A riddle (maybe trivial for you, lesswrongsters, but I am still curious of your answers/guesses):
It is neither truth nor lie. What is it?
Yes, but it can happen that in the time course of our individual existence two "justified opinions" inconsistent with each other can occur in our minds. (And if they didn't, we would be doomed to believe all flawed opinions from our childhood without possibility to update them because of rejecting new inconsistent opinions, etc.)
And morover, we are born with some "priors" which are not completely true but relatively useful.
And there are some perceptual illusions.
And prof. Richard Dawkins claims that there are relatively very frequent hallucinations that could make us think that a miracle is happenning (if I understood him correctly). By relatively frequent I mean that probably any of the healthy people could experience a hallucination at least once in a lifetime (often without realizing it).
And of course, there are mental fallacies and biases.
And if the process is reliable, why different people do have different opinions and inconsistent "truths"?
Thus, I think that the process is relatively reliable but not totally reliable.
PS: I am relatively new here. So hopefully, my tone is not agressively persuasive. If any of you have a serious problem with my approach, please, criticize me.
Ok, I will put it a little bit straightforward.
My Christian friend claimed that atheists/rationalists/skeptics/evolutionists cannot trust even their own reason (beacuse it is the product of their imperfect brains in their opinion).
So I wanted to counterargue reasonably, and my statement above seems to me a relatively reasonable and relevant. And I don't know whether it would convince my Christian friend, but it is convincing at least me :) .
Thanks in advance for your opinions, etc.
Hello, lesswrongsters (if I can call you like this),
What do you think about the following statement: "You should be relatively skeptical about each of your past impressions, but you should be absolutely non-skeptical about your most current one at a given moment. Not because it was definitely true, but because there is practically no other option."
Please, give me your opinions, criticism, etc. about this.
I would like to ask you, whether there are some criteria (I am fine even with the subjective ones) according to which you, experienced rationalists, would accept/consider some metaethics despite the very bad humankind's experience with them.
I expect answers like: convincing; convincing after very careful attempt to find its flaws; logical; convincing after very careful attempt to find its flaws by 10 experienced rationalists; after careful questioning; useful; harmless; etc.
Hello, I would like to ask, whether you think that some ideas can be dangerous to discuss publicly despite you are honest with them and even despite you are doing your best attempt to be logical/rational and even despite you are wishing nothing bad to other people/beings and even despite you are open for its discussion in terms of being prepared for its rejection according to a justified reason.
In this stage, I will just tell you I would like to discuss a specific moral issue, which might be original, and therefore I am skeptical this way and I feel a little insecure about discussing it publicly.
Hello, I would like to ask a straightforward question: Is there a logically valid way to call evolution science and creationism a pseudo-science? I am not creationist, I just hope I will strengthen my evolutionistic opinion. And I would like to have it in a clear form. I must admit that because of my family member I visited a specific creationistic site. And there was the extraordinary claim that there is no such logically valid way and I would like to disprove this for me and my family member by stating at least one. And I want to stop visiting that site after disproving. Thanks for answer in advance.
Maybe the answer is that creationistic hypotheses don't make any falsifiable but confirmed predictions, but I am not sure.
And I would also like to ask a broader question whether there is some rationally efective method of looking for the truth on the internet. Or more simply stated, who to believe.
Hello, I wanted to post something but when reading the guidelines, I am a little confused. The issue of my confusion is "Aim to explain, not persuade". English is not my native language, but when I googled "persuade" I found that it means "induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or argument. ". To me, this sounds a little ridiculous on the rationality forum.