Sometimes a simple concept or practice needs to be applied in brand new contexts, and over and over and in more new contexts. The reason for this is because the practice or technique is a universal truth; and we just falsely believe we need something new and that the growth we are getting from fronteiring/ discovering new situations/places/ways to apply it has reached plateau. It's not a plateau, it's just fatigue and ebbs and flow to the growth. What technique am I talking about? The scientific method of making inferences and resisting our addiction to make a conclusion before collecting sufficient evidence, and making our conclusions tentative and anticipating the probability of future counter arguments/evidence. That's it. That's all we need to do. It's astounding, the number of ways we deceive each other out of this merely because of conditioning to enable. Enable the addiction as a way to hurt others. "Enabling" is the equivalent to how in nature, beings enable other beings to succumb to forces of nature because it is letting nature take its course. An example of the scientific method in nature is: emerging properties. There is the selective pressure aspect of Evolutionary Biology and the Innovation aspect, and the scientific method is among the latter. The measurable degree to which you hold your own knowledge and opinion as tentative and open to improvement is saying something about your contribution to Evolutionary Biology as a whole.
@@waymaking23 thanks Andrea, my experience writing UA-cam comments is that I am as surprised as others may be by what arises within me when I do so, and so that is why I do it. Thanks for producing such amazing content.
You don't have to choose between pluralism and cultural relativism as you do. For example, there are ethics that are culturally relative but on other levels of absolute truth of morality there is pluralism. In an eventual world where we achieve a population that abides by absolute moral truth, there will still exist cultural relativity of ethics. The goal according to this prediction about the future is to reduce pluralism of morality. Not only this, but if you do not have empirical data to support any conclusion about a universal absolute moral truth, then you may keep it to yourself as tentative; meaning, anything you believe to be subject to pluralism, may one day prove not to be. I think you have to make claims about pluralism relative to time, and make it dynamic.
How lovely. A great conversation. Thank you.
Thank you
@dsjwhite
Sometimes a simple concept or practice needs to be applied in brand new contexts, and over and over and in more new contexts. The reason for this is because the practice or technique is a universal truth; and we just falsely believe we need something new and that the growth we are getting from fronteiring/ discovering new situations/places/ways to apply it has reached plateau. It's not a plateau, it's just fatigue and ebbs and flow to the growth. What technique am I talking about? The scientific method of making inferences and resisting our addiction to make a conclusion before collecting sufficient evidence, and making our conclusions tentative and anticipating the probability of future counter arguments/evidence. That's it. That's all we need to do. It's astounding, the number of ways we deceive each other out of this merely because of conditioning to enable. Enable the addiction as a way to hurt others. "Enabling" is the equivalent to how in nature, beings enable other beings to succumb to forces of nature because it is letting nature take its course. An example of the scientific method in nature is: emerging properties. There is the selective pressure aspect of Evolutionary Biology and the Innovation aspect, and the scientific method is among the latter. The measurable degree to which you hold your own knowledge and opinion as tentative and open to improvement is saying something about your contribution to Evolutionary Biology as a whole.
Would love to hear what part of the conversation sparked these thoughts
@@waymaking23 the title. I will watch the rest now. lol. maybe I will have more...
@@shawnewaltonify this last comment cracked me up! love it that all that poured forth from the title alone :)
@@waymaking23 thanks Andrea, my experience writing UA-cam comments is that I am as surprised as others may be by what arises within me when I do so, and so that is why I do it. Thanks for producing such amazing content.
@@shawnewaltonify great! stream-of-consciousness-like replies with learning & substance, much appreciated, thank you for watching!
You don't have to choose between pluralism and cultural relativism as you do. For example, there are ethics that are culturally relative but on other levels of absolute truth of morality there is pluralism. In an eventual world where we achieve a population that abides by absolute moral truth, there will still exist cultural relativity of ethics. The goal according to this prediction about the future is to reduce pluralism of morality. Not only this, but if you do not have empirical data to support any conclusion about a universal absolute moral truth, then you may keep it to yourself as tentative; meaning, anything you believe to be subject to pluralism, may one day prove not to be. I think you have to make claims about pluralism relative to time, and make it dynamic.
beyond dichotomy !