Iggy

Thanks for the input guys, I have no argument with evolutionary theory so I'll focus on your points alexqr1 which I'll summarise as: 1. Anecdotes are evidence but do not constitute proof. (Agreed) 2. Questions over the validity of a particular scientific experiment or study does not invalidate the scientific method in principle. (Agreed) 3. To argue that a party has vested interests in an outcome does not mean their claims or conclusions are false. (Agreed) 4. Risk is only economic and by implication can be taken by anyone willing to bear the consequences. 5. The validity of a theory is determined by its predictive capacity, and not indeterminate periods of time. (Agreed) So, firstly thank you for clarifying my thinking - it was helpful. My argument is not with science per-se but with science as rhetorical instrument, that is for financial, political or social gain. Bad science is not science, but it does muddy the water so-to-speak of what is true and what is not true. Science is often a costly and time consuming exercise with vested interests; scientists have a career and livelihood to maintain, while private companies (and indeed the government) often need scientific validation in order to pursue their interests. As such the risk of bad science can not be ignored, and scientific claims may be accurate or part of a rhetorical device. When those making a financial gain differ from those taking the risks (who may be unaware of the issues involved, and lack the skills or resources to argue their case effectively) the potential for harm escalates, thus fracking, nuclear power, and GMOs all become simple business opportunities. When there is a lack of knowledge and certainty (which I advocate is frequently the case especially in our current system of vested interests) the potential for harm escalates, and agreements with a party or parties ignorant of the issues, or unable to agree (i.e. future generations) is aggressive and immoral. Therefore proposals which risk the health and wealth of parties ignorant of the risks involved or unable to give their consent demand special scrutiny. Conscious and unconscious motives may lead people to misrepresent the data, and the legacy of Chernobyl, Fukishima, and other disasters caution us against scientific claims as with other claims when individuals have so much to gain.

Why follow anyone? What is the cause of anger? We follow people for the knowledge they have and the guidance they provide, or strength and courage we lack. If one is confident in his or her understanding and possesses the necessary strength of character, to follow someone with lesser knowledge or character would be offensive to ones core self and I would suggest lead to feelings of anger at oneself that may be projected onto those we have been following (through our own free choice). In recognising our error and stopping following others for good reasons, as yours are, you are thinking for yourself maturing you could say. Independence however brings with it self judgement for past choices, and anxiety over a future free from the illusory safety of the pupil or subject. This is the shift from the status of child to adult.

I'm concerned that some 'arguments from science' are often unscientific and dangerous and misguide people's behaviour. Such claims are often made to either prove a conclusion or gain some social, or financial interest. I hope to be true to reality ie an objectivist, but suspect people's argument from science is often false, specifically: 1. The "anecdotes are not evidence" argument. Say someone conducts a cruel/unethical experiment and brings an unknown liquid (acid) into a room of participants to test. The first person puts his finger into the liquid experiences pain and burning. Would the other (rational) participants do the same because the evidence is only anecdotal; a small sample, and inconclusive? 2. The "no evidence exists for" argument. For example, some people claim that fracking is dangerous, while others claim it is safe. Proponents argue that there is "no evidence for" fracking being dangerous, but:- Scientific studies are often carried out by vested interests (and are consequently biased), while opponents and sceptics often lack the funding to test the evidence or their theories. Even mainstream science is funded by the government whose interest is political not scientific truth, eg the anti-global warming scientists are dismissed from their posts, and notably the UK science advisor was dismissed for his anti-global warming message. Anecdotal evidence is often dismissed as unscientific yet the potential for harm from new technology or methods is often ignored or summarily dismissed risking costly and life-threatening consequences. Known benefits are stressed and unknown costs ignored. Real world testing over extended periods of time is the ultimate test, yet scientific knowledge progresses incrementally and partial knowledge can be worse than no knowledge if it leads us to take potentially costly or lethal risks. I'm not anti-scientific only sceptical of scientific claims especially when used for short term self interested goals, and not in the exploration and determining of truth from falsehood. Thanks for your thoughts, arguments and corrections!

Thanks for the post, a difficult and intimate topic to share. I can relate to your story and would simply say its not wrong for you to feel angry - any thoughts of not being a nice person are likely echoes from your childhood conditioning designed to serve her interests. It sounds as though (understandably) you've still a lot of anger inside and doubt your right to feel or express it. If you were confident in knowing the injustice in the relationship and can look beyond the title 'mother' you might be less conflicted. So, if you can recognise the validity of your feelings you might be less subject to her manipulations and the propaganda of the past. Your problem seems more internal than external, and a lack of certainty is the real problem. Selling the house is a practical matter however involved, giving yourself permission is a psychological one. Good luck!

Thanks for the responses guys, I appreciate both perspectives. I should perhaps have been more explicit and stated I was thinking of the use of the law for ethical purposes, that is contract law and for retribution, rather than for advantage or to avoid justice. To summarise the issue of how lawful justice could work in an anarchic environment then: DROs would be available to resolve disputes. The cost of resolving a dispute would be less without the involvement of the state and justice would be accessible to more people. The level of criminality in a society with healthily parented children would be reduced. There would be a trend towards decreasing crime levels in such a society. Thinking of a solution to someone who seeks retribution from someone that has broken a contract or caused a loss, individuals and companies could be created to monitor the 'credit score' or trustworthiness of a party (like ebay reviews sellers). For any particular instance however the individual is at risk of a loss although they could presumably be insured for an unsecured loss. In instances of criminal damage individuals could be excluded from normal trade and services by individuals signing up to withdraw services or funding to criminal members of society. Their utilities and even currency and employment could be removed. I'm less clear on how an Anarchist society would treat murderers and those who have declared their intention to harm others? A private police force/mercenary organisation could be funded to remove or imprison dangerous members of society, but how would the 'violence' used against them in imprisoning him or her be justified, and not be abused? How practically might an organisation have a right to act violently against an individual, given just cause, yet be kept in check from acting violently against peaceful members of society?

What in your opinion would be the options of the average Joe or Joanne to take legal action, or defend him or herself in a Minarcist or Anarchist society where State subsidised access to legal support is not available. Thanks guys.

Yes I agree Robin there is a lot in the second paragraph although I'm not sure what assumptions you've identified. My observation is that Stefan, who I admire greatly, has repeatedly said in his podcasts that his mind is constantly on the go with new ideas. Now if Stefan, the worlds most popular philosopher has so many ideas how much is he, let alone lesser minds, directly experiencing and aware of. If one is in the mind, the future and the past, and the otherwhere what of the here and now? What of direct experience? And what of one's relationship to truth versus conceptual reality? I hope this helps as way of clarification. Thanks. PS. I do agree that having learnt the principles of philosophy BS is generally pretty apparent in peoples talk.

Thanks for the responses guys. To Pepin, This is my concern about language - that it comes to dominate our experience over the direct reality of experience. Let me explain... To Robin I think what I'm asking is how do we remain conscious in the world. Do we raise our level of thinking (philosophy?) to the point where we have trained ourselves to think truefully, to spot illusions, logical fallicies, internal consistentices/self-detonating arguments, correlation not being cause, is not being ought, and all the other little rules that define the philosophically educated Mind? Or is there another way is a sensory way where we see there are only trees and not a forest, where we do not label the world and its objects and hence fall into the illusory nature of judgements that is positive and negative value? Think Khrishnamurti: The enlightened mind is the mind which no longer judges that which it sees. So I suppose I am asking is Zen (for the sake of a lable) ie. living in matterial reality where enlightenment has been defined as the minimisation of thought to the point where one lives in a state of no-thought, a better or worse alternative than the development of the philosophical Mind. And does the development of the philosophical Mind develop a constant churning of thoughts (vision of Terminator robot identifying and labelling everythign in its field of view) which ultimately separates us from our direct experience. As Magrite the artist said of his painting of a pipe, "This is Not a Pipe" Thoughts and responses please. Thank you.

Hi All, I'm new here so Hello! Now I'm not sure if this has addressed before but here goes... I'm interested (like everyone here I presume) in the power and use of language and its ability to shape our world. It appears to me that language is a bit of a slippery eal almost impossible to grasp firmly. Now if language is a useful tool which helps us to do stuff, it also has the potential to do harm, to fashion illusions which appear to be real but which are odds to reality and an individuals self interest. Language is a map but not necessarily accurate, nor necessarily reflect anything in reality. From the absurd: My cat and I had dinner with Elvis on the moon last night. [Assuming the cat/owner do not have access to space travel and Elvis is alive!] To the manipulative If you loved me you'd buy me the car/watch/ring. To the simply false (but carrying apparent substance) The result of climate change is that 1/4 of the earths population will be displaced. [i'm not arguing facts here just principles] So while language can enable us to build ipads and a decent meal, we can also use it to describe the nature of heaven, judge other peoples intentions, and promote a government that destroys the people who vote for it. I recognise that one should simply look at what is observable and to correlate words and events/behaviour/phenomenon/objects in the world to determin the true from the false, but I am curious as to your thoughts on why people get lost through language (that is ideas and concepts), and why people are so easily misled. How come we as a people are so out of touch with reality, and are dominated by false ideas. Also, what are your simple rules for testing the validity of what people say, and whether they are lying to themselves or (attempting) to manipulate you. Well that's my first post, replies welcome. Cheers!