Zone1 Intellectual Honesty

[Chuz Life]

The problem with the internet is that there is more crap and what isn't verifiable fact but pretends it is verifiable fact as much as there is good information. So it requires logic, reason, observation of track record, intellectual honesty of whose opinion we honestly believe we can believe. Some make much better decisions about that than others.

The differences between the perspectives of a true sceptic and a casual observer, I suppose. My original comment was a take on something that is attributed to Einstein. "It's not what you know it's knowing where to find the answers." Words to that effect.

And while I DO NOT want this thread to become just another food fight on abortion, your meme illustrates one of the thorniest issues that has a lot of different beliefs. The few states that agree with your meme and have established it as law are mostly criticized for taking the doctor completely out of the equation. I tend to agree with that. The few states with no restrictions of any kind are unconscionable in my opinion and permit literal murder of the unborn. And then there is the opinion of some that the unborn is not a person with rights while others of it see it as a person from conception. The internet is useless in making the case for either. It requires changing hearts and minds to appreciate the sanctity of life.

My comments (and goal) is objective truth, facts, etc. Objectivity and facts are not only essential to "intellectual honesty" they are a fundamental common starting point.

The more facts you have, the less all that other noise like "personal beliefs" matters.

Intellectual honesty can include faith, beliefs based on ideology or even partisanship, but it requires us to be able to understand why we believe what we believe and to honestly believe we are right. And if we cannot make an argument to defend what we believe with logic, reason, experience or verifiable facts, then intellectual honesty requires us to recognize that our belief may not be supportable or defensible. At least it should include recognition of that possibility.

Like I said in the meme. I welcome anyone to change my mind.

I don't like living in a world/society that denies basic human rights to the smallest, youngest, weakest and most vulnerable human beings of all.

 

[Foxfyre]

The differences between the perspectives of a true sceptic and a casual observer, I suppose. My original comment was a take on something that is attributed to Einstein. "It's not what you know it's knowing where to find the answers." Words to that effect.

My comments (and goal) is objective truth, facts, etc. Objectivity and facts are not only essential to "intellectual honesty" they are a fundamental common starting point.

The more facts you have, the less all that other noise like "personal beliefs" matters.


Like I said in the meme. I welcome anyone to change my mind.

I don't like living in a world/society that denies basic human rights to the smallest, youngest, weakest and most vulnerable human beings of all.

But here you may be putting your belief/opinion ahead of what you can actually prove. That in no way makes your belief/opinion wrong, but everything we believe cannot be proved to other people.

That's why the abortion issue is so thorny when it comes to making law. What you believe, what I believe is not necessarily what others believe. You know and I know that not a single living human being made it out of the womb without going through ALL the phases of reproduction beginning with a sperm and an egg. Some believe sanctity of life begins with that sperm and egg instead of at conception but that's another discussion altogether.

When it comes to making law and policy, can we do that based on what people believe when those are in a minority? It is reasonable to make policy based on what MOST people believe such as religious liberty or allowing prayer that used to be routinely common at sporting events or allowing a student led prayer at school assemblies and such based on the premise of the First Amendment. Or is the opinion of the minority sufficient to make policy that there will be no such prayer based on the assumption that it is a violation of the First Amendment?

There are so many things for which there are no easy answers among people with widely varying opinions and beliefs. And that makes a lot of policy/law difficult to achieve in a way that satisfies all or even most.

 

[Chuz Life]

But here you may be putting your belief/opinion ahead of what you can actually prove. That in no way makes your belief/opinion wrong, but everything we believe cannot be proved to other people.

My "beliefs" are based on facts that I can objectively "prove."

I welcome anyone to prove those facts are wrong, but they must present facts that make that case and are more compelling than the ones that I posed. To me, that is being intellectually "honest."

That's why the abortion issue is so thorny when it comes to making law. What you believe, what I believe is not necessarily what others believe. You know and I know that not a single living human being made it out of the womb without going through ALL the phases of reproduction, beginning with a sperm and an egg. Some believe sanctity of life begins with that sperm and egg instead of at conception but that's another discussion altogether.

I understand your characterization, but you are introducing a lot of aspects that are outside of what I thought was a narrowly focused conversation on "intellectual honesty." You also seem to want to drift into a conclusion that issues like abortion can't be simplified, due to "personal beliefs."

I, on the other hand, am working with existing legal definitions and existing laws, biological facts etc., and I am trying to point out inconsistencies and contradictions when and where I find them.

When it comes to making law and policy, can we do that based on what people believe when those are in a minority? It is reasonable to make policy based on what MOST people believe such as religious liberty or allowing prayer that used to be routinely common at sporting events or allowing a student led prayer at school assemblies and such based on the premise of the First Amendment. Or is the opinion of the minority sufficient to make policy that there will be no such prayer based on the assumption that it is a violation of the First Amendment?

This begs some questions. Is the majority always right? Should we tolerate inconsistencies and contradictions in our laws just because a supposed "majority" has passed laws to mimic their aggregated "personal beliefs?"

There are so many things for which there are no easy answers among people with widely varying opinions and beliefs. And that makes alot of policy/law difficult to achieve in a way that satisfies all or even most.

Nothing is more repulsive to my sensibilities, when I am trying to focus on objectivity, facts, consistency, and the like, than when someone tries to dismiss it all as a matter of "personal belief."

 

[80zephyr]

But here you may be putting your belief/opinion ahead of what you can actually prove. That in no way makes your belief/opinion wrong, but everything we believe cannot be proved to other people.

That's why the abortion issue is so thorny when it comes to making law. What you believe, what I believe is not necessarily what others believe. You know and I know that not a single living human being made it out of the womb without going through ALL the phases of reproduction beginning with a sperm and an egg. Some believe sanctity of life begins with that sperm and egg instead of at conception but that's another discussion altogether.

When it comes to making law and policy, can we do that based on what people believe when those are in a minority? It is reasonable to make policy based on what MOST people believe such as religious liberty or allowing prayer that used to be routinely common at sporting events or allowing a student led prayer at school assemblies and such based on the premise of the First Amendment. Or is the opinion of the minority sufficient to make policy that there will be no such prayer based on the assumption that it is a violation of the First Amendment?

There are so many things for which there are no easy answers among people with widely varying opinions and beliefs. And that makes a lot of policy/law difficult to achieve in a way that satisfies all or even most.

Whats so hard? The science says human life begins at conception. There is no other argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

My "beliefs" are based on facts that I can objectively "prove."

I welcome anyone to prove those facts are wrong, but they must present facts that make that case and are more compelling than the ones that I posed. To me, that is being intellectually "honest."



I understand your characterization, but you are introducing a lot of aspects that are outside of what I thought was a narrowly focused conversation on "intellectual honesty." You also seem to want to drift into a conclusion that issues like abortion can't be simplified, due to "personal beliefs."

I, on the other hand, am working with existing legal definitions and existing laws, biological facts etc., and I am trying to point out inconsistencies and contradictions when and where I find them.



This begs some questions. Is the majority always right? Should we tolerate inconsistencies and contradictions in our laws just because a supposed "majority" has passed laws to mimic their aggregated "personal beliefs?"



Nothing is more repulsive to my sensibilities, when I am trying to focus on objectivity, facts, consistency, and the like, than when someone tries to dismiss it all as a matter of "personal belief."

You are chopping up my posts destroying context and are now drifting into accusing me personally and mischaracterizing my argument. So I will wish you a pleasant afternoon and evening and move on.

 

[Chuz Life]

You are chopping up my posts destroying context and are now drifting into accusing me personally and mischaracterizing my argument. So I will wish you a pleasant afternoon and evening and move on.

One of us wants to drag in the vagueness of "differing beliefs" and majority rule and the other wants to focus on provable facts and objectivity.

Which one is intellectually HONEST?

From the poll: "How intellectually honest am I? Do I want truth more than I want to be right?"

How ironic.

 

[Foxfyre]

Whats so hard? The science says human life begins at conception. There is no other argument.

The law however too often does not say that. And science cannot say when that developing human becomes a sentient being. And then there is the debate that if it is not a sentient being, can we ethically stop its development. Etc. etc. etc.

My argument was not with the science or belief or religious issues or anything else. It illustrated the difficulty in establishing law/policy to regulate what some say the science says or what people believe or what the religious doctrine they embrace specifies.

Some say life begins with the human sperm or or egg for instance so are they wrong or do they just have a different perspective about it? Should that egg or sperm be protected as much as the fertilized egg that attaches itself to the womb, i.e. conception? Is that fertilized egg before it attaches a living thing deserving of protection?

Because different people think differently about these variances, it makes it difficult to establish law that most people believe is just, ethical, necessary, appropriate. It is easy to say the law should be based on this or that principle. But when we all can't agree on what the principle is, the issue can become quite murky and less easy to define.

Certainly abortion is only one sticky wicket in which we have widely differing opinions/beliefs/sense of ethics among the people. Climate change is another. Immigration is all over the map in what most people think is just and reasonable. The death penalty. Element of religious belief/doctrine. Do ghosts or extra terrestrial visitors to our planet exist? Does protecting and promoting American traditions violate the Constitution?

And coming back to intellectual honesty, can we accept that our belief might not hold up to all elements of these questions and can we accept that we might need to rethink something?

 

[Chuz Life]

So, let's examine this (and try to resolve it) through the lens of "intellectual honesty."

Shall we?

I'll start.

Do we have an existing legal definition for what a "natural person" is?

We do.

Intellectually and honestly, should that definition be open and inclusive - so that NO human beings are unjustly denied. . . or should we (society) place a burden on the new human being to live long enough so as to develop past some arbitrarily decided point where we (society) can't justify their denial anymore?

I understand how this is difficult for some (I even had to beat @Grok into an understanding and appreciation.)

In the end, it still comes down to intellectual honesty.

https://x.com/i/grok/share/FMjC2DPjAFBerddu5YE77EFrY

 

[80zephyr]

The law however too often does not say that. And science cannot say when that developing human becomes a sentient being. And then there is the debate that if it is not a sentient being, can we ethically stop its development. Etc. etc. etc.

My argument was not with the science or belief or religious issues or anything else. It illustrated the difficulty in establishing law/policy to regulate what some say the science says or what people believe or what the religious doctrine they embrace specifies.

Some say life begins with the human sperm or or egg for instance so are they wrong or do they just have a different perspective about it? Should that egg or sperm be protected as much as the fertilized egg that attaches itself to the womb, i.e. conception? Is that fertilized egg before it attaches a living thing deserving of protection?

Because different people think differently about these variances, it makes it difficult to establish law that most people believe is just, ethical, necessary, appropriate. It is easy to say the law should be based on this or that principle. But when we all can't agree on what the principle is, the issue can become quite murky and less easy to define.

Certainly abortion is only one sticky wicket in which we have widely differing opinions/beliefs/sense of ethics among the people. Climate change is another. Immigration is all over the map in what most people think is just and reasonable. The death penalty. Element of religious belief/doctrine. Do ghosts or extra terrestrial visitors to our planet exist? Does protecting and promoting American traditions violate the Constitution?

And coming back to intellectual honesty, can we accept that our belief might not hold up to all elements of these questions and can we accept that we might need to rethink something?

While I can understand your argument, the science is perfectly clear. Human life begins at conception.

 

[candycorn]

In the light of the obvious lies from the Trump administration about the list...this thread highlights that it's author is anything but intellectually honest since she still supports these people.

 

[Foxfyre]

While I can understand your argument, the science is perfectly clear. Human life begins at conception.

Does it? Not with a healthy egg and a healthy sperm that will need to get together before there is conception?

If you want to get completely technical in the intricities of scientific opinion there is s really good thesis here:

THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The way I see it, intellectual honesty recognizes that there is no absolute in science. Science is an evolving body of knowledge of what our universe consists of and how it all works. And when science is made an absolute by human dictate it is no longer science but dogma.

So the issue of when human life begins is as based on our beliefs and how we look at it as it is on science. Which again makes it extremely difficult to come up with policy and laws that regulate how we deal with it that most people will be comfortable with.

 

[Chuz Life]

Does it? Not with a healthy egg and a healthy sperm that will need to get together before there is conception?

If you want to get completely technical in the intricities of scientific opinion there is s really good thesis here:

THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The way I see it, intellectual honesty recognizes that there is no absolute in science. Science is an evolving body of knowledge of what our universe consists of and how it all works. And when science is made an absolute by human dictate it is no longer science but dogma.

So the issue of when human life begins is as based on our beliefs and how we look at it as it is on science. Which again makes it extremely difficult to come up with policy and laws that regulate how we deal with it that most people will be comfortable with.

So now the goal posts have moved from "when does -A- human life begin?" to "when does human life begin?"

As if those two are the same.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Since I personally witnessed ballot harvesting here where I live in 2020 along with some other unethical/illegal hanky panky, it is far easier for me to believe it happened. Such evidence almost has to be witnessed though as it is difficult to prove if it isn't.

So without personal involvement it is easy to believe the other side just made it all up when that is what you want to believe.

But when we don't know for sure what actually happened, the intellectually honest position is "I don't know."

But when we don't know for sure what actually happened, the intellectually honest position is "I don't know."

Many conservatives claim that the 2020 election was stolen. According to you, is this an intellectually honest position? Let’s see if you can be intellectually honest.

 

[80zephyr]

Does it? Not with a healthy egg and a healthy sperm that will need to get together before there is conception?

If you want to get completely technical in the intricities of scientific opinion there is s really good thesis here:

THE FACTS AND DOUBTS ABOUT BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN LIFE AND PERSONALITY - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The way I see it, intellectual honesty recognizes that there is no absolute in science. Science is an evolving body of knowledge of what our universe consists of and how it all works. And when science is made an absolute by human dictate it is no longer science but dogma.

So the issue of when human life begins is as based on our beliefs and how we look at it as it is on science. Which again makes it extremely difficult to come up with policy and laws that regulate how we deal with it that most people will be comfortable with.

Nope. This post is mumbo jumbo. At conception, a new human life is formed.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. This post is mumbo jumbo. At conception, a new human life is formed.

Okay. Have a pleasant evening. If you actually want to discuss the topic go for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

But when we don't know for sure what actually happened, the intellectually honest position is "I don't know."

Many conservatives claim that the 2020 election was stolen. According to you, is this an intellectually honest position? Let’s see if you can be intellectually honest.

You will have a really REALLY tough time tracking down anything I have EVER posted here or anywhere else saying the 2020 election was stolen. You can find MANY of my posts honestly saying I don't KNOW if there was sufficient manipulation and fraud to have change the outcome.

THAT is intellectual honesty.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You will have a really REALLY tough time tracking down anything I have EVER posted here or anywhere else saying the 2020 election was stolen. You can find MANY of my posts honestly saying I don't KNOW if there was sufficient manipulation and fraud to have change the outcome.

THAT is intellectual honesty.

Are THEY being intellectually honest when they claim that the 2020 election was stolen?

Let’s see if you can be intellectually honest in answering this time.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are THEY being intellectually honest when they claim that the 2020 election was stolen?

Let’s see if you can be intellectually honest in answering this time.

I suspect there are millions who believe with all their heart that the 2020 election was stolen. They may or may not be right about that, but they can be 100% intellectually honest when they say what they believe.

Intellectual honesty is not insurance against error. It is the result of the integrity of a person using logic, reason, experience, credible sources to form his/her beliefs and who expresses what he/she honestly believes rather than what is sociopolitically expedient to say he/she believes.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I suspect there are millions who believe with all their heart that the 2020 election was stolen. They may or may not be right about that, but they can be 100% intellectually honest when they say what they believe.

Intellectual honesty is not insurance against error. It is the result of the integrity of a person using logic, reason, experience, credible sources to form his/her beliefs and who expresses what he/she honestly believes rather than what is sociopolitically expedient to say he/she believes.

Now you’re contradicting yourself. You just said that the intellectually honest position is “I don’t know”.

But when we don't know for sure what actually happened, the intellectually honest position is "I don't know."

It appears that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest about this. I suggest you reflect on how hypocritical you are being.

 

[Foxfyre]

Now you’re contradicting yourself. You just said that the intellectually honest position is “I don’t know”.

But when we don't know for sure what actually happened, the intellectually honest position is "I don't know."

It appears that you are unwilling to be intellectually honest about this. I suggest you reflect on how hypocritical you are being.

The intellectually honest position is "I don't know" when I don't know. When I do know or believe that I know, my intellectually honest position would be quite different.

I have not contradicted myself in any way in this discussion.