Summary

TLDR This video explores the concept of scientific knowledge in the context of modern collaborative research. It discusses how the scientific method is often oversimplified and highlights the increasing necessity of teamwork in science, as evidenced by the rise in co-authorship and massive projects like the Human Genome Project. The video challenges the traditional view of knowledge as an individual’s possession, arguing that in many fields, knowledge is now a collective endeavor. It introduces the idea that scientific knowledge can be collective, produced by groups due to practical and cognitive necessities, and functions similarly to individual knowledge in society. The video concludes by suggesting that the notion of the solitary scientific genius is outdated, emphasizing the importance of group efforts in advancing scientific understanding.

Takeaways

• 🔬 The scientific method is an ongoing process involving observation, questioning, hypothesis formulation, prediction, data gathering, and theory development.
• 🤔 The structure of scientific knowledge has evolved to be massively collaborative, affecting how we perceive individual contributions to knowledge.
• 📈 There’s a significant increase in co-authorship in scientific publications, indicating a shift towards collaborative research efforts.
• 🧬 Examples like the Human Genome Project illustrate the necessity of teamwork in scientific research due to the complexity and scale of modern scientific problems.
• 🧠 The concept of ‘knowledge’ in science is being redefined, with a focus on collective knowledge rather than individual knowledge, especially in large-scale collaborative projects.
• 📚 The traditional definition of knowledge as ‘warranted true belief’ is being challenged by the collaborative nature of scientific research.
• 🔍 Scientific knowledge is considered ‘high-grade’ knowledge due to the demanding epistemic standards it meets, even though it’s not always certain.
• 🤝 The reliability of scientific knowledge is now seen as a collective effort, where individual scientists contribute to a larger body of knowledge that they may not fully grasp.
• 🌐 The functional roles of knowledge, such as informing decisions and supporting actions, are fulfilled by collective scientific knowledge in a similar way to how individual knowledge functions for a person.
• 🚀 The idea of the solitary scientific genius is outdated; contemporary science is primarily a collaborative effort, leading to the development of collective knowledge.

Q & A

• What is the main focus of the discussion in the provided transcript?-The main focus is on the concept of scientific knowledge, particularly how it is formed and the role of collaboration in contemporary scientific research.
• How does the scientific method process typically work as described in the transcript?-The scientific method process involves making observations, formulating questions, creating hypotheses, developing testable predictions, gathering data, and refining or rejecting hypotheses, leading to the development of a general theory.
• What does the article by Joran der Ritter discuss regarding scientific knowledge?-The article discusses that scientific knowledge is often collaborative and that the structure of knowledge has changed due to massive collaboration, potentially meaning that individuals no longer hold knowledge alone.
• How has the trend of co-authorship in scientific articles changed from 1996 to 2015 according to the transcript?-The average number of authors per article increased from 3.2 to 4.4, and the percentage of single-author articles decreased to 12%.
• What is an example of a scientific paper with an unusually high number of authors mentioned in the transcript?-A physics paper from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN had a total of 5,154 authors.
• Why is collaboration often necessary in scientific research according to the transcript?–Collaboration is necessary due to the complexity and breadth of knowledge required, which often exceeds the capabilities of a single individual.
• What is the classical idea of knowledge as mentioned in the transcript?–The classical idea of knowledge is that it is a warranted true belief, meaning it is not just true by luck but is reliably produced based on good grounds.
• What is the term used to describe the highest grade of knowledge in the transcript?–The term used is ‘highgrade knowledge,’ which refers to knowledge that satisfies demanding epistemic standards.
• How does the transcript suggest that scientific knowledge is justified?–Scientific knowledge is justified through solid evidence, explicit reasons, data, observations, analysis, and inferences.
• What is the conclusion about the role of individual scientists in contemporary science as per the transcript?–The conclusion is that the myth of the lone genius has to be dismissed, as scientific knowledge is primarily developed and processed by groups rather than individuals.
• What are the three senses in which scientific knowledge can be considered collective according to the transcript?–The three senses are: 1) Collectively produced knowledge, 2) Knowledge warranted by collectives, and 3) Knowledge that functions for society in the same way as individual knowledge functions for individuals.

Mindmap

Supporting Actions and AssertionsInforming Practical and Theoretical DecisionsInterdisciplinary ResearchHigh-grade WarrantPractical NecessityCognitive NecessityCERN’s Large Hadron Collider PaperNumber of Papers with Over 100 AuthorsMulti-author Publications as DefaultSingle Author Articles DecreaseAverage Number of Authors (1996-2015)Social SciencesSTEM DisciplinesRole in Democratic SocietiesImplications for Individual ResponsibilityGroups as Primary AgentsOutdated Concept in Modern ScienceFunctional Roles in SocietyWarranted by CollectivesProduced by GroupsReliability vs. CertaintyHigh-grade KnowledgeWarranted True BeliefClassical Idea of KnowledgeStatistical Knowledge and Practical ApplicationExample: Development of New DrugsComplexity of Modern ScienceLarge-scale CollaborationsIncrease in Co-authorshipCollaborative NatureTheory DevelopmentHypothesis Refinement or RejectionData GatheringTestable PredictionsHypothesis DevelopmentQuestion FormulationObservationThe Myth of the Lone GeniusCollective KnowledgeKnowledge WarrantNecessity of CollaborationContemporary Scientific ResearchScientific MethodScientific Knowledge and Collaboration

Keywords

💡Scientific Method

The scientific method refers to a systematic approach to understanding the natural world through observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, and theory development. In the video, the scientific method is initially presented as a linear process but is later critiqued for oversimplifying the complex, collaborative nature of modern scientific research.

💡Collaborative Research

Collaborative research is the process of multiple scientists or teams working together to conduct scientific investigations. The video emphasizes that contemporary scientific research, particularly in STEM fields and social sciences, is massively collaborative, which changes the structure of knowledge production and challenges the traditional view of individual scientific genius.

💡Co-authorship

Co-authorship is the practice of multiple authors contributing to and being credited for a research paper. The video cites an increase in the average number of authors per paper from 3.2 to 4.4 between 1996 and 2015, indicating a significant trend towards collaboration in scientific publishing.

💡Knowledge

In the context of the video, knowledge is discussed as a complex concept, especially in the realm of scientific research. It questions whether knowledge is still something that individuals possess in the era of massive collaboration, suggesting a shift towards collective knowledge in science.

💡Warranted True Belief

Warranted true belief is a concept in epistemology that suggests knowledge is a belief that is not only true but also supported by good reasons or evidence. The video uses this concept to discuss the reliability and justification of scientific knowledge, contrasting it with mere true beliefs that lack such support.

💡High-grade Knowledge

High-grade knowledge is described in the video as knowledge that meets demanding epistemic standards. It is used to characterize scientific knowledge as being more reliable and rigorously supported by evidence compared to other forms of knowledge or belief.

💡Collective Knowledge

Collective knowledge is a central theme of the video, referring to knowledge that is produced, warranted, and functions within a group or community. It challenges the traditional view of knowledge as an individual’s mental state, suggesting that in science, knowledge is often a collective achievement.

💡Cognitive Necessity

Cognitive necessity is mentioned in relation to the practical and intellectual demands that require collaboration for scientific research. The video argues that the complexity of modern scientific problems often exceeds individual cognitive capacities, necessitating collective efforts.

💡Interdisciplinary Research

Interdisciplinary research is research that involves multiple fields of study. The video gives an example of political scientists and computer scientists working together to predict election outcomes, illustrating how different areas of expertise contribute to a collective understanding.

💡Testimonial Knowledge

Testimonial knowledge is the knowledge gained from trusting the testimony of others. The video contrasts this with the high-grade scientific knowledge that is produced and understood within a collective, suggesting that individuals outside the scientific community may only gain a superficial understanding of scientific findings.

💡Functional Roles of Knowledge

The functional roles of knowledge refer to the various purposes and applications that knowledge serves. In the video, it is argued that scientific knowledge, like individual knowledge, has functional roles such as guiding actions, informing decisions, and supporting further inquiry, but on a collective level.

Highlights

Scientific knowledge is increasingly collaborative, challenging the traditional view of individual discovery.

The number of authors per scientific paper has risen significantly from 1996 to 2015.

In 2011, over 6,000 scientific papers had more than 100 authors, indicating massive collaboration.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN published a paper with an unprecedented 5,154 authors.

Collaboration is necessary for complex scientific tasks that require diverse expertise.

The concept of ‘knowledge’ is redefined in the context of collaborative science.

The classical definition of knowledge as ‘warranted true belief’ is examined in the context of collaborative research.

High-grade knowledge in science is characterized by demanding epistemic standards.

It’s estimated that half of the current scientific knowledge may not be true, raising questions about reliability.

Multi-author publications have become the default, reflecting a shift in how scientific knowledge is produced.

The Human Genome Project exemplifies the practical and cognitive necessity of teamwork in science.

Collective knowledge in science is produced, warranted, and has functional roles, similar to individual knowledge.

The myth of the lone genius in science is challenged, as scientific knowledge is primarily developed by groups.

The transition to collective scientific knowledge has implications for individual responsibility and societal decision-making.

The article by Joran der Ritter provides a comprehensive view on the evolution of scientific knowledge in a collaborative context.

Transcripts

Here’s the structured content in a clear and easy-to-read table format:

Point	Description
The Liar’s Paradox of Ethics	Kant’s exploration reveals that lying threatens the foundation of an ethical society, implying that the famous minority in the basement cannot be protected. Many philosophers dismiss Kant’s system based on this example without fully considering its systematic implications.
Complexity of Moral Actions	Actions may defy simple categorization as morally good or evil. Some actions might be both good and evil, similar to paraconsistencies in dialetheism.
Moral Decision-Making	The idea that individuals should act according to their conscience in difficult situations can seem too easy. If the moral system only applies to simple cases, it undermines its purpose. Instead, contradictions in the system need further qualification.
Moral Responsibility	Should someone who saves more lives be absolved of consequences? For example, a fighter pilot who shoots down a plane to save a stadium versus a doctor who kills people in drug research. Ethics remains complex and requires careful consideration of these dilemmas.
Kant’s Discovery	Kant highlights the dilemma of the “beautiful soul” who aims for moral purity but faces difficulties. True ethical judgment involves recognizing complexity and uncertainty, and requires a collective effort towards a society of trust rather than deception.

Feel free to ask more questions or request further clarifications!

The liar’s paradox of Ethics…

Kant discovered interestingly enough that lying threatens the very foundation of an ethical society, therefore the famous minority in the basement cannot be protected. Many philosophers have taken this example as an immediate strike against the Kantian system without taking the systematic position and implications of the example into account, dismissing the whole Kantian system.

We can say that there are actions that are neither morally good or evil, while they are still relevant moral actions, we could also say they are both morally good and evil, similar to the paraconsistencies of dialetheism.

Now, is this a ‘prison free card’ then to do everything someone wants? Many philosophers have argued afterall that when comes hard on hard, people should decide according to their consciousness falling back into a certain kind of moral realism of feelings. But this seems to be too easy that whenever something becomes difficult, we just give up the system. If the moral system is just for the easy cases then what do we need the system for? Instead contradiction belongs to the system and requires further qualification.

Now, should somebody who saves the greater amount of people automatically be freed from the consequences of his actions. A fighter pilot shoots down a captured plane that threatens to fly into a stadium, seems to more intuitive than a doctor killing 70 people by researching for a new drug that could save millions. We should not make it easy for ourselves to just believe that there are commons sense answers to the first. Ethics remains a complicated field by dealing with these moral dilemmas and developing them.

Now, what has Kant discovered then? He has discovered the dilemma of the beautiful soul that in its process of action, exposes itself to become easy. This is when the heart of the hard judge has to break and acknowledge that we all share the same dilemma and hope that in a series of judges we can correct past mistakes and get closer to a society that has given up on lying; indeed, a society of trust.

The Ethics paradox, commonly known as the liar’s paradox, poses a significant challenge. Kant’s exploration into the implications of lying reveals a fundamental threat to the ethical fabric of society, leaving no room for exceptions, even for the minority in the basement. However, many philosophers hastily dismiss Kant’s system based solely on this example without fully considering its systematic position and implications.

Furthermore, there exist actions that defy simple categorization as either morally good or evil, akin to the paraconsistencies of dialetheism. This complexity raises questions about whether individuals can act according to their conscience in morally ambiguous situations, leading some to argue for a moral realism rooted in emotions. However, surrendering the moral system when faced with difficulty undermines its purpose; instead, contradictions within the system demand further examination and qualification.

Considerations of moral responsibility add further complexity. Should someone who saves more people be absolved of the consequences of their actions? The intuitive response may favor the fighter pilot who shoots down a captured plane to save a stadium, but what about a doctor who sacrifices lives in pursuit of a potentially life-saving drug? These moral dilemmas underscore the intricate nature of ethical decision-making and its ongoing development.

In essence, Kant’s discovery highlights the dilemma faced by the “beautiful soul” striving for moral purity. It necessitates a recognition that ethical judgment is often fraught with complexity and uncertainty. Ultimately, addressing these dilemmas requires collective effort and a commitment to building a society founded on trust rather than deception.

English	Chinese	Pinyin
Tools LingQ – 5000 Words as of August 2nd (How much can I increase it in one month?) – A few years later, I reached about 7000 words, but my communicative skills didn’t improve. Bilibili – Still watching too little; needs improvement. – Task: Build a collection of Chinese videos.	工具 (Gōngjù) LingQ – 截至8月2日有5000个词汇（一个月内能增加多少？） – 几年后，我达到了大约7000个词汇，但我的交流能力没有提高。 Bilibili – 仍然看得太少，需要改进。 – 任务：建立中文视频收藏。	Gōngjù LingQ – Jiézhì 8 yuè 2 rì yǒu 5000 gè cíhuì (yīgè yuè nèi néng zēngjiā duōshǎo?) – Jǐ nián hòu, wǒ dádàole dàyuē 7000 gè cíhuì, dàn wǒ de jiāoliú nénglì méiyǒu tígāo. Bilibili – Réngrán kàn dé tài shǎo, xūyào gǎijìn. – Rènwù: Jiànlì zhōngwén shìpín shōucáng.

Learning Chinese (Self-Immersive) – Experience: My current approach isn’t working due to inconsistency. – Plan: Improve consistency and engagement. – Goal: Make significant progress soon.

学习中文（自我沉浸） (Xuéxí Zhōngwén (Zìwǒ Chénjìn)) – 经验：由于不一致，我目前的方法不起作用。 – 计划：提高一致性和参与度。 – 目标：尽快取得显著进展。

Xuéxí Zhōngwén (Zìwǒ Chénjìn) – Jīngyàn: Yóuyú bù yīzhì, wǒ mùqián de fāngfǎ bù qǐ zuòyòng. – Jìhuà: Tígāo yīzhìxìng hé cānyù dù. – Mùbiāo: Jǐnkuài qǔdé xiǎnzhù jìnzhǎn.

Here is the table for “Motivation 动机 (Dòngjī)”:

English	Chinese	Pinyin
Motivation (Dòngjī) – I severely lack motivation. – I need to ask some people to join. – I need to make videos. – Today I will make a video about El Cactus and ask people to help me.	动机 (Dòngjī) – 严重缺乏动力。 – 我需要请一些人加入。 – 我需要制作视频。 – 今天我将制作一个关于 El Cactus 的视频，并请人们帮助我。	Dòngjī – Yánzhòng quēfá dònglì. – Wǒ xūyào qǐng yīxiē rén jiārù. – Wǒ xūyào zhìzuò shìpín. – Jīntiān wǒ jiāng zhìzuò yīgè guānyú El Cactus de shìpín, bìng qǐng rénmen bāngzhù wǒ.

Section	Chinese	Pinyin	English
My self-immersion approach 自我沉浸 (Zìwǒ chénjìn)
Experience	到目前为止，我的方法不起作用，因为我不一致。希望它会很快好起来。	Dào mùqián wéizhǐ, wǒ de fāngfǎ bù qǐ zuòyòng, yīnwèi wǒ bùyīzhì. Xīwàng tā huì hěn kuài hǎo qǐlái.	So far my approach does not work because I am not consistent. Hopefully, it will get better soon.
New Approach 2024, August
List	我会写下我学到的内容的问题，并使用 ChatGPT	Wǒ huì xiě xià wǒ xuédào de nèiróng de wèntí, bìng shǐyòng ChatGPT	I will write down questions about what I learned and use ChatGPT.
Audience	听众	Tīngzhòng	Audience
Question	在中国，面子文化有多重要？	Zài Zhōngguó, miànzi wénhuà yǒu duō zhòngyào?	How important is face culture in China?
“死要面子受罪”	死要面子受罪	Sǐ yào miànzi shòuzuì	“Suffering due to stubbornly preserving one’s dignity” or “Suffering from keeping up appearances.”
Explanation	死 (sǐ): Literal meaning “death,” but emphasizes stubbornness or extreme persistence. 要面子 (yào miànzi): Refers to insisting on maintaining “face” or dignity, often to the point of pride. 受罪 (shòuzuì): Means “to suffer” or “to endure hardship.”	sǐ: Literal meaning “death,” but emphasizes stubbornness or extreme persistence. yào miànzi: Refers to insisting on maintaining “face” or dignity, often to the point of pride. shòuzuì: Means “to suffer” or “to endure hardship.”	sǐ: Literal meaning “death,” but emphasizes stubbornness or extreme persistence. yào miànzi: Refers to insisting on maintaining “face” or dignity, often to the point of pride. shòuzuì: Means “to suffer” or “to endure hardship.”

English	Chinese	Pinyin
Person A: Do you know how important “face” is in Chinese culture?	Person A: 你知道“面子”在中国文化里有多重要吗？	Person A: Nǐ zhīdào “miànzi” zài Zhōngguó wénhuà lǐ yǒu duō zhòngyào ma?
Person B: I’ve heard about it, but I’m not very familiar.	Person B: 听说过，但不太了解。	Person B: Tīng shuōguò, dàn bù tài liǎojiě.
Person A: “Face” refers to a person’s social reputation and dignity.	Person A: “面子”指的是一个人的社会声誉和尊严。	Person A: “Miànzi” zhǐ de shì yīge rén de shèhuì shēngyù hé zūnyán.
Person B: So what does “丢面子” mean?	Person B: 那“丢面子”是什么意思呢？	Person B: Nà “diū miànzi” shì shénme yìsi ne?
Person A: “丢面子” means “losing face,” which implies losing others’ respect.	Person A: “丢面子”就是“失去面子”，意味着失去别人的尊重。	Person A: “Diū miànzi” jiùshì “shīqù miànzi,” yìwèizhe shīqù biérén de zūnzhòng.
Person B: I see, so how can one avoid “losing face”?	Person B: 原来如此，那怎样才能避免“丢面子”呢？	Person B: Yuánlái rúcǐ, nà zěnyàng cáinéng bìmiǎn “diū miànzi” ne?
Person A: You need to respect others and be cautious with your words and actions to avoid “losing face.”	Person A: 要尊重别人，说话和做事要谨慎，这样可以避免“丢面子”。	Person A: Yào zūnzhòng biérén, shuōhuà hé zuòshì yào jǐnshèn, zhèyàng kěyǐ bìmiǎn “diū miànzi.”
Person B: And what does “给面子” mean?	Person B: 那“给面子”又是什么呢？	Person B: Nà “gěi miànzi” yòu shì shénme ne?
Person A: “给面子” means giving respect to others and maintaining their reputation.	Person A: “给面子”是指给别人尊重，维护他们的声誉。	Person A: “Gěi miànzi” shì zhǐ gěi biérén zūnzhòng, wéihù tāmen de shēngyù.
Person B: Is “face” also important in business?	Person B: 在生意中，“面子”也很重要吗？	Person B: Zài shēngyì zhōng, “miànzi” yě hěn zhòngyào ma?
Person A: Yes, in China, business often relies on mutual respect and maintaining “face.”	Person A: 是的，在中国，生意往往依赖于互相尊重和维护“面子”。	Person A: Shì de, zài Zhōngguó, shēngyì wǎngwǎng yīlài yú hùxiāng zūnzhòng hé wéihù “miànzi.”
Person B: I understand now; “face” is indeed crucial in Chinese culture.	Person B: 我明白了，在中国文化中，“面子”确实很关键。	Person B: Wǒ míngbáile, zài Zhōngguó wénhuà zhōng, “miànzi” quèshí hěn guānjiàn.
Person A: Do you know what pancreatitis is?	Person A: 你知道什么是胰腺炎吗？	Person A: Nǐ zhīdào shénme shì yíxiàn yán ma?
Person B: I’ve heard about it, but I’m not very familiar.	Person B: 我听说过，但不太了解。	Person B: Wǒ tīng shuōguò, dàn bù tài liǎojiě.
Person A: Pancreatitis is inflammation of the pancreas, which can be caused by high levels of triglycerides.	Person A: 胰腺炎是胰腺发炎，可能由高水平的甘油三酯引起。	Person A: Yíxiàn yán shì yíxiàn fāyán, kěnéng yóu gāo shuǐpíng de gānyóu sāngzhī yǐnqǐ.
Person B: What are triglycerides?	Person B: 那什么是甘油三酯呢？	Person B: Nà shénme shì gānyóu sāngzhī ne?
Person A: Triglycerides are a type of fat, and the pancreas breaks them down by secreting lipase.	Person A: 甘油三酯是脂肪的一种，胰腺通过分泌脂肪酶来分解它们。	Person A: Gānyóu sāngzhī shì zhīfáng de yīzhǒng, yíxiàn tōngguò fēnmì zhīfáng méi lái fēnjiě tāmen.
Person B: Is lipase used to break down fats?	Person B: 脂肪酶是用来分解脂肪的吗？	Person B: Zhīfáng méi shì yòng lái fēnjiě zhīfáng de ma?
Person A: Yes, and protease is used to break down proteins.	Person A: 是的，还有蛋白酶用来分解蛋白质。	Person A: Shì de, hái yǒu dànbái méi yòng lái fēnjiě dànbáizhì.
Person B: What symptoms occur if the pancreas doesn’t function well?	Person B: 如果胰腺功能不好，会有什么症状？	Person B: Rúguǒ yíxiàn gōngnéng bù hǎo, huì yǒu shénme zhèngzhuàng?
Person A: You might experience steatorrhea, also known as “fat stool,” and diarrhea.	Person A: 会出现脂肪泻，也就是“脂肪便”，以及腹泻。	Person A: Huì chūxiàn zhīfáng xiè, yě jiùshì “zhīfáng biàn,” yǐjí fùxiè.
Person B: How can we determine if it’s a pancreatic issue?	Person B: 那怎么确定是胰腺的问题呢？	Person B: Nà zěnme quèdìng shì yíxiàn de wèntí ne?
Person A: A blood test can be done to check glucose levels and markers for the pancreas.	Person A: 可以通过血液测试来检测葡萄糖水平和胰腺的标志物。	Person A: Kěyǐ tōngguò xuèyè cèshì lái jiǎncè pútáotáng shuǐpíng hé yíxiàn de biāozhì wù.

She cites Nietzsche:

• Conscience is a force found now employed by state organizers.
• Humans become the material on which this force acts.
• This self-imposed suffering can lead to strange new forms of beauty and affirmation.

One should guard against thinking lightly of [the bad conscience] merely on account of its initial painfulness and ugliness. For fundamentally it is the same active force that is at work on a grander scale in those artists of violence and organizers who build states . . . only here the material upon which the form-giving and ravishing nature of this force vents itself is man himself, his whole ancient animal self . . . This secret self-ravishment, this artists’ cruelty, this delight in imposing a form upon oneself as a hard, recalcitrant, suffering material and of burning in a will… as the womb of all ideal and imaginative phenomena, also brought to light an abundance of strange new beauty and affirmation. – Nietzsche

Nietzsche according to Korsgaard 1996, 1

Some Quotes:

“It is the most striking fact about human life that we have values” (Korsgaard 1996, 1).

“Human life is defined by our values, urging us to imagine a better world and ourselves within it. Yet, where do these ideals come from? They surpass our experiences, compelling us to strive for improvement. It’s intriguing that we’re drawn to visions of a different reality, urging us to make it a reality” (see Korsgaard 1996, 1).

“In “Phaedo,” the author questions why we perceive two sticks as “not exactly equal.” Instead of merely observing them side by side, we attribute to them an intention to achieve a higher pattern of equality. This implies that the concept of equality exists within our minds as a pattern or form, echoing Plato’s theory of Forms” (Korsgaard 1996, 2):

“We see them as if they had in mind a pattern that they were trying to emulate, a pattern of equality that was calling out to them and saying ‘be like me!’ […] we must have known them in another world” (Korsgaard 1996, 2)

A Revolution as: ” Plato and Aristotle came to believe that value was more real than
experienced fact, indeed that the real world is, in a way, value itself” (Korsgaard 1996, 2)

My friend took a pause from doing nothing. Why is it so difficult to get people on board to do something together?

“What are double standards? Is engaging in public debate worthwhile, or should we cultivate discussion environments that encourage alignment with truth? What exactly constitutes truth? Is it motivated by the desire to be right? How can societal norms and truth come into harmony? Can relying solely on coherent rationality provide us with an understanding of what is morally good?”

She got a piece from the humble-pie

Formal Part, an analysis of Baghramian, passage where she talks about the unconnected history of analytic philosphy and how it is providing a semantic notion of relativism.

Abstract: We live in

As humans, we have the reflective capabilities to distance ourselves from the community views. As I would like to express it, we can adopt a stance of being open for truth that has not arrived yet and may not arrive. In other words, we live in the possibility of truth. I regard this as a relativist stance and which I would also attribute to Hegel.

Practices are not necessarily arranged with regard to how things really are, but according to how we take things to be in an experiential, historical process.

It is important to remark that in this process nobody denies that reality has somewhat an influence on us. The difficulty lies in the question to explain what reality exactly is and how to qualify they extent it has on us.

Putnam’s Ideas

The idea that we are brains in a vat is an extreme thought scenario.

Relativism of Belief

Philosophy on its destructive side aims at destroying all our beliefs. A task for which many are not ready.

The theist believes in a God or Gods, the atheist believes that there is no God. The agnostic often believes that the answer is unknown and possibly unknowable. However, there may be a fourth possibility: it may be knowable but not yet known.

A relativist position works differently: instead of dismissing the question as unknowable and therefore unimportant, it can accept that the question itself is important and probably speaks to the deepest nature of us. The religious form of a human being is its openness for the question so that if he encounters truth one day he can accept it.

Problems–a further problem I have with relativism

If another person believes that embryos have already souls and I respect this as an individual position that is true according to their framework but at the same time I also support the person who champions abortions at all times and everywhere, I am not doing justice to the moral feelings of the first person

Baghramian does not say anything about the possibility of truth

We can neither say that embryos have a soul, nor that they do not. The intuition is that we should consider the possibility that would have the largest effect if it is true compared to the effect it has when it is not true.

A large part of the debate has focused on abortion rights, but little is said about the question of how to avoid unwanted pregnancy.

“Of what use is a philosopher who doesn’t hurt anybody’s feelings?” ― Diogenes of Sinope

“I do not ask the wounded person how he feels, I myself become the wounded person.” ― Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

“Starcraft involves Soulcraft” ― Michael Sandel