[HN Gopher] Conspiracy Theories and Religion: Reframing Conspira...
___________________________________________________________________
Conspiracy Theories and Religion: Reframing Conspiracy Theories as
Bliks
Author : mathematically
Score : 27 points
Date : 2021-10-18 19:57 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cambridge.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cambridge.org)
| nobody9999 wrote:
| https://doi.org/10.1017/epi.2019.46
| motohagiography wrote:
| Could only read the abstract, and looked up "blik." Bliks are
| like the underpinning assumptions for a frame of reference, or
| the begged questions of a given belief, maybe even the axioms of
| an ideology.
| mcguire wrote:
| Logical positivism and the idea that " _for a statement to hold
| meaning, it must be possible to verify its truthfulness
| empirically - with evidence from the senses,_ " is a category
| error that leads to a lot of weird rabbit holes, but at least
| this one is interesting. R.M. Hare:
|
| " _I must begin by confessing that, on the ground marked out by
| Flew, he seems to me to be completely victorious. I therefore
| shift my ground by relating another parable._
|
| " _< <A certain lunatic is convinced that all dons want to murder
| him. His friends introduce him to all the mildest and most
| respectable dons that they can find, and after each of them has
| retired, they say, 'You see, he doesn't really want to murder
| you; he spoke to you in a most cordial manner; surely you are
| convinced now?' But the lunatic replies, 'Yes, but that was only
| his diabolical cunning; he's really plotting against me the whole
| time, like the rest of them; I know it I tell you'. However many
| kindly dons are produced, the reaction is still the same.>>_
|
| " _Now we say that such a person is deluded. But what is he
| deluded about? About the truth or falsity of an assertion? Let us
| apply Flew 's test to him. There is no behavior of dons that can
| be enacted which he will accept as counting against his theory;
| and therefore his theory, on this test, asserts nothing. But it
| does not follow that there is no difference between what he
| thinks about dons and what most of us think about them-otherwise
| we should not call him a lunatic and ourselves sane, and dons
| would have no reason to feel uneasy about his presence in
| Oxford._
|
| " _Let us call that, in which we differ from this lunatic, our
| respective bliks . He has an insane blik about dons; we have a
| sane one. It is important to realize that we have a sane one, not
| no blik at all; for there must be two sides to any argument - if
| he has a wrong blik , then those who are right about dons must
| have a right one. Flew has shown that a blik does not consist in
| an assertion or system of them; but nevertheless it is very
| important to have the right blik._ "
|
| (https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_re...)
|
| And Flew's reply is easily as interesting:
| https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_re...
| recursivedoubts wrote:
| _" for a statement to hold meaning, it must be possible to
| verify its truthfulness empirically - with evidence from the
| senses,"_
|
| does the above statement hold meaning?
|
| (i know you get the joke, i just love the joke)
| bob229 wrote:
| What is the difference between 9/11 truthers and islam? Both are
| insane
| stuaxo wrote:
| I tend to think of them as decentralised religions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-18 23:00 UTC)