We are drowning in stupid things as we try to discuss bigger issues. I cite Petterson and Sam Harris' first debate, where they ended up lost in arguing about just what the concept of 'truth' is. I see this in intellectual debate again and again. How to prevent this?
-
-
Humility in the face of the non-empirical does seem to me a legitimate cornerstone of both public policy and academic study. The problem of course is when ppl make claims in one realm of truth where it belongs in the other.
-
Sure but that doesn't take long. You can say 'We don't know everything and all knowledge is provisional' and then get back to focusing on what we can know and better and worse ways to do that. PoMos, theologians & metaphysicians tend to prefer to dwell in the fog of not-knowing
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yea, I totally agree. Exploration, theory, and speculation are fine by me, but sadly and inevitably, you DO find those who make fiendish claims and monetise to the naive via books etc.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
I did address it a bit here but the problem of how to supply human needs for emotionally resonant metanarratives & something akin to spirituality without losing empirical truth & reason will probably always be with us. We are stupid apes.