Paul Crowley

I did not make these people up. I asked about them here on LJ, but I did not make them up - they are really out there, spreading their anti-Semitic crap. If you don't know what to say about them, it is not because I'm being unfair in asking you about them - it is because there is a real problem with your position on truth, one which I have successfully highlighted.

I am not going to accuse you of anti-Semitism no matter what you say. You *know* I know you're not anti-Semitic. I wouldn't bother to use this example if there was the slightest possibility you had anything but loathing for anti-Semitism. But in this instance your full-hearted opposition to anti-Semitism and your position on truth run up against each other, and I want to know how you resolve it.

From:

Do you really believe that if we had this debate on livejournal, we could get through it without someone coming in, foaming at the mouth, accusing one of us of anti-Semitism? I don't - which is why I won't engage.

This is not the way that philosophers get at the meaning of truth -- log rolling on powder kegs. They de-emotionalize the issues so that they can see through to the underlying logic.

From:

vvalkyri.livejournal.com

The debate to me seemed more about "what do you do with something plainly untrue, and which causes harm by people believing it?"

Upthread, I had a discussion with someone who had to deal with her boss sending out a forward saying tampons had asbestos, and everyone should write to the companies to tell them to stop. Snopes debunks this, but goes farther than just pointing out that it's untrue and causing undue fear, but moreover distracting from some of the real (though relatively rare) dangers of tampons.

Would you be happier discussing the tampon thing?

Or perhaps something on a higher and more immediate level of harm: alternative cures for malignant melanoma?

From:

Do you really believe that if we had this debate on livejournal, we could get through it without someone coming in, foaming at the mouth, accusing one of us of anti-Semitism? I don't - which is why I won't engage.

At this stage I think it's very, very unlikely that some stranger is going to come in and accuse you of anti-Semitism, and even more unlikely that anyone who knows you will, but if you do I'll delete their comments and bar them from commenting - I won't have that sort of thing here.

As

vvalkyri says, though, it doesn't have to be this example. Please feel free to choose your own example; anything where you think most people who read this journal generally feel that X is not true and it's a problem that some people go around asserting X. It does necessarily have to have a little more emotional load than the JFK example, though, because what I'm trying to find out is whether you're prepared to defend your position even where it really matters. Any of the alternatives she suggests would be equally good for me.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 09:59 am (UTC)

From:

badmagic.livejournal.com

This is not the way that philosophers get at the meaning of truth -- log rolling on powder kegs. They de-emotionalize the issues so that they can see through to the underlying logic.

That's a very good example of a provably untrue statement. Aristotle defined three modes of arguement:

- logos, logic and reason
- pathos, arguement by emotional appeal
- ethos, convincing listeners or one's moral character.

Aristotle would argue by appeals to emotion and morality. Either philosopher do, at times, not de-emotionalize the issues, or Aristotle was not a philosopher.

From:

I think one can reasonably read "philosophers" as referring to those of the present day, rather than all philosophers throughout history. However there are several philosophical positions which are criticised today on the grounds that they imply morally repellent things; some say this about determinism, a charge I'm happy to defend it against.

From:

badmagic.livejournal.com

I think there's a difference between "all philosophers throughout history" and someone whose writings western philosophy is founded on.

If that's the case, though, he's still wrong. In the modern day, you have the radial deconstructions, who'll tell you everything is subjective, including "a = a," and the philosophers that the US State Department hires to consider questions like "what grants a state legitimacy in the eyes of the governed?" which can't be separated from emotional issues.

From:

Just to show that I’m not trying to avoid the debate about truth, I’ll take a step back to your previous JFK argument, as it’s less emotionally loaded.

Imagine that Monday, Alice wakes up, is convinced by the mainstream argument, that Oswald killed Kennedy. Tuesday she reads some conspiracy theory, and decides that’s right. Wednesday she reads the Warren Commission Report, and believes again in Oswald. Thursday she looks at the Zabruder tape, and goes back to believing in the conspiracy. Friday she smokes some dope after work, and decides that aliens must have abducted Kennedy to keep Marilyn company.

All week long, the “truth” is irrelevant. It is so irrelevant, that for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist (unless there’s a God to verify it). All that is relevant, is what people believe. People’s perception of the truth is real, and has consequences. Any actual “truth” is meaningless.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 09:19 am (UTC)

From:

ajva.livejournal.com

All week long, the “truth” is irrelevant. It is so irrelevant, that for all practical purposes it doesn’t exist (unless there’s a God to verify it).

I think it would be difficult for me to conceive of a non-aggressive statement that I could more completely and utterly disagree with than the one you have just made here.

When I use the word "truth" in this context, I mean "the fact of what actually happened, whether anyone knows it or not". It was certainly relevant to Kennedy himself at least.

From:

Yes, I understand that you're prepared to defend this position in an instance where we neither know nor care. What I'm trying to find out is whether you're prepared to defend it for any instance where we do know and we do care. You seem to be prepared only to test your beliefs against the easy instances - but you have to test them against the most difficult instances.

From:

OK, Let’s take the 9/11 example.

Imagine a scenario: It’s a world is just like ours, but there really were 4000 Israelis who didn’t show up for work, but all evidence of that has been erased by a pro-Zionist media (just like the nutters believe). You might argue that such erasure is impossible, but for the thought experiment, say that it is.

How does this change anything? Are the nutters in this new scenario equally nutty as they are in our world, because they have reached stupid conclusions (which just happen to be true) based on bizarro conspiracy theories? How does the “truth” matter? In fact, the truth in this scenario only exists because I have inserted it as an omniscient observer. All that matters is what people believe, their perception of the truth.

Your argument is that truth exists. Mine is that truth is irrelevant. What good would truth do you without evidence to back it up?

In your 9/11 example, all we can do it look at the evidence, and be swayed. Truth has no bearing on the issue.

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

What about logical fallacies? Can't they be said to be empirically false, because there's no way for them to be true and internally consistent?

From:

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

So if you hear the above conspiracy theory advanced in conversation - let's say it's not a raging anti-Semite, but someone at a party who's perfectly lovely but tends to believe everything they hear. What can you say in reply, if there's no "truth" by which what they say could be right or wrong?

Sure, you can provide evidence, but evidence is just a pointer - what is it pointing at, if there's no truth for it to refer to?

From:

Surely you’re not going to claim that evidence points to truth? The 9/11 nutters have plenty of evidence to back up their conspiracy theories. Evidence helps us form our perceptions of the truth, it doesn’t lead us to truth.

From:

OK, so if evidence doesn't point to truth, then what are you going to say to our nice-but-gullible partygoer about their conspiracy theory?

From:

All I could say is that I've looked at the evidence and reached a different conclusion. If the person cared to listen, I might present my evidence and try to sway them to my perception.

Imagine we were at this party having this conversation. Now imagine that there was an actual truth out there, that neither of us understood. What difference would it make? How would that change anything? The existence of this actual truth would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? Until such a time as one of us came to consider this actual truth, then, and only then, would it become relevant.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 11:30 am (UTC)

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

No, I don't think I agree. Suppose I say to you, "There are children starving in Africa". You can deny this; you can even claim that Africa doesn't exist, and that it's all a conspiracy of cartographers. I can show you as much evidence as I like; introduce you to aid workers, show you photographs and news reports, but whether I convince you or not doesn't make Africa appear or disappear, or make the children less starving.

From:

You were right yesterday. I knew better than to get involved in the conversation :-)

ah.... I suggest we carry on in the pool at Meadowsweet after a couple of frozen margaritas.

Edited Date: 2008-05-20 12:04 pm (UTC)

From:

valkyriekaren.livejournal.com

Probably not the best example, I admit - I've been reading about human rights etc all morning. But I think Paul was mistaken in using examples that were theories about things that happened in the past. More concrete examples are definitely better.

From:

I think you're right, it does become a different argument when we're talking about things that are, rather than things that have happened.

From:

Now that I'm looking forward to a lot!

(no subject)

From:

some-fox.livejournal.com - Date: 2008-05-21 12:49 pm (UTC) - Expand

From:

Genuine evidence does!

From:

Er, if looked at in the right way. Um.

From:

Irrelevant for what purpose? Matters for what purpose?

If you're looking for a good, reliable system for forming beliefs that will help you in your life, I'd say that true beliefs *are* important, but not the be-all and end-all.

Beliefs which are justified - which here means that they stem from some reliable system of forming them (which may or may not include complex logical reasoning, depending on the nature of the belief) - are also important.

Beliefs which randomly hit on truth (e.g. your horoscope turns out to be accurate this month) are, I suppose, more useful than false beliefs - but they do not make a good cornerstone of a reliable belief-forming system.

From: