Behaviour report by the London school of economics

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

Hmmm!;)
Literally speaking, there are those who would argue that truth is fixed, & not flexible. To this end, previously held truths become false (not less true).

The issue I have with relativism is that so many people will, at some point in an arguement/debate say "well it is all relative, innit" or "everyones opinion is as valid as the other". When in fact it is not! (actually, what I think they are usually trying to badly express, is that CONTEXT is important).

I am struggling to express my thoughts accurately....I'll try and remember to come back on this, but it might take a few days, by which time everyone has moved on, but....not quite what I'm arguing....

Reasonable - agreed
Inconclusive, hmmm, sometimes I think we all are so unsure of what we are all on about that we end up being inconclusive.

I think I appear more inconclusive than I really am on line. I think I also, not with intent, appear more earnest. At least one of my posts in this thread is one I guess only Mr Brown will thank of he sees, but I thought it was hilarious. The idea you all read it and see it as totally as written is also...tickling me, but I don't have cleaver or mr browns gift. A long time ago while words were still even harder I used to spend ages setting them up for mewbie...I'm never quite sure whether he noticed or not.

The_White_Horse

whatever your beliefs, you have to admit that ariane sherine would get it*.

* if she wanted it.

Really2

lemonjelly wrote: »

Git!
I was typing a nice long reposte, & you get in there first with this!:D:)

I process Git as genius.:D

Sir_Humphrey

lemonjelly wrote: »

Wholly valid.

I found dennett interesting, although a little convoluted sometimes. Definitely thought provoking. Some of his titles were a little over the top though. I mean... Consciousness Explained!

Dennett is thought provoking and an important philosopher, I do not dispute that. Critics called "Consciousness Explained" as "Consciousness Explained Away".

lemonjelly wrote: »

Thing is though, some pursue science as though it were a religion. Indeed, the so called chicago school pursued economics as though it were a science, and were zealous to the extreme!

I see a close intellectual parallel between the Chicago School and scientistic militant atheism.

lemonjelly wrote: »

The growth of science in recent decades has caused many to expect science to answer all questions - adverts had the phrase "here comes the science" as the public automatically believe it is more valid. Look at how mental health has been treated in recent history (sometimes the belief that it is a biological problem which can be fixed by tablets is easier to deal with).

Agreed.

lemonjelly wrote: »

Anyhow, you & I Sir Humph are obviously of a higher intelligence given certain footballing allegiances

I would much rather talk about football that God, as it is possible to make coherent statements about football. Although seemingly more trivial than God, football is a better use of my "brain time" than worrying about the existence or non-existence of God.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

I think I appear more inconclusive than I really am on line. I think I also, not with intent, appear more earnest. At least one of my posts in this thread is one I guess only Mr Brown will thank of he sees, but I thought it was hilarious. The idea you all read it and see it as totally as written is also...tickling me, but I don't have cleaver or mr browns gift. A long time ago while words were still even harder I used to spend ages setting them up for mewbie...I'm never quite sure whether he noticed or not.

Interesting.

In verbal communication, more than ever I now stop myself from giving instinctive responses, as by the next day, I virtually always disagree with my instinctive response.

I tend to describe myself as a reflector, not one who comes up with immediate responses, but one who weighs up pro's & cons & implications & costs & consequences.

There is a seperate issue here relating to perception which you're highlighting. I find that very interesting. I know I've posted things I think are hugely hilarious - then it gets missed by everyone. Other posts to me can be little, yet 5-10 people might thank it. I've had PM's from a few indicating that they find my posts funny (I don't know if they're referring to the serious ones or not ) but I'm not always trying to be funny.

Sometimes, perception too is key.

lemonjelly

Really2 wrote: »

I process Git as genius.:D

There is a distinct possibility of a joke here, but I'm not going there cos it wouldn't be fair.

But nuff respect to you for the above Really2:D

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

Interesting.

In verbal communication, more than ever I now stop myself from giving instinctive responses, as by the next day, I virtually always disagree with my instinctive response.

I tend to describe myself as a reflector, not one who comes up with immediate responses, but one who weighs up pro's & cons & implications & costs & consequences.

There is a seperate issue here relating to perception which you're highlighting. I find that very interesting. I know I've posted things I think are hugely hilarious - then it gets missed by everyone. Other posts to me can be little, yet 5-10 people might thank it. I've had PM's from a few indicating that they find my posts funny (I don't know if they're referring to the serious ones or not ) but I'm not always trying to be funny.

Sometimes, perception too is key.

what a superbly interesting post. See...I change my mind afterwards too, often, but I still think the first instinctive response, even though...no longer correct, is valid: sometimes how you feel is equally important to how you ''think it through''. Actually sometimes its more important.

Perception can be as important, or more important than truth too.

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

Perception can be as important, or more important than truth too.

Some things can have just about objective truth applied to them, such as shape. Some concepts can also have just about objective truth. In those cases the truth is more important than perception. For example, you want the speedo on your car to be objective surely?

If you start putting perception above truth, you can soon lead into trouble (conspiracy nuts do it all the time).

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Some things can have just about objective truth applied to them, such as shape. Some concepts can also have just about objective truth. In those cases the truth is more important than perception. For example, you want the speedo on your car to be objective surely?

If you start putting perception above truth, you can soon lead into trouble (conspiracy nuts do it all the time).

OK, sure, I should have qualified that, with ..

but mostly ''fact'' is more important than perception. I thought the sometimes was sufficient but it appears it was not perceived to be so!

edit|; I have actually bust the speedo on several cars. The petrol guage on DH's car is also a matter of ....some error. What I'd like is the ability to perceive that though intstrumentation says one thing it might be in error. It often is. Ideally one maintains functioning equipment and the perception too.

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

what a superbly interesting post. See...I change my mind afterwards too, often, but I still think the first instinctive response, even though...no longer correct, is valid: sometimes how you feel is equally important to how you ''think it through''. Actually sometimes its more important.

Perception can be as important, or more important than truth too.[/QUOTE]

I read this & I thought "great post"

However, despite that I didn't agree with it.:) Mainly due to the bits in bold.

If it is no longer correct, it is invalid - to argue it is still/more valid is the relativist issue.

Sir Humphrey eloquently highlights the danger of the distinction between truth & perception.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Some things can have just about objective truth applied to them, such as shape. Some concepts can also have just about objective truth. In those cases the truth is more important than perception. For example, you want the speedo on your car to be objective surely?

If you start putting perception above truth, you can soon lead into trouble (conspiracy nuts do it all the time).