Comment author: Boyi 20 January 2012 03:05:27PM *  0 points [-]

This is a wonderful post, and it is a personal problem I strongly sympathize with. Here are my thoughts; I hope they are of some use.

But it’s not my true rejection. My true rejection is that them being wrong is too annoying for me to want to cooperate. Why? I haven’t changed my mind, really, about how much damage versus good I think churches do for the world.

You see physics and rationalism as right, but at the same time you value community (which is also right seeing as humans are social creatures who demand healthy relationships). This is an ethical dilemma. Ethical dilemmas are situations where it is not about right vs. wrong, but right vs. right. In this case Truth vs. Loyalty. You cannot argue that Truth should always be prioritized over Loyalty, or that Loyalty should always be prioritized over Truth. What is needed is moderation. How to moderate is something I too am currently struggling with. Since graduating from College my Truth has become immersed in academic theory. I love reading, writing, and talking about theory. My family and hometown friends do not. In fact many of them hate it. It does not feel like an exciting game to them, rather it is a threat to their intelligence, personal image, and just stressful. I guess I could just cut these people from my life, but it would be an amputation of my self. It would be a painful process, and I find it rarely justified. On the other hand, what I find to be Truth is also perhaps the strongest statement I can make about my identity. To live a secure, healthy life, I need my Truth as much as I need a community. But it is also important to realize that neither is absolute. My community, as well as the symbolic body that I support, are both subjectively created.

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 05:01:34PM *  1 point [-]

Respectfully, if you don't think post-modernism is an extraordinary claim, you need to spend more time studying the history of ideas. The length of time it took for post-modern thought to develop (even counting from the Renaissance or the Enlightenment) is strong evidence of how unintuitive it is. Even under a very generous definition of post-modernism and a very restrictive start of the intellectual clock, Nietzsche is almost a century after the French Revolution.

my claims are not extraordinary, they are contradictory to several core beliefs of this community.

If your goal is to help us have a more correct philosophy, then the burden is on you to avoid doing things that make it seem like you have other goals (like yanking our chain). I.e. turn the other cheek, don't nitpick, calm down, take on the "unfair" burden of proof. Consider the relevance of the tone argument.


"several people have told someone that they need there to be God because without God the universe would be immoral" is not sufficient enough evidence to make that claim.

There are many causes of belief in belief. In particular, religious belief has social causes and moral causes. In the pure case, I suspect that David Koresh believed things because he had moral reasons to want to believe them, and the social ostracism might have been seen as a feature, not a bug.

If one decides to deconvert someone else (perhaps to help the other achieve his goals), it seems like it would matter why there was belief in belief. And that's just an empirical question. I've personally met both kinds of people.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 05:11:15PM -3 points [-]

I concede that post-modernism is unintuitive when compared to the history of academic thought, but I would argue that modernism is equally unintuitive to unacademic thought. Do you not agree?

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 04:20:30PM 0 points [-]

Does it really seem to you that the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary support" is not rational?


Obviously, there's substantial power in deciding what claims are extraordinary.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 04:34:04PM -4 points [-]

Your dodging my question.

As to your qusetion- I do not think I have made any more extraordinary claims than my opposition. To me saying that because "several people have told someone that they need there to be God because without God the universe would be immoral" is not sufficient enough evidence to make that claim. I would also suggest that my claims are not extraordinary, they are contradictory to several core beliefs of this community, which makes them unpleasant, not unthinkable.

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 03:58:37PM 0 points [-]

First, bowdlerizing has always implied removing content, not adding offensive content. Second, the word has evolved over time to mean any removal of content that changes the "moral/emotional" impact of the work, not simply removal of vulgarity.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 04:20:30PM 0 points [-]

I do not say it means adding content. It means to remove offensive content. Offensive content that is morally base is considered vulgar.

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 03:52:50PM *  4 points [-]

I once thought the manifest rightness of post-modern thought would convince those naive realists of the truth, if only they were presented with it clearly. It doesn't work that way, for several reasons:

  • Many "post-modern" ideas get co-opted into mainstream thought. Once, Legal Realism was a revolutionary critique of legal formalism. Now it's what every cynical lawyer thinks while driving to work. In this community, it is possible to talk about "norms of the community" both in reference to this community and other communities. At least in part, that's an effect of the co-option of post-modern ideas like "imagined communities."

  • Post-modernism is often intentionally provocative (i.e. broadening the concept of force). Therefore, you shouldn't be surprised when your provocation actually provokes. Further, you are challenging core beliefs of a community, and should expect push-back. Cf. the controversy in Texas about including discussion of the Spot Resolution in textbooks.

  • As Kuhn and Feyerabend said, you can't be a good philosopher of science if you aren't a good historian of science. You haven't demonstrated that you have a good grasp of what science believes about itself, as shown in part by your loose language when asserting claims.


Additionally, you are the one challenging the status quo beliefs, so the burden of proof is placed on you. In some abstract sense, that might not be "fair." Given your use of post-modern analysis, why are you surprised that people respond badly to challenges to the imagined community? This community is engaging with you fairly well, all things considered.


ETA: In case it isn't clear, I consider myself a post-modernist, at least compared to what seems to be the standard position here at LW.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 04:05:57PM 3 points [-]

Really great post! You are completely right on all accounts. Except I really am not a post-modernist, I just agree with some of their ideas, especially conceptions of power as you have pointed out.

I am particularly impressed with Bullet point # 2, because not only does it show an understanding of the basis of my ideas, but it also accurately points out irrationality in my actions given the theories I assert.

I would then ask you if understand this aspect of communities including your own, would you call this rational? It is no excuse, but I think coming here I was under the impression that equality in burden of proof, acccomdation of norms and standards, would be the norm, because I view these things as rational.

Does it seem rational that one side does not hold the burden of proof? To me it is normal for debate because each side is focused solely on winning. But I would call pure debate a part of rhetoric ("the dark arts"). I thought here people would be more concerned with Truth than winning.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2011 03:49:30PM 0 points [-]

There exist things that are offensive against standards of propriety and taste (the things you call "vulgar"). Then again there exist things which offend against standards of e.g. morality.

You don't seem to understand that there can exist offensiveness which isn't about good manners, but about moral content.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 03:53:19PM -2 points [-]

??? Um no read sentence # 2.

Comment author: thomblake 15 December 2011 02:45:43PM 3 points [-]

Don't use words if you do not know what they mean.

Indeed.

Better yet, don't criticize someone's usage of a word unless you know what it means.

At this point, I no longer give significant credence to the proposition that you are making a good-faith effort at truth-seeking, and you are being very rude. I have no further interest in responding to you.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 03:22:31PM -6 points [-]

Show me a definition oft the word bowdlerize that does not use the word vulgar or a synonym.

If I am being rude it is because I am frustrated by the double standards of the people I am talking with. I use the word force and I get scolded for trying to taint the conversation with connotations. I will agree that "force" has some negative connotations, but it has positive ones too. In any case it is far more neutral than bowdlerize. And quite frankly I am shocked that I get criticized for pointing out that you clearly do not know what that word means while you get praised for criticizing me for pointing out what the word actually means.

It is hypocritical to jump down my throat about smuggling connotations into a conversation when your language is even more aggressive.

It is also hypocritical that if I propose that there are people who have faith in religion not because they fear a world without it the burden of proof is on me; while if it is proposed by the opposition that many people have faith in religion because they fear a world without it no proof is required.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2011 02:26:20PM 2 points [-]

Bowdlerization is normally understood to be the idea of removing offensive content, but this offensiveness doesn't need to have anything to do with "vulgarity".

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 03:11:18PM *  -4 points [-]

vul·gar  : indecent; obscene; lewd: a vulgar work; a vulgar gesture.

And just incase....

Indecent: *offending against generally accepted standards of propriety *or good taste; improper; vulgar:

Or are you going to tell me that "offensive content" is different from something that is offending?

Comment author: thomblake 15 December 2011 03:48:22AM *  0 points [-]

How is this an uncontroversial claim!

No one has argued against it.

What proof have you made of this claim.

None.

It is uncontroversial to you because everyone involved in this conversation (excluding me) has accepted this premise.

Yes. By the way, you both asked a question above and asserted its answer. You could have saved yourself some time.

Ask yourself the fundamental question of rationality.

Was this an attempt at a tu quoque? You were advancing a proposition, and I was clarifying the request for you to show your work.

All they see is you/people like you calling a part of them "vulgar."

I don't believe I've done this, and I'm not sure what you mean by "people like you". Was that supposed to be racist / sexist?

My argument is not that people are unable to part with beliefs, but that 1.) it is harder and 2.) they don't want to.

That sounds roughly like my #2 above, which is what I noted Yvain and Eliezer did not advance in the relevant articles.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 12:38:05PM -5 points [-]

All they see is you/people like you calling a part of them "vulgar." I don't believe I've done this

"It is harder and/or worse to get people to part with these beliefs than to adopt a bowdlerized version of them".

Don't use words if you do not know what they mean.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 December 2011 08:26:51PM 3 points [-]

Reductionist generally means you are over-extending an idea beyond its context or that you are omitting too many variables in the discussion of a topic.

That isn't what it generally means.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 01:00:27AM -4 points [-]

Ok generally was a bad word. I checked out the wiki and the primary definition there is not one I am familiar with. The definition of theoretical reductionism found on wiki is more related to my use of the term (methodological too). What i call reductionism is trying to create a grand theory (an all encompassing theory). In sociological literature there is pretty strong critique of grand theories. If you would like to check me on this, you could look at t"the sociological imagination" by C Wright Mills. The critiques are basically what I listed above. In trying to create a grand theory it is usually at the cost of over simplifying the system that is under speculation. That is what I call reductionist.

View more: Next