A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2965
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

Post by Kishkumen »

Analytics wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pm
I'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.

I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.
Yes, so the real questions are whether and to what extent a model is applicable to the case in question. Anyone who claims that their mythology is objectively true probably doesn't even know where to begin to ask the right questions and apply their model correctly (except perhaps in terms of internal community discourse, where parroting the correct words is a kind of beneficial transaction in itself). Anyone who dismisses myth on the grounds that it is not objectively true is barking up the wrong tree too.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Physics Guy
Apostle
Posts: 784
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: Trading off with momentum.

Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

Post by Physics Guy »

Science itself tries in its way to be nuanced about objective truth. We still teach Newtonian mechanics, and not as history. It’s not perfectly accurate. And the basic picture it gives you becomes radically wrong if you take it too seriously beyond its original context. Just as Euclidean geometry fails on the globe when the distances get up to thousands of miles, Newtonian physics fails when speeds get to appreciable fractions of the speed of light, or action scales get to be not too many times Planck’s constant.

Rightly understood, though, Newton identified some important principles that still seem to be true. The laws of nature are second-order differential equations.
What if fire is only the first of a million such things?
User avatar
sock puppet
Valiant A
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:29 pm

Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

Post by sock puppet »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:15 pm
sock puppet wrote:
Wed May 11, 2022 6:48 pm
Obviously, but I answer questions when you pose them rather than skirt around them.
And? Are you saying that I am skirting around your questions?
Yep. You didn't answer my questions.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley
"The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie." Mark Twain
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2965
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

Post by Kishkumen »

sock puppet wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 11:50 pm
Yep. You didn't answer my questions.
I am not a big believer in the idea of stupid questions, but I do believe there are poorly framed questions. Then there are questions that make sense if you are dealing with things from a particular point of view, but that make little sense when viewed from another vantage point. I know your questions make sense to you, but as a person who has read quite a bit of anthropology, sociology, and theory of religion, your questions don’t really work for me. From my perspective, they border on being loaded questions such as “how badly did you beat your wife?”

On the other hand, I wholeheartedly agree with PG’s statement about the problem with stupid religion lying mainly in the stupid part.

I can respect someone saying that they identify something as religion and find that thing does not work for them. Fair enough. You do you, as they say. But I question the value of such a pronouncement beyond personal applicability. I am happy to know more about the person who says it, more about what they feel and where they are coming from, but it has as much value in my mind as someone gushing to me about their encounter with an elf. Beyond the subjective experience, I just don’t see the big deal.

I guess what I am saying is that I respect the utility of myths about religion, but I don’t accept them as being objectively true.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

Post by Philo Sofee »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 4:20 pm
Analytics wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pm
I'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.

I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.
Yes, so the real questions are whether and to what extent a model is applicable to the case in question. Anyone who claims that their mythology is objectively true probably doesn't even know where to begin to ask the right questions and apply their model correctly (except perhaps in terms of internal community discourse, where parroting the correct words is a kind of beneficial transaction in itself). Anyone who dismisses myth on the grounds that it is not objectively true is barking up the wrong tree too.
This is quite profoundly true. Myth has nothing about objective about it, if it did it would decidedly be false...
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: A New Smear Article: Interpreter Targets Givens and Hauglid

Post by dastardly stem »

Kishkumen wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 4:20 pm
Analytics wrote:
Thu May 12, 2022 3:29 pm
I'd suggest that George E. P. Box's maxim is applicable here. All models are wrong, but some are useful. Different myths and philosophies can be thought of as models for making sense of the world.

I don't need to know what "objective truth" actually means in order to confidently say when somebody claims that their mythology is objectively "true," they are wrong.
Yes, so the real questions are whether and to what extent a model is applicable to the case in question. Anyone who claims that their mythology is objectively true probably doesn't even know where to begin to ask the right questions and apply their model correctly (except perhaps in terms of internal community discourse, where parroting the correct words is a kind of beneficial transaction in itself). Anyone who dismisses myth on the grounds that it is not objectively true is barking up the wrong tree too.
Whose barking up the right tree? Dismissing religion because it treats myth as objectively true hardly seems like either of the two you mention. But dismissing religion doesn't seem to me to be anything near dismissing that it has anything good to offer, or that it's bereft of any meaning or purpose. And ultimately calling myth, myth is not dismissing myth. It's imply saying the events found in the myth didn't happen. Jesus didn't rise from the dead. That may dismiss the religion, I suppose. But it also leaves the myth that Jesus rose from the dead exactly where it should be--as myth.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Post Reply