Peter Boghossian | The Socratic Method in the Western Tradition

[@cowboypicayune527]

I believe this is my favorite Peter Boghossian talk, because the main deliverable here illustrates how ancient fundamental Western moral philosophy will either be relevant to our future or not at our peril.

[@justanotherfella4585]

That’s one of the reasons for watching the videos rather than actually being there. That & not having to stomach the sycophantic introduction.

[@thomasfry5224]

I got taught the Socratic method straight from this guy. Very cool.

[@newpilgrim]

Mind-blowingly rich. Audience questions are so sharp, it really made for a brilliant deep-dive into a topic weighing heavily on my mind.

[@tompommerel2136]

A wonderful & honourable presentation which stimulates thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@ross7668]

Indian Jesus sent me here As soon as PB gave the link, I switched over (as TIJ was saying not to until after) But it was worth it What I like most about Peter, is that he’s probably the most left “red pilled” post IDW voice that I listen to. Brett and heather on a par. I’m drawn to this movement across the spectrum I find that most of my favourite voices, are the ones that have come from a leftist background. I’m definitely on the conservative spectrum… but support some of the social safety nets that the left push forward I feel like there’s a recalibration taking place. But it seems like our educational institutions are blind to it… as are the media and politicians The suppression of everything populist, makes it abundantly clear that there are power brokers more interested in shutting down free thinkers and limiting the spread of their ideas PB is a great example of a voice that can cut across the divide I’d love to hear a conversation between him and John Anderson This was a great podcast evemt

[@justanotherfella4585]

10:18 when it actually starts

[@unitedintraditions]

Some super heroes don't wear capes 👏

[@sunnykobe3210]

@@unitedintraditionslet’s chip in and get them a cape 🫡

[@DAWN001]

Hypotheses testing and estimating the probability of false positive (alpha) is consistent with the idea of what’s the chance of I am getting this wrong. In practice, however, most people try really hard to prove themselves right.

[@Metaphyical0samak]

I am grateful universe THANK YOU FOR WHAT IVE OVERCOME

[@jswets5007]

answers build questions, not understanding questions build understanding, not knowledge knowledge builds answers, not questions

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

[29:15] “One of the greatest insights in critical thinking was from-in my opinion-was from Michael Shermer’s book _Why People Believe Weird Things._ In _Why People Believe Weird Things,_ he has a _chapter in there: _Why Do Really Smart People Believe Really Weird Things,*_ and the data is really interesting. For example-it goes by decade, so-in the 70’s, MENSA members-high IQ, the number of people who believed in things that virtually nobody believes in-telekinesis, moving things with your minds, etc-those numbers were very high. But that’s in the top one percent of the IQ pool. So how is it that people in those categories believe weird things? And Shermer’s answer to that is: the smarter you are, the better you are at reasoning to bad conclusions.” [33:35] How can I be wrong? + How Gods would talk to each other

[@PetervandenHeuvel81]

That's true.

[@kyoglesage]

Most events are improved by Howard’s absence.

[@SupachargedGaming]

"Why smart people believe weird things..." I think, maybe, this is being too reductive. Yes, smart people are better at rationalizing "bad" ideas... but their perspective on the ideas are, typically, fundamentally different than the colloquial interpretation. "Anything is possible, it just won't necessarily look the way you expect." If you ask the average person if they believe humans could develop super strength, they will probably say no. Some of them might say yes. Some 'slightly' above average people might make reference to biochemical engineering, or gene manipulation, or possibly robotics... And the smartest people will say we already have super strength. It's called cranes. Forklifts. Wheelbarrows, "trolleys" (I don't know what they are called in other places, the manual wheeled lifting devices often used for things like fridges), or other engineering solutions. Or telekinesis. Again, most people would probably say no. You can't move things with your mind. Some people might make the 'technicality' or definitional argument: My mind is my brain. My brain controls my body. My body is moved by my brain. The things my body moves are, ultimately, moved by my brain. But then at the higher ends you may have people considering AI and robotics, or 'neural nets', or possibly magnets. It's not how one typically pictures these things, but it functionally is the thing. Like flying. If asked if you wished you could fly, most people (whether their answer is yes or no or otherwise) would imagine some kind of wings, or the ability to fly with nothing but themselves. Does low gravity count? TL:DR It's not just that more intelligent people are better at rationalizing bad ideas, it's that they are more capable of considering ways in which something could work. "Can humans fly?" "Of course not" says the average person "Hmm, give us 4 years or so" responds Wilbur and Orville Wright, in 1899.

[@terryhuffaker3615]

The application of epistemology is true for our empirical world. But, can it be applied to the inseen or spiritual realm of existence?

[@DDeCicco]

Good question. It remains open for discussion whether the spiritual/unseen, as you put it, are not themselves an element of the world that we could eventually apprehend with empirical methods.

[@kennethgee2004]

so when agnostics says that they cannot make a determination about God would you say that they are refusing to do the step of accepting or rejecting the proposition? When the atheist rejects the proposition, do they carry a burden of proof for why they rejected the proposition?

[@magnuseriksson5547]

No, atheists does not have a burden of proof. Atheists reject belief in god, but that does not mean they (necessarily) accept the opposite claim, the belief that no god exist. Atheists that assert that no god exist do adopt a burden of proof, but the term atheism only means the lack of belief in a god.

[@gtwatton]

There is no burden of proof for the existence of nothing.

[@kennethgee2004]

@@john85132 You are misusing null hypothesis. It is a device used to invalidate certain conclusions. The usage is that while the null hypothesis can never be proven true or false, if it is more likely to be true than a hypothesis it is being compared with, then the hypothesis in question is necessarily not true. The atheist is making a claim when they reject the proposition of a God or gods. They must provide the reasoning and evidence that they used to reach their conclusion. If they try to use the null hypothesis like Matt Dillahunty, then their position could never be true, and I am free in the knowledge that there exists an answer about a God or gods. It is just a matter then of finding the right answer. You also make the claim that the null hypothesis and by transitive property all hypothesis must be scientifically determined. This is a form of religion called scientism in which it is only science that can lead to truth. The ideology is incorrect as science is not its own foundation nor can one prove the foundations of science using the scientific method as they would be arguing in a circle. Last you make the claim that a God or gods would not be observable. Where is your evidence for that conclusion? I mean God is observable in the natural laws that govern the universe. We see information coded into life through DNA, which can only be produced by a mind. We see that the very beginning of the universe must be because of a choice as automatic processes do not make choices to create. Any such universe generating cause would then create other verses, which we should be able to detect. We can only observe this universe, so a multiverse is not plausible. So, I reiterate the question, how is it that you conclude that we do not observe God, especially when God form the Bible has geared Himself into history?

[@SupachargedGaming]

Being agnostic is mutually independent. It's simply the claim that there is insufficient evidence for the belief in god. You could still 'act as though its true' (Jordan Peterson) or you could be an atheist, or something else entirely. It's also the "most correct" position to take prior to any attributed traits. What is "god"? Are we talking Thor? A human-like creature that can control the weather? I mean, that's not "entirely" outside the realm of possibility. The weather exists. Humans and human-like (loosely) beings exist. Humans can control certain aspects of their environment, and the weather is a part of that environment. Who's to say it isn't controllable, given enough research and technology? Atheism is one step further. There is insufficient evidence for god, and so we shouldn't believe in god. I'd go one step further and say we shouldn't believe in things for which we lack sufficient evidence but, unfortunately, some atheists believe in supernatural mumbo jumbo. Astrology, tarot cards, ghosts. "No", atheists don't have a burden of proof. They aren't making the claim. The claim is "god exists". Atheists simply don't believe this. There is no more burden of proof here than there is for the lack of belief in santa, or fairies. "Yes", however, there is a burden of proof on the rejection of offered "proofs" by theists. Fortunately no theist, nor anyone with a supernatural belief or claim, has provided any valid proof. Nothing that meets the standards required for evidence. It's basically just the following: "Something exists, therefore god!" Argument from design (Or whatever you want to call it) "But my book says its true, therefore it must be true." or "Well, I was taught to believe this and it's a part of my identity" (Though that second bit's maybe subconscious) "What if you're wrong? Never mind that I could be totally wrong about 'which' god, what if your wrong about god?" Pascals wager. "The universe is fine tuned for life!" And the proof is... that life exists on this planet. Every other planet we look at is either dead or dormant (never/ hasn't yet contained life). Most of the universe is inhospitable to most of life. Maybe "god" created the universe for tardigrades. Hell, most of the planet isn't naturally hospitable to humans. "The universe is fine tuned to "allow" for life" slightly different variant of the fine tuning argument, the more scientifically grounded one. There are many different parts of the universe that, were they slightly different, would not allow for the universe to form as we know it... Or, in some cases, at all. First there's the assumption that these things (like gravity) could change. Second there's the confirmation bias. Something happened, it just turned out to be this. Were gravity higher, and the universe were incapable of expanding, then that'd be that. But it's not. Basically, there's no way of knowing we didn't just "get lucky". It's also a question of how much you change it. If gravity were changed by (Don't quote me on the numbers) one billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a percent, the laws of physics wouldn't allow a universe like ours. Okay, what about a billionth of that? Isn't that a billion other variants of, effectively, the same universal conditions? Finally, this all relies on the assumption that you only change *one* thing. If gravity were higher, the universe wouldn't be able to expand... But what if you changed gravity 'and' something else, or several something elses. Surely there'd be other iterations. Last note on the fine tuning argument, given its the "best" argument, is that in order for it to be true... the laws of physics and nature would have to "overpower" god. If god has power over the laws of physics and nature, they could be anything and the fine tuning argument is entirely meaningless. "The universe began to exist. Everything that begins to exist has a cause (causality). The universe has a cause." (Kalam Cosmological argument). Personally, I consider this the strongest argument. That said, it doesn't get you god. Even if you accept it's premises, and therefore its conclusion, the cause of the universe could be just another passive (non conscious) law of physics. Vacuum energy, "or something". Additionally, "the universe began to exist" is an assumption, generally based on a flawed understanding of the big bang theory - and one that is seeing growing rejection from physicists based on the evidence we (they) observe. Finally, even if you accept the argument, and somehow get to god from there, you're left with having to explain god beginning to exist. If god is eternal, why not just apply that trait to the universe? It's a much simpler explanation, and explains as much, if not more. The moral argument. Not much to say here. I don't agree, in fact I find it deeply insulting not just for me, but for anyone who doesn't share your exact beliefs. That said, if religious belief is all that's maintaining your "morality" by all means... ignore everything I've said. God is always watching, god wants you to be a peaceful creature that cares for the life they created... "Personal experience" ... Again, not much to say here. It's a pretty impossible position to argue against as a general concept - that is, without a specific instance. This is where the Socratic method (or similar) is handy, though. Could your experience be explained any other way than "god"? How can you be certain? People experience delusions from all manner of sources... Sleep deprivation, hallucinogenics, mental disorders... 2/3 of those are personal experience :)

[@edwardpaddock2528]

I would say, that smart people believe 'weird' things, because they are smart. The more you know, the more you know how little you know. The more you understand, the more you understand how little you understand. "The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing." "There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." The shortest path to absolute certainty, is made with a dull mind. Also, the entire debate generally boils down to what one means when one says words like 'god'. If you define 'god' as an impossible thing, then it is very easy to disprove. (A straw-god argument, mayhaps?) If by 'god' you are suggesting the possibility of the existence of one or more being with access to technology that is greatly beyond your/our ability to understand, it would all but impossible to dismiss in any rational manner. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

[@jamesdelaney9599]

This interesting - but I wonder what impossible means. The universe itself seems impossible at least on a replicable way, and yet here we are

[@edwardpaddock2528]

@@jamesdelaney9599 Impossible means, not possible. A thing that 'is' may not be understood, however it can not be impossible, because, it is.

[@jamesdelaney9599]

@@edwardpaddock2528 ok I see. But possible is relative and conditional to “what is” or “what has been” and not necessarily “what can be”, so long as “what can be” is lawless / unknown … unless we assume all prior knowledge holds for future / unknown cases? I guess what I mean is that a computer is impossible under wrong conditions. So if someone defines God as an impossible thing, perhaps it’s not absolutely impossible, only impossible under understood conditions?

[@edwardpaddock2528]

@@jamesdelaney9599 Incorrect. The possible is possible, period. Just because you can't do it, or do not understand it, does not make it impossible. Knowledge has nothing to do with it. Possibility is, or is not. When you add conditions, or remove them, you are asking a different question. Understanding has no bearing on what is possible. What you mean by 'god' will provide you with the answer to that question. Humanity understands very very little. They do not, generally, even understand what it means to understand.

[@jamesdelaney9599]

@@edwardpaddock2528 i think I understand but it’s hard for me to comprehend so I probably don’t. Thanks for your input I’ll think it over

[@yourhealinghome8812]

What a fool believes; HE SEES - Speaks to the reliability of observations made by those whose very perception of reality is poisoned by preconceived notions that are accepted and retained without critical evaluation. One false belief can do long term damage to one's ability to understand factual reality. There are more than one cautionary aspects to the Doobies' admonition there. Great observation your questioner raises here too - I've constantly been stimulated to practice analysis by culturally sourced cues, delivered by critically thinking artists.

[@ericlorge3453]

Who wants to tell him that circular reasoning is exactly what the Socratic dialectic works to DISMANTLE. And that the Socratic Method is in fact based on intellectual HUMILITY? Because he's simply using it as a tool to confirm all his ideological presumptions, (of which there are many, apparently).

[@LoveVanillaRose]

Verbal diarrhea