pipeline_mike

you're such an amazingly prolific poster. you ARE the FDR poster-boy. Also, thank you.

As a lifelong gamer (starcraft, chess, magic el getherino, smash bros, Dominion, etc.) I really miss the community and diversion that my present career has secluded me from. I have some time for correspondence chess. Any interested philosophers out there?

Masturbation is simply much more entertaining and only slightly less repetitive, depending on the individual.

I have never seen it, personally, but I bet that I have at least one true female friend before my journey is done. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

It can be criminal(maybe not illegal according to the gangsters du jour, but certainly criminal by any common law sense of the word) to make false truth claims. For instance, what if the person is making the false truth claim about the instance of rape? The question may be, to what extent do the people in question understand or not understand the consequences of their falsehoods? Would understanding change the position they espouse?

"The things my father signed us up for baffle the mind. We were sent to explore the Outer Hebrides with the 'Young Royal Explorer's Society'... or something like that...with some crazy guy who had a 90-lb typewriter, that we got points for dragging around as children. This was my first skepticism around rewards from authority." --S.B.M (from FDR182.Freedom part 3: Siblings, @ about the 42 minute mark.)

Came out to my aunt the other day. She related a fantastic story of her first realization that there is no god. Alas, the tale is not mine to tell.

how about, "Are you happy now, Mr. Superman?"

Can you watch this show without choking up? The episode with the kobra rhodes bio had me weak, and the vegan arm wrestler, rob bigwood's interactions with his father really got me choked up. So many tragic family environments. Thoughts...?

Don't go to college.

What is accuracy but consistency with objective reality? What is morality but consistency with an objective universal of reality? What is enjoyment but consistency with objective(or objectively subjective) pleasures? The whole point of FDR is to apply the scientific method. Consensus has no role to play in the scientific method. Why does this Evolution topic get special treatment? Who built up these divisions, and who benefits from maintaining them? How does a crutch serve a man with strong legs? How does an appeal to consensus serve to bolster a sound argument? Why does validity need consensus? Why would truth ever need a sanction to be true? Why water down a valid argument with an irrelevant fact of agreement? Is the result of a compromise between water and milk watered-down milk? What is the result of a compromise between food and poison?

(By time travel, I am assuming that you mean backwards time travel, because we are all traveling through time every moment.) At some point we will have sufficient information. For instance, you can find out enough about a car, after a 20 minute test drive, to make the decision: buy the car or don't. You don't have to time travel back to the assembly line or mind-meld with all of the previous owners to gain sufficient information to make a purchasing decision. The casting of ballots may well suggest the ability to create or modify....something. That is, after all, how we get herded into the ballot box over and over. However, that is just the justification. For most people, it is little more than an afterthought. The main thing is the re-investing emotionally to one of two groups: the rightfully vindicated majority, or the righteous, misunderstood minority. Sooner or later the truth seekers will see the third option and wander away from the charade to meet one another in reality. A consensus can tell us one of two things: 1.) The majority at large supports the issue in question. or 2.) The majority at large rejects the issue in question. Neither of these has anything to do with whether the issue is right or wrong. As far as indicating which theory best withstands scrutiny, consensus is impotent to do that. Hell, if anything, the body scientific(majority at large) has every motivation to obfuscate and complicate the issue--subsidized as they are by the state and all of the anti-rational incentives that the state provides. Please understand that pointing out that 99 out of 100 government-tenured shills support a theory is going to make SOME folks apprehensive. Some folks...like me. Hearing it makes me fear you, right at the back of my neck. That is a lot for any conversation or relationship to overcome. I do not think I am unique. Fun mental role play: Imagine yourself on date, watching a film that you have little interest in. Your date senses your disinterest and growing boredom. Desperate to salvage the evening, they loudly direct you to stand up look behind you: "LOOK. Everyone else is enjoying the movie!" -What effect does this have on your opinion of the film? -What effect does this have on your opinion of your date?

The point is this: When you can say "I know", you ought not resort to "they say." I raise this as an objection because, from personal experience, it stood as a barrier between myself and consistency. After a quarter century of slowly overcoming inconsistencies that were backed by "they say", hearing "they say" raises the red flag for me. Is it impossible to think that my experience is not unique? I believe that there are others who have learned, as I have, that general distrust for consensus is an effective null hypothesis. When you overcome an obstacle, you posses the option of trying to remove it for those who come after you. Besides, what value can an appeal to consensus possibly add to the argument? Let the mob point to their ballots. Let us have none of that. Also, when I say that I am not competent to argue against a theory, I am not saying that I am incompetent to point out that the argument may be less than effective considering the typical FDR truth-seeker. Quite the opposite. Nor do I believe that anyone is competent to argue against the theory---and certainly not me. Sure language is a matter of consensus. Of course, it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Right or wrong?

Im not capable of competently arguing that the theory is flawed. I'm just pointing out that the way you choose to argue for the theory affects the kind of feedback that you will attract. It might be better to invite scrutiny, and best to say, "It doesn't matter what everyone else says. Let's you and I look at the facts and let us see where we disagree--and find out why."

To what extent might the evolutionary theory community be anti-evolutionary as far as the theory itself is concerned? What insights can we glean from an appeal to consensus? Admittedly, I am no expert in evolution. I do, however, value my own intelligence. Appealing to consensus, rather than simply addressing the topic through reason and observation, demonstrates that my own ability to think rationally has already been discounted by the other party.

The way I see it, the appeal to consensus is an extremely effective catchall that is employed against scrutiny, legitimate or illegitimate. In the long run, we observe that consensus ends up being wrong longer than it rightfully ought to remain so. The next obvious question is: what is current consensus wrong about? Perhaps its just that the consensus theory du jour is so effective at dissuading scrutiny, that it perpetuates and ensures its own eventual failure to remain consistent with the ever-growing body of empirical observation.

Well said Magnus.

The big red flag I often notice regarding this topic is the appeal to scientific consensus. Historically, appeals to consensus(if valid) indicate that the theory is wrong, because scientific consensus is historically wrong; consensus in general as well. But, maybe it is indicative only of poor arguing ability. To what extent does that inform about the scrutiny of the theory?