Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 4:54 pmDo you believe reality is subjective? Is the sky only blue if everybody agrees it is blue?

Never mind the sky. What color is this dress: http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/ktrk/images/cms/536706_1280x720.jpg

NonZeroSum wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 8:07 pm Given we have the scientific method... is it not best to use that predictive capability... to improve everyone's quality of life?

Oh, certainly! I love science! Few things are as fascinating and useful. Astronomy, physics, biology -- amazing stuff. I suppose Hoffman is raising relevant concerns, but basically the question of whether or not we are perceiving reality "accurately" is largely moot. As long as we can get the results we want.

The only reason why I drive my point so hard is... well... because it's unavoidably true... but also to inspire some humility. My position is essentially Socratic -- let's have some honesty about what we truly know and what we don't.

The materialist atheist beats the snot out of the spiritualist for believing in "woo woo" and fairy tales. The well-meaning vegan demonizes the meat-eater on the basis of a fabricated moral imperative. These arguments are rooted in the idea that their position is justified by pure, undeniable objectivity; so if you don't concede, clearly you're an irrational imbecile.

This is all nonsense. Nobody has the slightest idea what's going on past the nose on their face; it's all just preferential assent and degrees of faith. An acknowledgement of this fact takes the punch out of the debate, and leads us to a more peaceful and respectful relationship with those who have differing views.

"There's nothing more dangerous than a person who knows they're right" -- Terence McKenna (as quoted from another source that escapes my memory)

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 10:57 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 4:54 pmDo you believe reality is subjective? Is the sky only blue if everybody agrees it is blue?

Never mind the sky. What color is this dress: http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/ktrk/images/cms/536706_1280x720.jpg

I can tell you what color photons the pixels are emitting, and I can do it as a range in nanometers.

What you may have meant to ask is what color photons and in which ratio would the dress reflect IF it were in an environment with pure white light, defined as an equal balance between colors as registered by the typical human eye (barring color blindness, etc.).
Even then, not all white light is equal due to spectral breakdown.

From a scientific perspective, the whole thing is ridiculous. The confusion over that dress arose from scientific ignorance of how color works.
Different answers primarily came from whether the viewer assumed the ambient light was white or blue, since there were inadequate visual cues in the image (unknown variables).

Unscientific questions will receive unscientific answers. The more vague and subjective the question, and the less data available, the more inconsistent and subjective the response.

Ask precisely, and there will be no disagreement among rational and informed people. Even if the agreement is simply that there is not enough information present to answer the question.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:27 pm

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 10:57 pm

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 4:54 pmDo you believe reality is subjective? Is the sky only blue if everybody agrees it is blue?

Never mind the sky. What color is this dress: http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/content/ktrk/images/cms/536706_1280x720.jpg

I can tell you what color photons the pixels are emitting, and I can do it as a range in nanometers.

What you may have meant to ask is what color photons and in which ratio would the dress reflect IF it were in an environment with pure white light, defined as an equal balance between colors as registered by the typical human eye (barring color blindness, etc.).
Even then, not all white light is equal due to spectral breakdown.

From a scientific perspective, the whole thing is ridiculous. The confusion over that dress arose from scientific ignorance of how color works.
Different answers primarily came from whether the viewer assumed the ambient light was white or blue, since there were inadequate visual cues in the image (unknown variables).

Unscientific questions will receive unscientific answers. The more vague and subjective the question, and the less data available, the more inconsistent and subjective the response.

Ask precisely, and there will be no disagreement among rational and informed people. Even if the agreement is simply that there is not enough information present to answer the question.

I'm no expert on how color works, but I say it's blue and black.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm Oh, certainly! I love science! Few things are as fascinating and useful. Astronomy, physics, biology -- amazing stuff.

You do not love science. You love the feelings you get from things you think are "sciencey". You do not understand science, and you show complete contempt for it.
Your attitude is identical to the likes of Deepak Chopra, who would also say he "loves science". He loves exploiting it and misrepresenting it to his deceptive ends; the same with you.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm As long as we can get the results we want.

It's not about what YOU want, it's about what's true. Science is about exploring and understanding our objective reality; a thing you deny even exists. A position you keep company with all the Woo Woos on.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm The only reason why I drive my point so hard is... well... because it's unavoidably true...

Your arrogance in asserting your faith that objective reality does not exist is astounding.
Hold yourself to the standards of skepticism you claim for once; admit you just don't know if reality is objective or not instead of claiming on faith that is it not.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm My position is essentially Socratic -- let's have some honesty about what we truly know and what we don't.

No it isn't. The Socratic method is innately logical, and asks questions to break down arguments. You make assertions and faith based claims about reality not existing; you're doing quite the opposite of engaging in Socratic discourse.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm The well-meaning vegan demonizes the meat-eater on the basis of a fabricated moral imperative.

You claim they're fabricated, but you won't actually address the arguments. You dance around complaining about logic and science instead, saying they're all subjective.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm Nobody has the slightest idea what's going on past the nose on their face; it's all just preferential assent and degrees of faith.

This is where it's obvious that you have no knowledge of or regard for science at all.
This is exactly the problem science was adopted to address.

Science exists not to give us certainty, but to give us some glimpse at what's around us from a view as unbiased as possible. It exists to give us a sense of probability and provisional knowledge.
A level of certainty comparable to that science demonstrates is reasonable; only a level of certainty less than or greater than is what's based on faith. It's the difference in certainty actually held compared to the degree that is reasonable that amounts to faith.

It's the worst kind of intellectual malpractice to equate anything less than perfect certainty to a complete ass-pull. You're in company with Sye Ten and other anti-science apologists on that one.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm An acknowledgement of this fact takes the punch out of the debate,

It's not a true fact, it's a delusion on your part. And a belief in that delusion makes life meaningless and makes debate impossible.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm and leads us to a more peaceful and respectful relationship with those who have differing views.

Another arrogantly certain claim about objective reality from somebody who rejects objective reality.
Really? Evidence? Proof?
A relationship goes both ways; if you only believe in your own experiences, then this is nothing more than your subjective delusion.

I'm amazed that you seriously just appealed to some quasi-ethical claim about our influence on others' experiences to justify your anti-ethical anti-real dogma.

BrianBlackwell wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:22 pm "There's nothing more dangerous than a man who knows he's right" -- Terence McKenna (as quoted from another source that escapes my memory)

And yet you know you're right about all of this. And about the most dangerous possible belief which devalues all life and experience beyond your own whim.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:55 pm I'm no expert on how color works, but I say it's blue and black.

Before you criticize the objectivity of science and claim everything is subjective, maybe learn something about it then?

If you have some sincere questions (as long as you're moving in understanding and aren't going to make any more assertions) I can answer them.
But this isn't a debate. We do not debate whether logic is true or not, that's not productive. If you aren't convinced by now, after I have relieved you of your misconceptions, you probably never will be.

This shouldn't have even gone on this long.

Forum rules, for reference:

Philosophical Vegan wrote: ↑Sat May 28, 2016 2:43 pm 1. This is a discussion forum. Please come here willing to discuss. This isn't a place to lecture, and then refuse to address others' rational arguments or even answer others' questions. Discussion is founded upon logic, if you don't accept basic logic as valid, there's really nothing for you to do here except lecture, and this isn't the place for it. Again: This is a discussion forum.
Discussion is also founded upon correct usage of words. The forum language is English, and while it's fine to discuss definitions, assertively twisting words beyond their reasonable definition to troll, like saying "Saliva is an animal product, if you swallow your own saliva you're not vegan!" is not acceptable.

Unevidenced assertions that logic and science are subjective is not an argument, and really has no place here.

We can continue the discussion if you're willing to for the sake of argument assume standard attitudes about the validity of logic and science. You don't have to believe it, but you do for the sake of argument have to play by the rules of the forum (which are logic and science).

Otherwise, you should stick to topics that do not involve you arguing against the validity of science and logic.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:16 am

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:55 pm I'm no expert on how color works, but I say it's blue and black.

Before you criticize the objectivity of science and claim everything is subjective, maybe learn something about it then?

And before you get all reactionary again, just know I wasn't gonna do that anyway. You're either seeing some colors or you're not. If you see any color on that dress, what is it?

EDIT: Btw, don't describe to me how or why, just say the color(s).

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:34 am And before you get all reactionary again, just know I wasn't gonna do that anyway.

I thought you held the same positions as your friend regarding logic and science.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Sat May 20, 2017 12:34 am You're either seeing some colors or you're not. If you see any color on that dress, what is it?

EDIT: Btw, don't describe to me how or why, just say the color(s).

I'm not sure what the relevance is of how my brain interprets an optical illusion.

If you wan to know, it's black and blue.

Thank you! See, that's all I wanted to know. No reason at all. That's it.