has another axe to grind, you can't get agreement. Whose fault is that. The logic and the evidence, or the person who will not be convinced by any amount of logic and evidence. It is possible to prove things, but it may not be possible to prove thing to people. You seem to confuse the ideas of proving with proving to. Proving is a matter of logic and evidence, but proving to is a psychological matter. We should not mix the two up.

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Tim,

I had two careers in my work life. The 2nd was 20 years in Allopathic medicine. So I witnessed a lot.

Philosophy only makes sense, if you move it into your life and “walk the walk” too see how it holds up in real life, not just keeping it in concept land.

So here we are back again, speaking about “Skepticism.” Which is the examination of ‘so called truth.’ Not simply blind obedience to authority, and certainly not just book learning.

“Is this true,” you ask yourself, even if it is a professor, a priest, a parent, or a doctor who says it. Living from your own truth IS integrity. But first you have to find it.

Phantom pain is not “an illusionary pain.” In Russia, using Kerulin photography some years back, they were able to picture an image of an electrical duplicate of the leg that had been removed in surgery, but continued to exist without the physical leg, and only faded slowly. When it did fade, the pain discontinued as well. This may very well be the same Chi (energy)that Chinese medicine speaks about, and that does such wonderful work in healing through the use of Acupuncture.

Very often, a hypochonriac is a person who is more sensitive than the average. He is noticing discomfort, before it is so bad that a doctor can confirm it with his machines and lab work.

I am not saying that there aren’t people out there that are overly fearful, but that is not the whole of these persons who have been lumped into one basket.

Pain always points out something. It just may not be what our present paradigm believes it to be, but it should not be ignored. The human body is not a stupid instrument.

A debate doesn’t have to be resolved in order to find truth. Truth lives interwoven all throughout the debate itself, and even afterwards when it sends you out to seek more answers. Debate is a "wake up call," a tool. It says that you should not be so complacent with your own personal opinions. : ^ )

We are not trying to reach a goal so we can stop debating and go back to sleep. It is an ongoing process. It is a way of living.

Subjectivity9

1 Reply

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95606 wrote:

So here we are back again, speaking about "Skepticism."
Subjectivity9

We are? Why do you say that? (And it we were, it would not be about "skepticism", but about skepticism).

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Debates like this one are irresolvable, but I can't agree if the statement is "all debates are irresolvable." It's contingently false. Unless my logic isn't working.

0 Replies

@Absolution phil,

Ken,

Don’t you remember, Absolution explaining to us on the other thread, that Skepticism grew out of the fact of the irresolvability of debates? So if you are discussing one, you are discussing the other, are you not?

Subjectivity9

1 Reply

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;95657 wrote:

Ken,

Don't you remember, Absolution explaining to us on the other thread, that Skepticism grew out of the fact of the irresolvability of debates? So if you are discussing one, you are discussing the other, are you not?

Subjectivity9

No. Not that I know of. And, of course, I see no good reason to think that debates are irresoluble, anyway. Skepticism is the view that knowledge is impossible. To repeat my example, the question of whether there was a Holocaust is not irresoluble. We know there was a Holocaust. The fact that some people happen not to agree that there was one just reflects on those people. It does not mean we do not know there was a Holocaust. What, I wonder, would lead anyone to think that because an argument doesn't persuade people, that the failure to persuade means the argument is defective. It may very well mean that the people who reject the argument are defective.

1 Reply

The Apparent Irresolvability of Debates

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know