Rational Ethics | Bitcointalksearch.org

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 02, 2013, 01:36:41 PM

I am skeptical of him, as I spent years with friends tearing up his arguments and finding issues I had with them and then building back up once the issues had been resolved logically. It was not an easy transition by any means.

He also has never said that climate change is false. He has said several times that he is skeptical and doesn't know the real story and looks into both sides. In his mind, neither has yet produced decisive evidence as to the cause of climate change. As the evidence changes, his opinion may change.

Did you actually look at the video I posted? He says climate science is nonsense. He says it has no 'innate' value. And then he says he doesn't know much about climate science.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

I am skeptical of him, as I spent years with friends tearing up his arguments and finding issues I had with them and then building back up once the issues had been resolved logically. It was not an easy transition by any means.

He also has never said that climate change is false. He has said several times that he is skeptical and doesn't know the real story and looks into both sides. In his mind, neither has yet produced decisive evidence as to the cause of climate change. As the evidence changes, his opinion may change.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 02, 2013, 01:23:17 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on January 02, 2013, 01:19:01 PM

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 02, 2013, 01:16:24 PM

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag.

This is patently false. He has stated several times that he is skeptical, but doesn't know whether it is anthropogenic or anthropomorphic. Any rational person should be skeptical of anything that anyone tells them until every hole they may have can be closed.

Then I suggest you learn to be more skeptical of this fellow.

Quote

I also have heard him state the opposite that many things schools teach are good and other things are bad. They obviously provide some sort of legitimate service if only to cloud some nefarious purpose. Police provide public safety, besides raising revenue for small towns, arresting people for having the wrong plant and other giant list of crap they do.

Then he's obviously rendering his claim about the validity of climate change false - A self contradictory argument.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Quote from: FirstAscent on January 02, 2013, 01:19:01 PM

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 02, 2013, 01:16:24 PM

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag.

This is patently false. He has stated several times that he is skeptical, but doesn't know whether it is anthropogenic or anthropomorphic. Any rational person should be skeptical of anything that anyone tells them until every hole they may have can be closed.

I also have heard him state the opposite that many things schools teach are good and other things are bad. They obviously provide some sort of legitimate service if only to cloud some nefarious purpose. Police provide public safety, besides raising revenue for small towns, arresting people for having the wrong plant and other giant list of crap they do.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 02, 2013, 01:16:24 PM

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

He didn't accidentally make those statements. He made them loudly and repeated them. He's an idiot who allows his dislike of government to cloud his thinking. He gave zero logical argumentation regarding his stance on climate change, and ranted on like a typical climate change skeptic, without actually addressing the science. I see no reason to listen further to such a windbag.

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Small quotes, out of context. He doesn't believe that everything that is learned at public school is false. This is obvious and apparent, and if he accidentally made those statements, then upon being brought up to him, he would quickly revise the statement to reflect truth.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Snipes777 on January 02, 2013, 01:02:49 PM

Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, these are absurd. First, I don't know when I became a puppet, but that's good information for me to have. I should get the hand out of my backside. Second, the man who makes the arguments is irrelevant. The question is do the arguments make rational sense. All of this garbage and lack of rational argumentation means nothing. An argument can be made by a poor pauper without a degree, experience, or popularity that can be true and can change the world.

Rational argument is all that is asked. Examine the argument, find a hole or fallacy, change the argument to compensate and come up with a new truth until it can be improved upon.

Indeed. But he lacks it. See this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1419965

Snipes777

full member

Activity: 132

Merit: 100

Ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, these are absurd. First, I don't know when I became a puppet, but that's good information for me to have. I should get the hand out of my backside. Second, the man who makes the arguments is irrelevant. The question is do the arguments make rational sense. All of this garbage and lack of rational argumentation means nothing. An argument can be made by a poor pauper without a degree, experience, or popularity that can be true and can change the world.

Rational argument is all that is asked. Examine the argument, find a hole or fallacy, change the argument to compensate and come up with a new truth until it can be improved upon.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Ragnar17 on December 27, 2012, 03:28:44 PM

you can find real knowledge anywhere. Just because something is academically peer-reviewed doesnt make it any better than the "quacks" you are talking about. Degrees mean just about nothing and I see more and more everyday how our education system is just spewing out exactly what you would expect, cookie cutter copies of machines without an ounce of logic, creativity, or even any independent thinking.

You're missing the point. I didn't say seek out someone who has a degree. Degrees are a dime a dozen. However, highly published individuals with a history of acclaimed work, who lay out previously published studies and facts by other well cited authors, and who include citations of other published works, and are noted for doing important groundbreaking studies themselves are about 1,000 times more credible and respected than some self published quack and youtuber who, for the most part, just puts together words which argue with other words, rather than words which argue against established studies.

justusranvier

legendary

Activity: 1400

Merit: 1009

Quote from: ?? on ??

My view is that there's not much point in idolising anyone's philosophy. You're not their clone! Wink

Sure, research different philosophies to gain insights and learn about yourself, but don't forget to do your own critical thinking.

What does that actually mean? Would you say that physicists "idolize" the theory of relativity just because they recognize it as being correct (or at least, consistent with all evidence that exists thus far)?

Ragnar17

newbie

Activity: 55

Merit: 0

you can find real knowledge anywhere. Just because something is academically peer-reviewed doesnt make it any better than the "quacks" you are talking about. Degrees mean just about nothing and I see more and more everyday how our education system is just spewing out exactly what you would expect, cookie cutter copies of machines without an ounce of logic, creativity, or even any independent thinking.
"If you want to get laid, get an education. If you want an education go to the library."

SM might be considered a quack to some people, but at least he is thinking independently of some pretty important stuff. Yes, there are cult followers (the people who like what he says but dont really know whats going on or what is really behind the words). And there are the people similar to the dissenting opinion on this forum who dont say anything bad about his IDEAS but just quack about who he is and what he does that makes him a cult. His following is less cultish than any religion I have heard of but hey its only wrong if the ideas are wrong, but nobody seems to want to talk about ideas about rational ethics on this forum anymore.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitcoinspot.nl on December 26, 2012, 04:54:07 PM

@augustocroppo

wow, well this goes above my head but im glad you responded to my question with more than "he's a cult leader". I guess he says a lot that probarbly does not makes sense to you but ti a laymen like he can make things a lot more understandable, like the difference between a opinion and a fact.

but: Do you maybe have a podcast that you think it worth-while listening to? do you have like a favorite author?

Roland.

Podcasts aren't where it's at. Are you looking for a niche celebrity voice for some niche crowd? Why? Solid academic studies are far more enlightening.

Study works published by respectable publishers written by academic peer reviewed professors. Don't go looking for quacks who seem to echo what you're looking for. You'll only be lead down a narrow tunnel.

Try Herman Daly. Try The Dominant Animal by Paul Ehrlich.

bitcoinspot.nl

sr. member

Activity: 300

Merit: 250

@augustocroppo

wow, well this goes above my head but im glad you responded to my question with more than "he's a cult leader". I guess he says a lot that probarbly does not makes sense to you but ti a laymen like he can make things a lot more understandable, like the difference between a opinion and a fact.

but: Do you maybe have a podcast that you think it worth-while listening to? do you have like a favorite author?

Roland.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

I've heard some people mention "emergent intelligence", and they suggest that intelligence (and probably consciousness) is an inherent property of complex structures. This seems plausible since it seems compatible with my own conflicted beliefs: perhaps I as a consciousness, somehow transcend this imaginary Matrix universe suggested to me via the senses? Yet if I believe the story told by those senses, I am an infinitesimally small dot in a giant universe that's filled with other people and planets, and my consciousness isn't even measurable. It's like division by zero -- positive infinity or negative infinity. Do I have to choose??.....

Don't fall into the trap of confusing intelligence (emergent or otherwise) with consciousness. The former is an attribute that comes from effective processing. The latter is an attribute with no reasonable explanation - see David Chalmers. My best guess regarding the existence of consciousness is some as of yet undetermined fundamental property of the Universe. In other words, consciousness, in some primitive form is intrinsic to the Universe, just as gravity, matter, time and space is. With that fundamental building block (consciousness, or proto-consciousness, if you will), intelligence emerged more powerfully, quicker, or more effectively, than if that fundamental building block did not exist. Furthermore, it imbued intelligence with qualia, awareness (consciousness!) rather than not, as in a philosophical zombie (see David Chalmers again).

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

primer on Kurt Gödel
Edit: I'm not a huge fan of god-bothering, but in general the article sheds a lot of light on things.

Note his logical mistake: he assumes that circles exist at the boundary of the Universe.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Roger Penrose uses Godel's Theorem and quantum mechanics (quantum gravity more specifically) to discuss consciousness. He's a great writer. Give his books a whirl. And unlike certain self published youtubers with the initials S.M., Penrose is actually an oft cited academic of no small repute. Point being (other than the fact that Penrose makes a great read), S.M. has little or no respect in the field of academia, else he wouldn't be self publishing, but rather, the great university presses would be publishing his work. We can infer then, that S.M. really has no respect in the fields of economics, environmental science, social systems, psychology, political science, climate science, ecology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, etc.

Instead, what he is, and it's obvious, is he's very much like Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones, but with much less star power. None of these individuals are anything but cult leaders of a somewhat brainwashed crowd. They all spout self formulated nonsense, and are prone to repeat the same things over and over, all built on flimsy logic, if not outright lies.

augustocroppo

vip

Activity: 756

Merit: 503

Quote from: ?? on ??

And now for something different -- a real treat! For everyone who wants to "think outside the square"...

primer on Kurt Gödel
Edit: I'm not a huge fan of god-bothering, but in general the article sheds a lot of light on things.

Good suggestion! I enjoyed the article. I just disagree with the word "God". Readers can confuse the meaning of "God" with the bible god, Jehovah. I would replace the word "God" with the word "deity" (or "deities").

For people really interested to learn where philosophy come from and why it will never reject the concept of the state, I recommend the old and classic Aristotle:

Miller, Fred, "Aristotle's Political Theory", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/aristotle-politics/

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

This charlatan actually thinks he's relevant (his logic is so bad): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=uEFv4_OGY_o#t=143s

I typed his name (Stefan Molyneux) into Google, and the first additional word Google suggested was 'cult'. Interesting.

I listened a little further into the video link I posted. What a moron. I feel sorry for the people who get sucked into his blathering.

I loved this comment posted by a viewer below the idiot's video:

Quote

Re: "I believe that it's false because it's funded through violence."

So when I studied math at a state university, everything I learned was false because of state support?

Re: "Things which have innate value are not funded at the point of a gun."

So math & science, being supported by the university systems, have no innate value. OK. What of medicine? I live down the stret from NIH. Is all their cancer research, "funded at the point of a gun", devoid of innate value?

Your ideology is silly.

augustocroppo

vip

Activity: 756

Merit: 503

Quote from: ?? on ??

Or how about this whopper:

(24:30)

Quote

"The purpose of philosophy has been in general to serve evil, and I'm attempting to wrestle it back from the evil pirate captain of yore..."

Yeah, yeah, because he's such a nice guy... Roll Eyes

Thank you blablahblah for the transcription. It made me laugh a lot! Just an idiot would state that 'purpose of philosophy has been in general to serve evil' and then praise itself as a popular source of philosophy in the Internet:

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf

Quote

Freedomain Radio is one of the most popular philosophy podcasts on the Internet, and was a Top 10 Finalist in the 2007 Podcast Awards.

Quote

Philosophy also – and human society in general – will advance exactly to the degree that it rejects the irrational “square-circle morality” of statist and religious ethical theories.

World population: 6,973,738,433

Freedomain Radio subscribers: 52,901

Stefan Molyneux have already convinced 0.000758574% of the human society that 'statist and religious ethical theories' will be rejected by the human society. So now he just needs to convince the another 99.999241426% of the human society to reject their 'statist and religious ethical theories'.

augustocroppo

vip

Activity: 756

Merit: 503

Quote from: justusranvier on December 25, 2012, 06:02:45 PM

Quote from: VogueBlackheart on December 25, 2012, 05:40:34 PM

these communities appear to be iterating toward libertarianism.

I think we can only ignore the obvious for long before the strain of cognitive dissonance becomes too much. I don't think government has more than a generation or perhaps two left before people no longer believe in it.

Prophecy (cult mindset, check, try to convince the enquirer with predictions of a terrible future).

Topic: Rational Ethics (Read 2775 times)