Beliefs: how do they work?

[RandFan]

So if a smoker claims that smoking is bad for your health, he's lying?

?

Random.

And if a bear ***** in the wood he is lying?

 

[RandFan]

So you believe she is real, not because of any evidence, but because the negation of that belief would cause "a lot of heartache and headache". Oh, and she "seems" real. "Seems" an odd way to justify a belief.

"heartache and headache" justify why I care not why I believe.

Not really

Then you are willfuly ignorant as I've said over and over I don't know if I'm correct and I can't disprove idealism.

Hint: Not an argument.

See above.

As evidence, they're not. I've been saying that countless times. Sense-data, internal feelings, and experiences are consistent with countless models of reality.

But your experiences that lead you to a belief in god are not themselves consistent. just because we can't disprove materialism doesn't justify a belief in god.

More appeals to sense-data and how things "seem". Because it seems a certain way, it must be true! The sun goes around the Earth, am I right?

Not simply "seems". It's empirical. It works every time. It's predictable. Persistent and consistent. A properly conducted scientific experiment works the same for me as it does for you.

None of your "seems" like god is real is empirical and just because we can't disprove materialism doesn't justify a belief in god. And this is the salient point that is your fatal flaw. Idealism might be true but still can rely on empiricism.

And why does how I act have anything to do with the argument I make? I'm a little surprised you would commit such an obvious fallacy.

I'm not making a fallacy. I'm demonstrating that you don't believe in your argument. A smoker can believe smoking is bad for him but smoke nonetheless he can also quit without effecting his belief.

You can only commit suicide to quit. Big difference.

For the record, I have not stated that I am a solipsist or idealist.

But the logical conclusions of your argument dictate that you must. Sorry. Not my fault here.

And, as CJ pointed out, an idealist or solipsist does not have to behave in any different way if they believe the solipsist or idealist reality they find themselves in has certain rules and is internally consistent.

Not true, a solipsist who argues with others is irrational. As is your continued reliance on the material world and interaction with others all the while appealing to idealism to justify an irrational belief.

 

[RandFan]

.....and the answer is Yes, whether it destroys a pet theory or not, I'm afraid.

Can you do so with logic and reason? If "expectation", as you say, is the active ingredient (and that's wrong but I'm going to give it to you for the sake of argument) then one can expect a jug of milk to heal him or her (there are no strict requirements on placebos).

So, I was hoping when I asked if you could dispute the claim that you understood I meant with logic and reason and I wasn't talking about simply gainsaying. But thanks for playing.

 

[Nick227]

Can you do so with logic and reason? If "expectation", as you say, is the active ingredient (and that's wrong but I'm going to give it to you for the sake of argument) then one can expect a jug of milk to heal him or her (there are no strict requirements on placebos).

What the active ingredient actually is, or whether there is such a thing, is determined, not just in part, by the level of examination. This aside, my point was, and still is, that there is inevitably a cultural context here. Only certain forms are likely to be venerated, given our history as evolved species. Archetypes and mysterious entities who control destiny predominate and this is predictable, because we are the products of a process defined by certain criteria.

Thus, on a theoretical level, your statement about the milk-jug having a parity with God as a placebo agent might be considered correct. I would consider it correct on this level. But on a real, practical level it simply and quite obviously is not. People inevitably turn to God or archetypal forms in crisis rather than milk-jugs and this is not random.

So, I was hoping when I asked if you could dispute the claim that you understood I meant with logic and reason and I wasn't talking about simply gainsaying. But thanks for playing.

I can gainsay, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It would help me if you could articulate exactly where I am not using logic or reason.

Nick

 

[paximperium]

So if a smoker claims that smoking is bad for your health, he's lying?

Your analogies border on the retarded and is as dishonest as always.
Your analogy is more along the line of if said smoker claims that the smoke is magic and if you eat the cigarette while jumping off a cliff it cures all the diseases that you have and brings you back to life as an immortal. (Great gains with great repercussions based on zero evidence.)

You are that smoker that refuses to eat that cigarette and jump off the cliff. It just shows that the claimant does not believe in his own tripe and is justifying his addiction to smoking with some delusional logic. Sound familiar?

Props to Prometheus (and CJ) for pointing the fallacy out, even though he doesn't agree with me. On anything.

And has been pointed out, no fallacy at all since your argument is useless, untestable and asinine, I have found it way more useful and interesting to criticize the hypocrisy of the claimant. Since there is no way to ever prove idealism, we can only observe if the claimant even believes in the BS he is spewing and we can all conclude that Malerin doesn't.

It is kinda like criticizing a priest who uses drugs, alcohol or drives a Ferrari or a politician who claims to be an environmentalist while driving a Hummer and burning forest down for fun. Or some wannabee armchair philosophizing theist who is attempting to find a way to justify his faith by claiming some idealism, anti-materialism BS to weasel out of providing any evidence to support his fantasies.

 

[RandFan]

What the active ingredient actually is, or whether there is such a thing, is determined, not just in part, by the level of examination. This aside, my point was, and still is, that there is inevitably a cultural context here. Only certain forms are likely to be venerated, given our history as evolved species. Archetypes and mysterious entities who control destiny predominate and this is predictable, because we are the products of a process defined by certain criteria.

Thus, on a theoretical level, your statement about the milk-jug having a parity with God as a placebo agent might be considered correct. I would consider it correct on this level. But on a real, practical level it simply and quite obviously is not. People inevitably turn to God or archetypal forms in crisis rather than milk-jugs and this is not random.

I can gainsay, but I don't think that's what's happening here. It would help me if you could articulate exactly where I am not using logic or reason.

Thanks Nick.

I'm really glad that you maintain your composure. I envy your even tone and I appreciate it.

I understand your argument and don't disagree with you except to state that I understand human nature well enough to know that veneration can change on a dime. I've watched Darren Brown use a number of objects as religious icons that have nothing to do with religion. Human gullibility is far too fluid to think that there is a significant portion of the populace who won't believe anything. Hell, people honestly believe ordinary water will heal them. Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar industry. Given that a sucker is born every minute we only need a good narrative. I've no doubt whatsoever that we could conduct an experiment that would convince people that milk is sacred (BTW, cows are sacred in India).

 

[Nick227]

Homeopathy is a multi-billion dollar industry.

Is it? Doesn't seem very big in the UK. At least not multi-billion dollar big. Are you sure about this?

Given that a sucker is born every minute we only need a good narrative. I've no doubt whatsoever that we could conduct an experiment that would convince people that milk is sacred (BTW, cows are sacred in India).

Quite possibly.

What one might also garner from such an experiment, aside from concluding that humanity is innately gullible, is that people may need things to believe in in order for certain neurological functions to operate. Not saying this is necessarily so, but it seems to me one valid conclusion to draw from such an outcome of such an experiment.

Nick

 

[paximperium]

Is it? Doesn't seem very big in the UK. At least not multi-billion dollar big. Are you sure about this?

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]While the French remain the world's largest consumers of homeopathy (and also the biggest consumers of pharmaceutical products in the industrialized world, an apparent contradiction that is particular to the French), the U.S. homeopathic market is growing quickly. According to the National Center for Homeopathy, sales of homeopathic products in the United States increased from $170 million in 1995 to $400 million in 1999. Still, despite the colossal boom in alternative health care in America (a market estimated at $18 billion), homeopathy remains a mystery to many in this country.[/FONT]

[FONT=times, times new roman, serif]
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/16/homeopathy/print.html

And this is 2000 data. It is likely higher today.
[/FONT]

 

[paximperium]

Here's another:

With almost 1.5 billion euros (manufacturer’s price), the world sale of homeopathic drugs accounts for 0.3% of the world drug market. The growth potential for homeopathy is therefore considerable. Almost 70% of all homeopathic drugs are sold in Western Europe.
France, with over 300 million euros, is the largest homeopathy market in the world, followed by Germany (200 million euros). 40% of the French have already been treated with homeopathy*, and 74% of the patients stated that they are “inclined to follow a homeopathic treatment if prescribed by their doctor”.
Homeopathy has been making major advances in other regions such as the Mediterranean basin, South America, Eastern Europe or even India.

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/realite_eco_homeo.htm

 

[RandFan]

Is it? Doesn't seem very big in the UK. At least not multi-billion dollar big. Are you sure about this?

Pax beat me to it....

Ahh, yes, no doubt about it whatsoever.

Damn you pax.

 

[Nick227]

Here's another:

http://www.boiron.com/en/htm/01_homeo_aujourdhui/realite_eco_homeo.htm

Wow, that does seem pretty big. Must admit that I hadn't realised it was so much. Thanks for posting that. Still, only 0.3% also seems quite small.

eta: Presumably, these remedies are being prescribed by registered practitioners. Is there a justification for the use of homeopathic treatments? Maybe there are studies that appear to demonstrate effectiveness. I imagine that self-reports for treatment outcome for many conditions are notoriously suspect, so it wouldn't surprise me that this could happen for placebos or otherwise. I also remember that in order to put a drug on the market there's no legal need to demonstrate mechanism of action.

Nick

 

[paximperium]

Wow, that does seem pretty big. Must admit that I hadn't realised it was so much. Thanks for posting that. Still, only 0.3% also seems quite small.

Nick

Well 0.3% of a useless treatment is 0.3% too much.

Remember, unlike real medicines that require millions if not billions to develop, homeopathy requires no research, minimal ingredients and almost no regulatory fees. Profit all the way.

 

[Malerin]

Your analogies border on the retarded and is as dishonest as always.
Your analogy is more along the line of if said smoker claims that the smoke is magic and if you eat the cigarette while jumping off a cliff it cures all the diseases that you have and brings you back to life as an immortal. (Great gains with great repercussions based on zero evidence.)

You are that smoker that refuses to eat that cigarette and jump off the cliff. It just shows that the claimant does not believe in his own tripe and is justifying his addiction to smoking with some delusional logic. Sound familiar?

And has been pointed out, no fallacy at all since your argument is useless, untestable and asinine, I have found it way more useful and interesting to criticize the hypocrisy of the claimant. Since there is no way to ever prove idealism, we can only observe if the claimant even believes in the BS he is spewing and we can all conclude that Malerin doesn't.

It is kinda like criticizing a priest who uses drugs, alcohol or drives a Ferrari or a politician who claims to be an environmentalist while driving a Hummer and burning forest down for fun. Or some wannabee armchair philosophizing theist who is attempting to find a way to justify his faith by claiming some idealism, anti-materialism BS to weasel out of providing any evidence to support his fantasies.

As long as you don't have an emotional investment in all this I sometimes get a similar response from Christians when I question things in the Bible. People and their belief systems, ya know?

 

[athon]

I know this question got lost in the mist somewhere, but it might help if it's answered;

Malerin - define in detail what you believe 'physical' means in relation to 'physicalism'.

Athon

 

[paximperium]

As long as you don't have an emotional investment in all this I sometimes get a similar response from Christians when I question things in the Bible. People and their belief systems, ya know?

Was that suppose to be an actual reply to your blatant hypocrisy and BS arguments? Red herring ya know?

BTW: Your arguments aren't even within the realm of "threatening" my beliefs since they are so bad. Your arguments are within the realm of disgust I get when someone goes about selling cancer cures made from urine claiming it is due to Quantum Theory or from certain UFO or Big footers who have exactly the same Idealism/solipcistic BS explanation as to why we can't find any evidence for their UFOs or Bigfoot which they use to justify their delusions.

I consider you at about the same level as them. Someone who weasels out of providing evidence by throwing out smoke.

 

[cj.23]

OK, that attacked the argument, not the person. Unfortunately it did not actually really advance the argument, and I don't think it constitutes being "civil and polite."

Why not just actually refute Malerin's arguments? Because this is beginning to look like just sustained personal abuse of someone whose position you disagree with - and I disagree with Malerin as well I suspect, if he really is a radical solipsist, at the most fundamental level - I believe I exist. Still, be nice if we could all just have some seasonal "peace and goodwill"...

cj x

 

[Frozenwolf150]

By the way, based on what the mods explained to me, it's acceptable to call someone a hypocrite if it's relevant to the debate and demonstrable based on their arguments, since that would still fall under attacking the arguments and not the arguer. There's a huge difference between explaining that someone is a hypocrite because he's contradicted his professed beliefs, and simply making a blank accusation of hypocrisy. The same goes for terms such as "liar" provided you can demonstrate that false or misleading statements were made within the discussion. You can't just call someone a liar in order to avoid dealing with the arguments, in other words.


Getting back to something I said earlier, I find it interesting that when I claim that one can both believe in God and accept the conclusions of science, it's not the "militant atheists" who jump down my throat for including God in my arguments, but the theists who have a problem with my alleged exaltation of science. All I did was state a way that reasonable people can, and many have, reconciled the two ideas. Based on this, I don't think the problem is that atheists worship science, but rather that certain people are so virulently anti-science that they regard any attempt at reconciliation as a form of worship.

 

[paximperium]

OK, that attacked the argument, not the person. Unfortunately it did not actually really advance the argument, and I don't think it constitutes being "civil and polite."

There really is no way to advance a discussion with someone who claims that no one else exist, evidence is irrelevant and that "all claims are probable."

Why not just actually refute Malerin's arguments? Because this is beginning to look like just sustained personal abuse of someone whose position you disagree with - and I disagree with Malerin as well I suspect, if he really is a radical solipsist, at the most fundamental level - I believe I exist. Still, be nice if we could all just have some seasonal "peace and goodwill"...

There isn't anything to refute and my "condescension"(I prefer bluntness) isn't purely just an issue with someone's position who I disagree with. I have many discussions with opposing ideas and still maintain a very civil discourse.

The issue is the honesty of the poster. Someone who continually post the same arguments despite these arguments being answered, corrected or demolished shows he/she isn't open to discourse at all and is now either preaching or mentally masturbating in public. There is no exchange of ideas in this case, just someone with an agenda using dishonesty to forward his point(whatever the hell that could be.).

The parallels between Malerin's arguments and Creationist arguments are strikingly similar. The same old roundabout abuse of philosophical arguments and facts to tear down everything else's so that they don't have to justify their own beliefs. Theist with such patheticly weak faith that they have bring down others to make their delusion seem more reasonable; to make themselves feel better. It is pathetic.

I'm civil to people who are willing to listen and honest even if I disagree with them. You are one such example since I don't recall being less than civil with you...yet...despite disagreeing with you on theistic topics.

I will however call a liar a liar or a fool a fool. I'm an impatient arrogant prick. I'm honest like that.

 

[RandFan]

Why not just actually refute Malerin's arguments?

That's been done.

Because this is beginning to look like just sustained personal abuse of someone whose position you disagree with...

(emphasis mine) People see what they want to see. Malerin won't acknowledge the arguments made when the contrary isn't true. I have acknowledged his argument and I've given him his premise about idealism in spades. What I take issue with is Malerin's spurious conclusion that an inability to disprove idealism is justification for any and all beliefs.

Perhaps what you are asking is for us to pretend to agree with him or ignore him. I don't see the point in that.

I think your complaint, if you are sincere, should be directed at Malerin.

 

[Dancing David]

I know this question got lost in the mist somewhere, but it might help if it's answered;

Malerin - define in detail what you believe 'physical' means in relation to 'physicalism'.

Athon

And why under idealism RandFan's wife would be any different than under materialism.