WasatchMan

I don't think it is too hard to explain. All it is the age old balance of principles vs. pragmatism. Libertarians have fought the political battle on the side of principles for so long they have a hard time rationalizing something based on pragmatic ends, and probably justifiably feel they are weakening their own arguments by doing so.

Is calling an elephant a mammal falsifiable? Yes, if it falls out of the criteria of what makes a mammal a mammal. Same would go for r/K as a means for classifying an identifiable behavior trait.

Epistemology is an emergent property of consciousness. I am making a statement about the nature epistemology. Methodologies can obviously be wrong, but you cannot get to anything right without a proper one. "Is"s exist independent of consciousness, sure. Not debating that point in the slightest. The point I am making is that YOU as a conscious being cannot make any statement about the nature of reality ("is"'s) without an methodology (or "ought"). Please try. One example would prove me wrong immediately. You cannot get an "ought" from an "is" but if you prefer to get an "is" you "ought" to be empirical, logically consistent, falsifiable, and in general, fall under the principles of the scientific method

To be clear, there is nothing in what I was trying to communicate that would go against this statement. "Without an if" is awesome way to put it. You can't get an "is" without an "ought" is a epistemological statement, not a metaphysical one. What "is" is, no matter if there were no one around to interpret it. But in order to make a statement about what something is, you need a methodology (the "ought").

I agree with you on this. I would take it one step further: Sam Harris is only interesting because intellectual discourse in our society is so generally uninteresting.

Than you must have not read this part of the original statement "You cannot get an Is without an ought" communicates that there are certain, specific, values that must be held, like the scientific method, law of identity (A is A), a dedication to logical consistency, etc. in order to get any true statement about what something is."

Doesn't answer the question I asked you...The whole point of this thread is that you cannot get to the truth without a proper methodology. How are you disagreeing with this thesis? I don't understand your point. ummm... no.... it is called giving two extremes of an example in order to highlight the position you are holding as opposed to a stark contrast. My whole point of this thread is that you cannot get to truth without holding certain value positions on methodology for getting to truth and to highlight what I mean I was contrasting my position with one that is obviously the opposite and absurd... But thanks for being an asshole about it. huh? This is a message board, showing is kinda hard... I can only tell things to my perspective... Ok... Moral relativism is a common term. I see someone already defined it for you in this thread, now you know. So lets move on. I find it interesting that you ignore this statement in your response (since it hits at the heart of the matter and you seem to be nit picking the edges and even defines what I mean be superior): "Superior because you can derive objective statements about the way things are (i.e. generate knowledge). It is superior to know rain falls due to a scientific understanding of atmospheric conditions (which could be used to predict events) than to do a rain dance and think that is why it rains. One is repeatable and talks about objective occurrences in reality - the other is just made up and provides zero knowledge on why it rains" If you don't think a methodology that is used to find truth (i.e. the scientific method) vs. those that cannot be used to find truth (i.e. the dreaded tea leaves argument) is superior than I have no wish to discuss anything with you further. I am having a hard time understanding your abrasive rejection to this thread. All I am trying to point out is that some methodologies are required to find truths, others have no value in finding truth, this whole point can be summarized as "you cannot get to an is without an ought", and if accepted, proves that some methodologies, or oughts (the scientific method), are superior to other oughts (dun dun dunnnnnnn tea leaves).

Facts about reality are independent from personal values, however this statement is pointing out that obtaining knowledge requires one to hold certain values, and not all values are equal in obtaining facts about reality. That you cannot gain any facts about reality without holding certain value judgements about metaphysics and epistemology (see Western Civilization).

So if there is no preferred mode of behavior for determining the speed of a car (relative speed or otherwise) then reading tea leaves is just as good as a radar gun for determining this "is" (the speed of the car).

So you think that you can discover truths about the universe while rejecting the scientific method? Superior because you can derive objective statements about the way things are (i.e. generate knowledge). It is superior to know rain falls due to a scientific understanding of atmospheric conditions (which could be used to predict events) than to do a rain dance and think that is why it rains. One is repeatable and talks about objective occurrences in reality - the other is just made up and provides zero knowledge on why it rains. Ok, tell me how you could get to an objective statement about reality (an is) without a statement about some behavior (the ought) that is required to get there. (In order to observe the speed of a car IS traveling you ought to have a device, or methodology, that measures the speed. If you don't have some ought you are saying you can determine the speed by tea leaves?) Ok you are not for language? In order to communicate you ought to adopt a language that can be used to communicate ideas between people, which includes "labels". I am not entirely sure I disagree with Hume because I don't think that his statement was meant to be taken the way it has been. I am not an expert enough on Hume to know.

I like Sam Harris for being a deep thinker and comes off as genuinely wanting to get to the truth of things, so I would recommend him. However, I would say some FDR listeners probably don't like him because of his arguments around determinism.

This was an offhand comment in a recent Sam Harris podcast (http://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/surviving-the-cosmos) that I found very interesting for its implications on the relativistic "philosophies". This is obviously a turning on the head of the Hume statement that "you cannot get an ought from an is", which is used by moral relativists to try to say that you cannot derive value statements from facts about a reality. "You cannot get an Is without an ought" communicates that there are certain, specific, values that must be held, like the scientific method, law of identity (A is A), a dedication to logical consistency, etc. in order to get any true statement about what something is. This concept helps destroy moral relativism because it demonstrates that without certain, and specific values, you cannot discover anything about reality. While this seems rather obvious, the implications that you cannot get an is without an ought proves that ideas are not relative, and that in fact, some ideas are superior to other.

Yeah, I have been thinking about this movie and parenthood. How are the Jedi, who are supposed to have a supreme understanding and command of reality (in their fictitious setting) end up with a psychopath that literally embodies the concept of evil every other generation? My guess is it stems from a desire to provide cover for bad parents. Han and Leia are the heros, it can't be their fault that their kid turned out evil, therefore no parents are responsible for how their kids turn out.

Your logic is right, and therefore these studies will use many participants and statistical methods to help flesh out the data and what it is actually telling you.

If the drug works, you would expect that the patients who got the drug reported better results than those who got the placebo. If the results are similar, the drug is not worth using, especially when it has real side effects.

ahem.... Don't Feed the Trolls!

So, not only does Hillary Clinton claim that systemic racism is the issue, in a country with a minority leader, but puts all the responsibility on the police to solve the problem, and gives excuses of inequality to those breaking the law. Nothing about black people needing to stop committing crime, of course not, if they are committing crime it is white peoples fault. But it gets better, we just have to watch Bernie Sanders response: I was with you on the police state issue tell you made it a race issue. I think what may help for a start would be for black people to stop shooting unarmed people, predominately African Americans. How about that for a start? How about black people stop committing crime? Do you think that might help keep them out of jail? I agree that there are way to many ways you can find yourself in jail over, but murder is probably a good reason to lock someone up, and blacks are doing the majority of that, especially to themselves.

Even if your "origin" hypothesis for atheists were true, which seems tenuous, it says nothing about the truth or falsehood of the claims, neither does it address the practical implications of holding one belief over another. What is your "origin" hypothesis that allows otherwise functioning human beings to believe in ancient myths and superstitions, absent of any evidence, that are fundamental in shaping their metaphysical and epistemological views on reality?

Its hard to say. It sounds like a lot of it is religious, given they call it a "holy war" in the first place. However, I also know this quote is attributed to Osama bin Laden: "We declared jihad against the U.S. government because the U.S. government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal, whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation."

meh.. I really don't know what that is suppose to mean. One girl you know wasn't using her sexual market value to get a group of men circling around her according to your observations (which may entirely be because you were one of the guys circling). Sorry, but that doesn't mean much to me. I think I have been around long enough to know that men and women are generally incompatible for deep, meaningful, platonic relationships. Can it happen? Sure. The issue is sex doesn't cost much, feels great, and we are genetically programmed to seek it as one of our highest priorities after food, water, and shelter. What reason would a man and women have that were in a close relationship to not be also seeking sex with each other if they are both attracted to the opposite sex?

I wonder how the conversation would change if instead of saying "radicalized" they were called "true believers". It would definitely put the Christians on guard, which is why they don't say that (besides the PC stuff), and I think it is very interesting. I think a lot of cultural insight could be mined from exploring why people generally hide, or run from, from logical consistency and how this stems from an emotional attachment to religion. "A" is "A" is becoming a radical idea by this implication.

Yeah, that is actually the typical line they give. I don't buy it. Even if the girl is that naive, you know that all the guy "friends" aren't there typically for a platonic situation.

I put this in another post but now believe it needs a thread of its own. In his prime time address to the nation about the terrorist attack in San Bernardino on 12/6/2015, President Barrack Obama claims that one of the steps we MUST do is to not allow people on some federal terrorist watch lists to buy guns. This is probably one of the most anti 2nd amendment regulations that could be constructed that does not ban guns outright. This is because one of the central reasons for the 2nd amendment was to allow the population to defend it self from a tyrannical government - well guess what tyrannical governments call people that try to defend themselves against it? Terrorists. Not only would this give the government the ability to subjectively remove rights from citizens, but this law would neuter the 2nd amendment during any rebellion, or insurgent situation, because anyone standing up against the government would be deemed as a terrorist and be subject to the removal of rights and extreme government retaliation.

Obama calls the attacks terrorism: He also claims that one of the steps we MUST do is to not allow people on some federal terrorist watch to buy guns. This is probably one of the most anti 2nd amendment regulations that could be constructed that does not ban guns outright. This is because one of the central reasons for the 2nd amendment was to allow the population to defend it self from a tyrannical government - well guess what tyrannical governments call people that try to defend themselves against it? Terrorists.