Authority

[hummerpoo]

I have no idea why this popped up while I was looking for some info on the order of Plato's dialogues, but it did. Nor do I know why I listened, other than as a diversion (like watching Rocky and Bullwinkle).
Anyway, I thought someone might be interested if they are ever concerned with the quality of source material used for "authority" (peer review, credentials, institutional nepotism, etc.); either in developing, confirming, or refuting ideas.

 

[bullethead]

Never hurts to check the source, then source's sources and then the sources' sources.

 

[Spotlite]

Just a big circle

 

[bullethead]

Just a big circle

As compared to, "feelings"?
Investigators don't stop at "it says right here" or "feelings".
They dig until a preponderance of evidence is enough to be sure.

 

[gemcgrew]

As compared to, "feelings"?
Investigators don't stop at "it says right here" or "feelings".
They dig until a preponderance of evidence is enough to be sure.

And they determine what is acceptable "preponderance", "evidence" and "enough".

By "feelings".

 

[bullethead]

And they determine what is acceptable "preponderance", "evidence" and "enough".

By "feelings".

The procedures refute the "feelings" and "feelings claim".
Archeology, forensics, original text are not feelings.

 

[hummerpoo]

Bullet, isn't the point of the inserted podcast: that the methodologies which germinated 2500+ yrs. ago, and have been fed, watered, propagated, tested, tweaked, polished by thousands of investigators, are worthless in the face of feelings?

There being no reason, that I can think of, to believe that has changed, is why I was looking at Plato and others. From what I have seen so far, and it is very early, the conclusion may well be that the development of various "schools of thought" (owing to feelings building upon similar feelings ad infinitum) may well be "same old thing"; which is, of course, my feeling.

Hey, maybe that explains the link popping up when I wasn't looking for it. AI has developed far beyond our understanding; it already has the capacity for "revelation".

 

[bullethead]

Yes, to a point.
I know if I am told that an ancient tribe of small humans inhabited a cave 25,000 years ago. And in that cave they find the bones belonging to 4ft humans along with pottery, arrow heads and all the things that are evidence of those people being there....it trumps feelings.

 

[hummerpoo]

When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China. About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000 from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China. Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)? Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?

 

[660griz]

Rift could be a crack caused by plates moving. New evidence, new conclusion.
There are pretty clear definitions of caves and rifts.

 

[ambush80]

I just started watching this. Peterson seems to be a deep and careful thinker for the most part. I've followed him for the last couple of years since his "Bill C-16" days. I heard about the "Grievance Studies Hoax" from Heterodox Academy https://heterodoxacademy.org/academic-grievance-studies/
to which my brother, who is professor, is a member. I also knew of Lindsey and Boghosian from their academic paper spoof "The Conceptual Penis".

On knowledge and how we get it it seems to me that much of it is from direct observation of the natural world. If revelation can't be confirmed by the natural world that it doesn't really count as knowledge.

 

[ambush80]

And they determine what is acceptable "preponderance", "evidence" and "enough".

By "feelings".

I disagree. Measurements are not "feelings".

 

[bullethead]

When I was in the 6th grade I was told (by a textbook) that man first used fire 10,000 years ago; based on charred bone evidence of cooking found in a cave in China. About 20 years ago I read a news article stating that, based on new evidence, the earliest use of fire by man had been moved back to 13,000 from 10,000 years ago (which had been based on charred bone evidence of cooking found on a ledge XX feet down the side of a rift in the earth in China. Was it a cave (relatively protected from changes caused by environmental effects) or a ledge in a rift (open to the possible, or probable, displacement by a carnivore or scavenger, or other environmental action, of the subject bone charred by a forest fire)? Was it scientific methodology or feelings that changed a cave to a rift or a rift to a cave?

It is evidence.
What is wrong with going with the best available information based off of the latest evidence?
It's been 39 years since I have been in 6th grade. A LOT of what was the best information at that time has changed since then in many ways.
Are you more knowledgeable now than you were in 6th grade?

 

[hummerpoo]

It is evidence.
What is wrong with going with the best available information based off of the latest evidence?
It's been 39 years since I have been in 6th grade. A LOT of what was the best information at that time has changed since then in many ways.
Are you more knowledgeable now than you were in 6th grade?

What are you talking about?
Have I forgotten how to write?
It's the same evidence REPORTED two ways.

 

[bullethead]

What are you talking about?
Have I forgotten how to write?
It's the same evidence REPORTED two ways.

Sounded to me like there was more evidence in the 2nd version and they dated it 3000 years older based off of that evidence.

But had you bothered to check either source, you would know that they were both incorrect as to when man first used fire. Maybe the fire that was in the cave or rift was 10,000 years old or 13,000 years old but neither is anywhere near the age of how long ago man has used fire. Modern man has been using fire for at least 200,000 years. Neanderthals longer.

 

[hummerpoo]

Sounded to me like there was more evidence in the 2nd version and they dated it 3000 years older based off of that evidence.

But had you bothered to check either source, you would know that they were both incorrect as to when man first used fire. Maybe the fire that was in the cave or rift was 10,000 years old or 13,000 years old but neither is anywhere near the age of how long ago man has used fire. Modern man has been using fire for at least 200,000 years. Neanderthals longer.

As you are well aware, we have not been, and are not now discussing the use of fire by mankind.

You have a good day.

 

[bullethead]

As you are well aware, we have not been, and are not now discussing the use of fire by mankind.

You have a good day.

Yeah...you use two incredibly bad sources as examples to make a point and then wonder why the information contained within those sources is wrong....and blame it on feelings..
Instead of admitting how awful your choice of examples are...you bow out when presented with new information that refutes your examples.
All I see are hurt feelings.

Now you don't want to talk about the example YOU chose to use because it opens a whole new can worms that will show man has been around a lot longer than many religious people will admit to.

https://www.ibtimes.com/when-did-ma...humans-used-fire-350000-years-ago-new-1758607
And ^^^ above is findings from a cave in Israel!!

 

[hummerpoo]

Rift could be a crack caused by plates moving. New evidence, new conclusion.
There are pretty clear definitions of caves and rifts.

Hypothesis: 3 can equal 0
Premise 1: Sentence 1 is irrelevant — 0 contribution
Premise 2: Sentence 2 is circumstantial — 0 contribution
Premise 3: Sentence 3 is uncontested — 0 contribution
_____________________________________________
Conclusion: The phenomena exhibited supports the hypothesis.

 

[Israel]

Bullet, isn't the point of the inserted podcast: that the methodologies which germinated 2500+ yrs. ago, and have been fed, watered, propagated, tested, tweaked, polished by thousands of investigators, are worthless in the face of feelings?

There being no reason, that I can think of, to believe that has changed, is why I was looking at Plato and others. From what I have seen so far, and it is very early, the conclusion may well be that the development of various "schools of thought" (owing to feelings building upon similar feelings ad infinitum) may well be "same old thing"; which is, of course, my feeling.

Hey, maybe that explains the link popping up when I wasn't looking for it. AI has developed far beyond our understanding; it already has the capacity for "revelation".

"Before they call I shall answer"

 

[hummerpoo]

Yeah...you use two incredibly bad sources as examples to make a point and then wonder why the information contained within those sources is wrong....and blame it on feelings..
Instead of admitting how awful your choice of examples are...you bow out when presented with new information that refutes your examples.
All I see are hurt feelings.

Now you don't want to talk about the example YOU chose to use because it opens a whole new can worms that will show man has been around a lot longer than many religious people will admit to.

https://www.ibtimes.com/when-did-ma...humans-used-fire-350000-years-ago-new-1758607
And ^^^ above is findings from a cave in Israel!!

What relevance does your information have to my personal experience 20 and 60 years ago? None. The "is it beneficial?" test has been failed.