Is it actually a good thing to trust the institutions?

[AMP3083]

Brian,

I think it's funny that, despite your run-in with Isaac(Ask Yourself) a few months ago, both of you guys now feel the same way about Brimstone.

I think it's funny that in one day Brimstone both called someone a moron and was called a moron by someone else.

He is otherwise a very bright guy.

I don't know about "bright", but he is educated, I guess. Sounds a little too bookish though, and that can be a pain in the ass. If he was bright, he'd try to find another way around his opponent, instead of keep pushing logic and evidence, because sometimes it just doesn't work. If pushing to encourage people to use logic and evidence doesn't work, it's on him, not them. Figure out some other way to get them to see your perspective, and if he can't figure out another way, too bad. I actually have a video on my channel titled 'Logic & Evidence Are Not Enough'.

Anyway, not a big fan of Ask Yourself and I admit the guy can be arrogant, but I think he's right in this case.

[teo123]

His basic philosophy is "Make as few conclusions by yourself as possible". He told me that in a thread where I argued that the Earth was flat and that airplanes didn't exist. There it perhaps makes sense to say something like that. But, let's face it, if everyone was following that philosophy, there would be almost no science, no technology and no politics. Sometimes you are confident in your conclusions because you are too ignorant to know how much more there is to know. Other times, you are confident because you are so obviously right. There is no really a way for you to tell.

[EquALLity]

I think it's funny that in one day Brimstone both called someone a moron and was called a moron by someone else.

He is otherwise a very bright guy.

I don't know about "bright", but he is educated, I guess. Sounds a little too bookish though, and that can be a pain in the ass. If he was bright, he'd try to find another way around his opponent, instead of keep pushing logic and evidence, because sometimes it just doesn't work. If pushing to encourage people to use logic and evidence doesn't work, it's on him, not them. Figure out some other way to get them to see your perspective, and if he can't figure out another way, too bad. I actually have a video on my channel titled 'Logic & Evidence Are Not Enough'.

Anyway, not a big fan of Ask Yourself and I admit the guy can be arrogant, but I think he's right in this case.

...
You are arguing against logic and evidence.
You are arguing against logic and evidence.

"Too bookish"
Then read a book?
....
This is a debate. Debate, you know, based on arguments (logic) with evidence...

[BrianBlackwell]

You don't understand what the fallacy of ambiguity is; it usually uses dictionary definitions, just mixing applicable and non-applicable ones, or using non-applicable aspects of definitions to draw conclusions incorrectly.

Yargh... Fine, so now I've been accused of a crime (the fallacy of ambiguity and the bannable offense of not acknowledging it), so despite wanting to can the conversation because it's going nowhere, I am compelled to stay to clear my name (or the misunderstanding, if there actually is one, and you're not just derailing the thread because you don't want to directly address the points I've made regarding the inherent contradiction of the vegan statist position).

As for denying logic and science, I don't how I could be any more clear about the fact that I am not denying their validity relative to their subjects (thought and observation respectively), only that there is no ground for asserting them as "objective" since there is no element of objectivity anywhere present in the endeavors, being wholly concerned with subjective phenomena (note that I'm not saying they are not objective, only that the assertion of objectivity is an impossible claim). Furthermore, for our purposes here, this is a completely irrelevant distinction; this has not been used as a premise for any of my arguments concerning anarchy.

Here's the post in question:

Human thought isn't wholly subjective, that's a ridiculous assertion... Human thought can be affected by some bias, which is subjective... What you are saying is a denial of the validity of logic and science, you may just be too ignorant of what these things actually mean to realize it...

Ok, so let's establish some definitions via the dictionary:

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

Please explain how human thought is not wholly "existing in the mind" and "belonging to the thinking subject"? And yes, bias is subjective (because it is thought), but the term "subjectivity" is not limited to this characteristic, though many people use it synonymously.

Logic: the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference; the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.

Please explain how inference, reasoning, knowledge and study are not functions of thought; and how principles regarding the function of a wholly subjective phenomenon can be anything but subjective? Again, this does not deny logic's validity as a means of governing the subjective phenomenon of thought. What's being challenged is the assertion that logic is objective, when 100% of its apprehension, expression and application is subjective.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

And again, we have knowledge, observation and experimentation -- all subjective phenomena. The argument made for logic also applies here.

Please tell me specifically how I am "mixing applicable and non-applicable [definitions], or using non-applicable aspects of definitions to draw conclusions incorrectly."

[BrianBlackwell]

He is otherwise a very bright guy.

I would never deny Brim's intelligence, just as I would never deny Dennis Rodman's talent... the problem resides in the application. Both exhibit tendencies that are destructive to the task at hand, i.e. they're loose cannons.

[teo123]

I think that what he meant was that logic and science are objective in the sense that everyone who applies them reaches the same conclusions. Perhaps that would be true if everyone had indefinite amount of time. In reality, science usually involves a huge amount of guessing and trial-and-error. And the guesses you make are rarely, if ever, the same as the guesses other people would make.

[BrianBlackwell]

I think that what he meant was that logic and science are objective in the sense that everyone who applies them reaches the same conclusions.

Objectivity being synonymous with subjective consensus -- I can dig it! That is precisely what's being indicated by the term, every time it's used, but people insist on making it about the independent existence of things; asserting that logic and pi are just floating out there in the ether, waiting for someone to come along and find them. They very well may be, but it would be impossible to ascertain using a wholly subjective vessel, and so the assertion could never be valid. Thank you for saying this. You have no idea how refreshing it is. I'm not sure Brim will sign on, though.

[AMP3083]

I want to add an extra word to this on behalf of how I assume Brim thinks of his method:

I think that what he meant was that logic and science are objective in the sense that everyone who applies them SHOULD reach the same conclusions.

Anyway, that was a good way of conveying it.

[AMP3083]

Here's a good read on NAP: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-non-aggression-principle-apply-to-animals
Also scroll down to the bottom comment section.

[BrianBlackwell]

It's easy to get bogged down in all this armchair pondering. Sometimes we just have to bottom-line it. We don't have to all agree on what a concept like the NAP means precisely, especially since morality is subjective.

I'm not sure I would go with consent as a critical factor for the NAP, but in most cases these fine distinctions are unnecessary; and we can probably just wing the rest by checking how we feel relative to conscience.