/fringe/ - Fringe

>>10977
thanks! now believers have visual aid
could you draw me a partition scheme as well?

>>10978
>partition scheme

What the fuck even is that?

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=partition+scheme&t=ffsb

>>10975
We question everything here all the time, dogmas included.

Your point?

>>10984
seems like translating jargon into english won't make it english jargon. too bad.

>>10990
can you tell me why you question things?
also congratulations, you are the first to
>Guess which side you are on!
which is also mostly the point of the thread, if it has any.

>>10994
>can you tell me why you question things?
Because caring enough for discovering the truth makes everything questionable.

>Guess which side you are on!
I don't understand. How are "sides" related to anything whatsoever here?

>>10996
>Because caring enough for discovering the truth makes everything questionable.
And so I questioned questioning
>How are "sides" related to anything whatsoever here?
Read the OP post!

>>11001
This thread feels and looks like bait. There are no 'sides' in /fringe/.

It'll soon be closed and trashed for not being /fringe/ related or have anything of use to contribute.
There's a shitposting thread for trolling here: >>4514

OP's first paragraph is espousing epistemological nihilism. But if this was was really OP's position he would himself have no basis to assert anything, including the color of bananas or which side of anything /fringe/ is on.

As usual this is just bait or fedora-tier sophistry.

Unlocked because this thread is an interesting philosophy thread and philosophy is /fringe/ related.

Also,

>no sides in /fringe/

wat. There are sides; we just control them all.

Realism theory

Realism theory is the belief that many or most cognitive biases are not "errors", but instead logical and practical reasoning methods of dealing with the "real world". Inherent in it is the assumption that subjects include far more information than cognitive experimenters want them to in their thought processes.

The practical information people use in their reasoning process includes (but is not limited to):

• memories of things said by other people
• people lie
• people make errors
• things change, and that more time results in more changes.

For example, when a research scientist offers an experimental subject $50 today or $100 a year from now, the subject is not just making a decision between $50 now and $100 in one year, but is instead also considering the possibility that the researcher will die, go broke, change his mind, or may simply be lying. They will also remember an article they read on the internet about how people use money to bait cons, without remembering the specifics of the article. As such, it could be reasonable to consider the offer of $50 today as more valuable than the offer of $100 a year from now.

It can also explain things, such as the pseudocertainty effect. When making use of the pseudocertainty effect, how you frame a question determines the answer. But if you consider that human minds are actually considering how something is framed as valid evidence, then it ceases to be a bias and instead becomes a practical method of selecting the correct answer, assuming no deception. This practical reasoning works by treating the question framer's clear bias as valid input. Of course, if the question asker is intentionally attempting to trick or deceive the subject, and the subject is not aware of this, it will cause problems. But that is a result of intentional deception, not a cognitive bias.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_theory

>>10996
>caring about le truth

I am not sure one can truly care for the truth or not until one has discovered it. How can we value a truth unknown?

I personally care about my own ascent, my mastery over self and reality, not falling back into ignorance… but le truth; who knows if one truly desireth it? At best it's a means to an end.

>>11005
How is it fedora when OP's post explains why fedoras are so full of shit and that they actually operate on faith?

>>11016
You are caring about your own le truths, just like we all, muhfugguh.

Also..
Since when philosophy is /fringe/ related?

>>11018
Perhaps I was too quick to judge; I suspect that English is not OP's first language. In any case the combination of philosophical confusion, presenting faith as a bad thing, and trying to tell me what I believe or how I think, set off my fedora alarm.

>>11002
I was kind of prepared for the thread being considered bait, but what can an OP do these days?
>There are no 'sides' in /fringe/
Oh but I never said that the sides are in /fringe/. They are 'sides' in the model I posted originally. I should say partitions of the set you guys are.

>>11005
>OP's first paragraph is espousing epistemological nihilism.
Hit the nail right on the head. However, I have to disagree with the rest of your post. Just like any sort of meditation or spiritual stuff, not knowing everything all the time needs a mood or focus, and when I don't have either I find myself relying on things I wouldn't otherwise do.

>>11013
uh, thanks?

>>11016
Good point about truth's value. I always find it funny most groups/individuals seek greatness, truth, wisdom, power, freedom, and that kind of stuff while mostly no one tries to achiever the opposites of those. They seem to be values/preferences inherited from culture that are taken for granted.

>>11018
>>11031
I personally feel that the atheist/fedora people just represent another religion, with science, logic, reason and proofs being their commandments, dogmas and gods. They have that basis just like any other group and when it comes to verifying this basis, they verify it with science, logic, reason and proofs.
Others do this too, but it is harder to point out in case of fedoras.

>presenting faith as a bad thing
I don't even know anymore. It's like giving up precision to be able to actually start somewhere

>>11025
The sticky said so

>>11025
>Since when philosophy is /fringe/ related?

…since the very beginning.

>>11031
I interpreted him as saying faith is a necessity and a good thing.

>>11048
>Good point about truth's value. I always find it funny most groups/individuals seek greatness, truth, wisdom, power, freedom, and that kind of stuff while mostly no one tries to achiever the opposites of those. They seem to be values/preferences inherited from culture that are taken for granted.

I just hate going to so many different sites where the people there proclaim they care about and defend the truth and yet state at the same time they are seeking out the truth and there's usually some rant about the value of the truth and how great it is and blah blah blah.

It's like… no… your assumptions that "the truth is good" and whatever are unfounded.

Sometimes I also see the opposite, people saying the truth is horrible, yet contradicting themselves by saying they're still seeking it out.

…and the way they talk about "The Truth" generally doesn't make sense just like how many people talk about "Freedom" without stating what they want to be free from or what they mean by it. Freedom to what? To ignore virtues and be a degenerate? To not have foreigners occupying your nation? To avoid dissenting viewpoints? To not pay taxes to ???? There's a lot of different "freedoms" that could be talked about and each one means very different things. A person who just says "we're free" or "we value freedom" and leaves it at that doesn't even know what they're talking about.

My point wasn't about cultures or doing the "opposite" or it being "subjective". My point was that there's too many people saying they care about the truth who also say they are searching for it.

>>11048
Fedoras usually don't use the stuff they pretend to love to verify anything. Most fedoras "take their word for it" (their referring to the various pop scientists they like) and don't and can't do the experiments themselves. Most of their stance is also just a matter of consensus and what is the most popular dogmas of the day which they will defend blindly. There standards and quandaries regarding proof are also absurd, they will accept some things blindly because it's being said by an authority figure, and raise the standards absurdly high if it's something they don't want to believe in. They also apply scepticism very selectively; I've gone on many fedora/scepdick binges and read everything they presented to me as well as seeked out a lot of material on my own and there's shit like… a sceptic site that believes the holocaust blindly and exercises no scepticism whatsoever regarding the story. They apply scepticism to anything fringe and blindly believe anything mainstream, so don't expect them to question modern medicine, psychiatry, the official narrative concerning history, etc.

Some "sceptics" they are.

Fedoras are more filled with certainty than I am.

>>11146
I see how my answer may have seemed irrelevant, and maybe it is to some extent.
As you said, certain words have many different meanings for different people, not to mention that one person's understanding or way of using a word may also differ depending on the situation, their age, mood, etc.
That could even explain many of those people who claim to defend the truth while still seeking it. Maybe they just have a weird meaning associated with "truth". I doubt that's the case though.

Not to mention how a lot of words are used in rhetoric and advertisement as buzzwords to let people associate whatever meaning they want to it. Usually people seek good things, so the empty speech glued together with buzzwords will almost automatically become positive in their interpretations.

I am not well read on this topic, and perhaps reading would just give me a false sense of superior understanding (well, maybe I already have that).

>>11147
This also contributed a lot for me to think of them as another religion. Maybe that was not clear in my previous post, but I meant that
>science, logic, reason and proofs
are basically just symbols for them that makes anything blindly acceptable, just like authority figures. What you just said.

Still, I wonder if it is even possible for a person to get started with a topic if he has no authority figures to rely on. With the little or no knowledge of an absolute beginner it may be quite hard to evaluate or verify anything for himself, thus needs reliable sources of information that will likely say legit stuff.

I'm not sure. Still way too sure to look like an epistemological nihilist.