No, not the Ayn Rand kind. Though they bug me too.

The "absolute truth exists" kind. Personally, I think "facts" and "science" are just as faith-based as religion is, just there seems to be more tangible evidence for it. It seems to me like we take what a scientist says at face value, even if we can't see it for ourselves.

Example: Gravity. Textbooks say it was discovered in 1687 by Sir Isaac Newton, and we trust that fact because the textbooks say so and most intelligent people say so. But you can't see it for yourself. Sure objects appear to be falling, but how do you know it's not something else that we haven't discovered yet? And it's not that hard for the institution in power to erase records of that kind of stuff and rewrite it, it's been done before. Who was that guy who said if you tell a big enough lie it becomes truth?   ^*

^{It was Goebbels, wasn't it?}

Sorry if this is incoherent and unintelligent sounding.

edited 1st Sep '09 9:23:43 PM by melloncollie

I always heard it was Lenin. I know George W. Bush said "Catapult the propaganda" though.

Also: This is a good guide for using probability theory to guide your decisions. Unfortunately I'm not very good at that sort of thinking yet, but I'm getting better.

edited 1st Sep '09 9:13:41 PM by WilliamWideWeb

I wholeheartedly agree.

Are you guys taking this seriously >_>

There is no absolute truth, dammit! Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Woah, that's weird -> blah >_>

edited 1st Sep '09 9:22:31 PM by melloncollie

There is no absolute truth, but some truths are better than others. Also, occam's razor.

Mellon, are you playing with us?

What makes you think we're joking?

Argh, I'm sorry. I'm just not in a good mood tonight and it's making me weird in the head.

Why would I be playing with you all?

You asked if we were taking you seriously.

Well, WWW posted a transhumanist's blog entry, and I posted a stoner conspiracy theorist's holy book, so I think that we've got most of the spectrum covered.

I was taking you seriously. One of the rules of Bayesianism is that you never attribute exactly 0% probability to something. For things like "The moon crashes down on Chapel Hill, NC", I'd give something like 10 to the 1 million to one.

edited 1st Sep '09 9:32:15 PM by WilliamWideWeb

I began thinking about the lacking of absolute truths last year. I really don't have any real intelligent fancy thoughts about it. The closest I've come to reading about such beliefs is a few books on Buddhism. Everything is empty and you don't have a permenant self and such. It's an interesting subject that I'd like to know more about and it's one of the reasons I'm doing my senior graduation project on Buddhism.

And philosophy just has a long, boring history of people saying "No you're wrong!" Maybe you're all wrong, did you consider that? Wankers.

Dualism(the idea that the soul is separate from the body) is stupid, though. This is inarguable.

^ WUT

I'm an idealist, myself.

Our philosophy professor mentioned it in lecture, you could hear a collective snigger go around the room...

My intelligence has never been so insulted before >_>

Oh, I asked if you were taking me seriously because I wanted you all to. Sorry for teal deer, I've calmed down a bit.

While I'm not a dualist at all, you're doing exactly what you're arguing against.

ninja'd

edited 1st Sep '09 9:40:01 PM by Tzetze

Sorry, but all I remember from Philosophy class is that the professor seemingly brought up Cartesian dualism just to tell us which arguments are bad, because Descartes' arguments are bad.

I've never taken any kind of class in philosophy and I think mind-body dualism is done. But it's still possible, in an "I will spontaneously combust before finishing this sentence" kind of way.

You're absolutely right. The only kind of "fact" that is unquestionably true is the kind where you can observe the results first-hand. If I slap you across the face, it'll hurt—that's a fact.

I was thinking these very things when I posted my Time Travel topic. The problem is human beings want things to make sense, because (personal theory) if it makes sense then it can be controlled. We want to be masters of reality. But the problem is reality doesn't have to make a lick of sense and probably in the grand scheme of things doesn't.

And then there's the most overrated aspect of the human being—intelligence. All people ever use intelligence for is to justify stupid beliefs. Models of the universe and whatnot, or the universe is expanding or contracting because some guy's calculations say so. How do I know he didn't just jot down a bunch of random numbers and claim they meant something?

The biggest problem though is that the great "fact-seekers" never really have to defend their findings—if you disagree they just question you education and that's the end of it. Call me nutsy but I'd trust the practical experience of a layperson over the cosmic theories of an astrologist any day.

Tzetze: Maybe. But I'm not sure it's even describable.

You guys have seriously never considered that consciousness might just be one long hallucination and nothing exists? When you're in a dream, you don't question its "reality". It feels real and as long as you're within it it effectively is real.   ^*

^{Unless it's lucid dreaming, which would be hella cool if you could have a "lucid life"}

Yes, thank you James. You put that coherently what I was trying to get across.

edited 1st Sep '09 9:46:38 PM by melloncollie

Not really, dreams feel different than real life. Plus I have no evidence for this "grand hallucination" theory, so I should act as if this were real.

Mind-body dualism is different. I've thought that my life is a hallucination before, that's solipsism, but it's boring.

I didn't say anything about acting differently, I mean if life really is a hallucination what are you going to do about it, heh. I figure if I act a certain way then it gets some sort of response from the environment; rinse and repeat until it's over.

But how do you know what real reality is supposed to feel like?

I don't, but this sure ain't a dream.