Putin’s folly in Ukraine

[Pseudonym]

This is a debate. If you want to just post your opinions and recieve no pushback on them, then what you need is a diary, or write a letter to the editor.

You asked me how I arrived at one of my conclusions. I told you.

You said you listened to Putin’s speeches to determine his intent. I pushed back because it’s common knowldedge that Putin’s speeches contain all sorts of different stories about his intent, so you obviously filter them.

To say you don’t is an insult to our intelligence. There’s more than one way to be combatitive.

Then you said you were asking a question but followed it up with a comment suggesting you already had the answer. So I pushed back on that too.

If you want a more detached debate, try being more detached. If you keep posting one-sided claims with no reasoning, then you’ve, by necessity, shifted the terms of the debate to that.

We can only discuss reasons. If you give none, then the first job is to extract them.

[Astorre]

@Astorre

Currently, the United States operates within a pragmatic realist approach. This approach can be described as constantly testing the boundaries of the possible by asking “what if?” What if we take Greenland? What if we stage an operation against the Venezuelan president? What if we repeat Desert Storm? This appears to be a consistent strategy of empirically probing the limits of the permissible.

Today, global security is no longer so much institutional—based less on firm agreements—as it is in the process of formation, reassembly, or even reassembly. In this process, the United States operates through trial and reaction—like a child walking around a room, exploring every corner.

So, we’ve seen the United States continue to explore the limits of what’s possible. Today’s events confirm this once again. If we don’t see a worthy response from another power, the United States will continue to do so, and conflicts will continue to multiply.

[Pseudonym]

@Astorre

If we don’t see a worthy response from another power, the United States will continue to do so, and conflicts will continue to multiply.

What is it you mean by “another power”? Another country/organisation? Or are you using power in it’s broadest sense - anything capable of compelling them to do otherwise?

[ssu]

@Pseudonym

Your claim is that we can take the conclusions of historians pretty much at their word because they have reached agreement on some matters without bias, right?

Obviously you didn’t understand my point at all when you say this above.

Historical studies compound as the study of history continues on. The historical perspective also changes in time as our societies change: what historians look at and study changes too. It is not just some historians “have reached an agreement”, which would actually be peculiar as historians emphasize usually different things. It is that with the vast amount of historical data, archives that finally open later and the vast amount of information that is obtainable and studied by various historians creates an environment in which your argument that “historians cannot be trusted because of their bias” doesn’t hold. Just what historians are you talking about? We aren’t talking about historians in one country or just from one era. I’m talking of all of them that have participated in writing the history since the events have happened. Apparently for you “historians” are some kind of monolith group with one view, which can be totally fabricated. I beg to differ with that.

@Pseudonym

You further claim that there is more clarity in recent events because they are still relevant to us (your example here with Hitler).

Again, you didn’t understand me at all. The other way around, Pseudonym. We get clarity with time, just as I mentioned above.

Current events and current politicians can get us angry and emotional as the events happen in the present, and actually impact our lives too indirectly. Ancient history usually doesn’t have a similar effect, especially when it’s not used as an example for the present events (like Hitler is). As I stated, promoting nazism will get you banned. Promoting a “radical” view that the Mongol Horde had a very beneficial impact on World history because thanks to them East and West got together, might be something that many disagrees with, but won’t get you banned. Hence my argument is that when more time that has gone from some event, we indeed can have more objective our views are assuming that there is ample amount of historical data and analysis about the event.

So naturally when we don’t have information, then we simply acknowledge that we don’t know. Where did the Sea People of the Bronze Age collapse come? We don’t know, far too little historical sources to know this as there are scarce resources from the Bronze Age. Yet we do have a lot of information about this Century and the 20th and the 19th Centuries.

@Pseudonym

Except, of course it’s not that is it? Because the ones you don’t agree with are still biased; Mark Urnov who contradicts your story of steady Russian Imperialism, or Pawel Rojek who sees the Ukraine war as an end of Russian Imperialism, not an culmination of it, or Andrei Tsygankov who rejects your focus on authoritarianism and ant-West sentiment as driving forces behind Russian Foreign policy… all biased, no doubt.

I think you are talking about your own attitude than mine.

Now I don’t know these, but I can agree that indeed this might be the end of Russian Imperialism, so badly the war has gone, that Pawel Rojek might be correct. The future will tell us will this is going to be true. And usually historians don’t debate if a historical event happened or not, but the reasons or simply just what was the important issue at hand. They simply emphasize the importance of different issues. That just creates an interesting discussion, not some as you think where one is correct and the other is biased and wrong. Yet of course you do have the revisionists that argue that there was no Holocaust etc, but those people we can disregard.

What things I object is like one person in the previous forum in the previous long thread about the “Ukrainian Crisis” explaining that the attack to Hostomel Airport and towards Kyiv was a planned feint, that the Russians had planned to then withdraw. He didn’t give any reason for this, perhaps that “it was obvious” and I just believed in Western propaganda. No military person that I’ve read, listened to or talked with has proposed such a ludicrous idea. It’s not only against Russian strategy, but all military strategy. The troops used, the attempt was totally in line with the attempt of a quick “special military operation”, which then didn’t go according to plan as the Ukrainians simply fought back and the airport wasn’t secured. With these kinds of issues one can make arguments and not to retreat to views like “we don’t know and cannot know …because everything told us is propaganda.” But naturally the “feint” idea fit his ideas.

@Pseudonym

You choose the experts that agree with your pre-existing opinion, then claim they’re unbiased and all the others are bewitched by propaganda or ideology. What’s astonishing is that such transparent post hoc rationalisation gets treated as serious analysis here.

Really?

What is usually true is that the aggressor has to use extensively propaganda, sometimes even totally fabricated propaganda to justify the aggression as very seldom the reason of an attack is a genuine “pre-emptive attack”. If that would be true, then the attacked party really should have planned to attack the aggressor. That Ukraine is ruled by Nazis and has to be denazified shows the level of Russian propaganda, which some believe. Just as the talk of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -program, which indeed was destroyed …during the Gulf War 1991, with the last remnants possibly by Clinton in Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

(Yet I do remember during the “Global War on Terror”, some Americans did come to the old PF site and seemed to be on a mission to defend President Bush’s actions… and accuse me and others in a similar way who criticized the reasons for invading Iraq. The irony is that the “Bush just got bad intel” line later was demolished by Trump himself.)

[Astorre]

As I wrote at the beginning, there is currently no collective agreement on global security. The old one, concluded with the participation of the USSR, is no longer valid. Consequently, military actions around the world will continue, and much more awaits us all. To conclude such an agreement, there must be a counterparty capable of defining the boundaries. Currently, such a counterparty does not exist, but one could very well emerge, including from within the United States itself, or it could be some kind of alliance of states.

By that time, much blood will be shed, whether we like it or not.

[Punshhh]

@ssu

The irony is that the “Bush just got bad intel” line later was demolished by Trump himself.)

Bad intel, I thought it was God who told him (and Blair) to attack Iraq.

[Punshhh]

@Astorre

As I wrote at the beginning, there is currently no collective agreement on global security. The old one, concluded with the participation of the USSR, is no longer valid.

You make a good point here. There has been a vacuum in such understanding and agreement since the collapse of the USSR.

@Astorre

Currently, such a counterparty does not exist,

It does exist, it’s called China, but how an agreement might work has not been reached yet. I’m not so sure a Cold War will work any more. Putin’s action of threatening NATO with nuclear conflagration while invading a European country has weakened the power of a Cold War agreement. If one party is still able the attack a third party while threatening to use Nuclear weapons on the second party. It suggests that the aggressor knows the second party won’t use nuclear weapons and so the aggressor won’t need to use nuclear weapons. Now people will doubt the effectiveness of a nuclear stockpile when a nuclear power attacks another nuclear power with conventional weapons, on a small scale, or in the grey zone, or hybrid warfare.

This means there will need to be a new kind of agreement.

[Astorre]

Nuclear weapons (plus intercontinental missiles), in the modern sense, are not offensive weapons, but they remain a guarantee of non-aggression by another state. However, this rule is also being tested right now: for example, Ukraine’s retaliatory invasion of Russian territory (as well as Ukraine’s attack on Russian strategic bombers), Afghanistan’s attack on Pakistan, or the minor conflict between India and Pakistan. Nuclear weapons were not used, as we know, although there were grounds for it, albeit at a stretch.

As currently understood, possession of nuclear weapons does not guarantee complete security, since their use entails significant risks for those using them. However, I believe this is not definitive and will be tested and clarified: in this regard, we still have North Korea, which will most likely help the US test these boundaries as well.

[ssu]

@Astorre

As currently understood, possession of nuclear weapons does not guarantee complete security, since their use entails significant risks for those using them. However, I believe this is not definitive and will be tested and clarified: in this regard, we still have North Korea, which will most likely help the US test these boundaries as well.

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrence. North Korea is a prime example: no US President has dared to attack it, because it has the capability now to launch nuclear weapons possibly to the US mainland. The US attacks countries that have “possible” nuclear weapons, like Iraq and Iran. Not confirmed and functioning weapon systems.

That is why now several European countries are seriously talking about an own or European nuclear deterrant as Trump has shown that the US might not be a fully reliable ally. The shock effects of Trump’s crazy Greenland (and Canada) grab have brought that home.

And yes, nuclear weapons don’t give an immunity of any military attack. The UK did have nuclear weapons, but Argentina didn’t (correctly) feel that the British would use them if the Argentinians take the Falkland Islands. Also India and Pakistan are an example that two nuclear armed countries can indeed exchange blow and have a limited conflict. Hence what is really, really wrong is this idea that two (or more) countries with nuclear weapons cannot fight each other. The escalation ladder isn’t gone up so quickly when the fighting is limited.

[Astorre]

Well, yes, that’s exactly what I said in the first paragraph. However, I doubt current Europe’s ability to create a “European nuclear weapon.” Europe has a counter-state entity of comparable strength (unlike the United States), so Europe needs “strong balls.” This element is absent in modern Europe. Therefore, in my opinion, there are no compelling reasons to claim that a “European nuclear weapon” could emerge.

Furthermore, we must remember that the European Union is primarily an economic (not a military) bloc. NATO has always played a military role here. Europe lacks the speed of decision-making and adaptation that the United States has. All of this, taken together, speaks against this approach (the one you propose).

The most consistent (and this is quite paradoxical, contradictory, and ultimately bold) for me would be an alliance between Europe and Russia (economic, military, and political) after all the current turmoil has been resolved. Such an alliance has every reason to exist.

Today such an agenda seems madness, but we’ll see.

[Punshhh]

Europe has a small nuclear capability, with Trident in the U.K. and Force de dissuasion in France. Both operate independently from the U.S. Although the spare parts for Trident come from the U.S. Both the U.K. and France are now upgrading their capability. This was agreed in recent talks with a stronger coalition between European countries. Germany will acquire nuclear bombs later as part of the agreement.
Anyway, for a nuclear deterrent to work, you just need to have one. The scale, or location is secondary.

By his actions alongside strong nuclear threats, Putin has weakened his nuclear deterrent. Because no one will believe him now when he threatens to use it and adversaries will assume he wouldn’t use it. (Although I should point out, there is no threat to Russia. There never has been. Another Putin lie).
Think about it for a minute. Who would ever invade Russia and if so, for what?

[Astorre]

As I said above, I avoid judgment, moral coloring, or emotion when analyzing events. I explained why in detail above (though I’m not perfect at it). Therefore, I apologize, but I can’t support your question in this context: who lied to whom, who wanted what, who plans to enslave the entire world, and what ambitions will drive them to do so? There are plenty of people willing to discuss all this without my intervention.

[neomac]

@Astorre

From here, I’d like to suggest you formulate what you’re developing into more practical things and simpler formulations, so that it not only “entertains the mind” but also helps solve real problems.

Then I’m afraid you are addressing your questions to the wrong person. I’m a nobody who is deeply reluctant to advise anybody on political matters inside and outside this forum, especially on matters I’m not directly involved in as you claim to be. I’m not a political militant even if I may have my strong political views. But most of all, I take this forum as an intellectual gym, something good for my own intellectual health not as a stage to spread gospels or help people fix the world . So the only task I intend to pursue here is the philosophical one I mentioned earlier (even when applied to my or others’ political views), whose practical utility I am neither sure nor particularly concerned about. I’m just happy to put my thoughts more in order and wish for myself to preserve such a clear minded attitude if I ever have to face more personally a confusing predicament like yours. But you don’t seem that confused in matter of political agendas after all.

[neomac]

@Pseudonym

Again, you didn’t define “bias”.

‘Bias’ is a normal word in English. You didn’t define ‘define’. I don’t expect to have to define every word I use. If you’re struggling, use a dictionary.

Indeed, I didn’t ask you to define every word you use, just the ones I doubt we use in the same way as it happens with the way you use the word “bias”.
To me it doesn’t literally make any sense to claim that all our opinions are biased as long as “bias” refers to a cognitive mistake. If there are mistaken opinions there must be correct opinions in light of which we can assess mistaken opinions.
Reference to a dictionary definition is pointless, because I have problems with your usage of the word not with a definition reported by a dictionary and there is no English dictionary I know of claiming that all our opinions are biased. Prove me wrong.

@Pseudonym

Your claim is “generic”: by “we all are biased” means that all our opinions are systematically biased including the claim “we all are biased”? Does this make sense?

Yes, perfectly. Being biased is not the same as being wrong, and being uncertain doesn’t prevent us from proceeding based on our beliefs. So it’s perfectly rational to go on with the belief that all beliefs are biased, assuming it’s nonetheless correct until shown otherwise.

See, we have a different understanding of bias. To me, “bias” has to do with cognitive mistakes. So a biased opinion is ultimately a cognitively defective opinion. If “bias” is simply expression of a non-cognitive preference without being cognitively defective, then it equates to my idea of “partiality”. But then I don’t understand why it would be impossible for somebody to be part of a political competition in light of certain non-cognitive preferences and yet converge on certain shared rules (also concerning the nature of the political competition itself) which can ensure mutual intelligibility with other competitors, if that’s the point you were making against me.

@Pseudonym

Like “all cats are dogs” you mean?

Yes. A perfectly intelligible claim. One that happens to be incorrect. As I said, claims of the form “all X are Y” are perfectly intelligible. “All cats are mammals” for example.

Then I do not understand what you mean by “perfectly intelligible” either.
The sentence “all cats are dogs” is literally unintelligible to me. Because by definition cats are not dogs. Dogs are not cats.
So if someone were to claim that “all cats are dogs” makes perfect sense, then I would doubt that we use the words “cats” and “dogs” likewise, at the very least.
All I could claim of the sentence “all cats are dogs” is that it’s apparently using English words combined in a syntactically correct way. But semantically speaking that sentence doesn’t make sense at all. Is your English dictionary suggesting otherwise?

@Pseudonym

The claim that “‘all people who have been to Mars’” presupposes an understanding when the words “people”, “to be in”, and “Mars” apply:

Again, if you’re having trouble with English, consult a dictionary.

But I’m not struggling with those words precisely because they all have a contrastive semantic value which I’m enough familiar with, as I argued, so they are not counterexamples to my semantic principle.

@Pseudonym

“enligheting” means non “self-confirming” to you? In other words, enlightening are all beliefs that do not confirm your beliefs?

Once more, if you don’t know what ‘enlightening’ means, consult a dictionary.

No dictionary can fix the fact that if you are unable to offer shared compelling cognitive criteria that allow one to distinguish between “merely self-confirming” and non “merely self-confirming”, while maintaining that claim I was questioning, then “enlightening” can only refer to those opinions that do not confirm your biases.

@Pseudonym

Out of curiosity, what evidence would you need to believe that I’m not here to convince others of my political views (which I haven’t exposed yet)?

A view which doesn’t favour any particular political agenda.

If, given a range of expert opinion, you consistently select those which confirm a particular political agenda even though contradictory opinions exist, I assume that’s the intention. Likewise if given two equally plausible theories about political power, you consistently choose the one which best serves a particular political ideology I assume that’s the reason.

These are hypotheticals. How do these hypotheticals support the claim “You’re here to convince people of your political views like we all are”? How do these hypotheticals answer my question “what evidence would you need to believe that I’m not here to convince others of my political views (which I haven’t exposed yet)” ? My definition of politics extrapolates the notion of competition that is present in all competing political views, so it doesn’t favour any political agenda in particular. While you still tried to argue otherwise. And failed.
Moreover, your examples leave undetermined the role played by epistemic concerns I find relevant to apply the notion of bias.
Concerning the first example, the existence of views that contradict other views doesn’t say anything about the epistemic value of either views. In astronomy, Ptolemaic views can contradict the Copernican views, still we find the Copernican views more accurate than the Ptolemaic views. Any true claim is contradicted by a false claim, we may still be able to understand which claims are true and which are false, and epistemically rely on the former instead of the latter. Concerning the second example, “equally plausible” leaves unclear under what criteria one would assess the plausibility of different views, cognitive criteria or non-cognitive criteria?

@Pseudonym

As I said at the outset, you are not qualified to adjudicate between experts. So you choose to believe one set or the other. That choice cannot be made by weighing the evidence (you don’t have the knowledge to do that), so it is made by preference.

Not sure what this made-up scenario is meant to prove. Sure I can get that if I do not have compelling cognitive criteria to choose between two experts, but I still feel compelled to choose one over the other instead of just suspend my judgement, then this must be grounded on non-cognitive criteria. Why should this be the case for all opinions though? Besides, you seem to also suggest that if I do not have a domain specific expertise, by default I wouldn’t be equipped by sufficient cognitive criteria to justify my selection of one expert over the other in a rationally compelling way. But that’s for me an overkill.

@Pseudonym

“Knowledge” is a very scarce resource of course for many reasons…

I wrote “‘scarce’ in the sense of a limited supply”. Knowledge is infinitely divisible. It never runs out. Everyone can have full knowledge of everything without having to diminish the total supply.

As such we do not need to compete over resources if resources includes knowledge.

I don’t buy the argument of unlimited supply of knowledge because of the 3 reasons I mentioned earlier. Which I’m sure you fully understand after you just made up an example grounded on the distinction between those who have a domain specific-expertise and those who don’t.
And even in the ideal case where all knowledge available to humanity was equally shared by all of its individuals, still this wouldn’t be per se enough to exclude competition over scarce resources (including “knowledge”) since knowledge at any given time is limited (so competition over scarce resources can still arise e.g. because we do not possess yet the know-how to increase the supply of such scarce resources at the same pace of the demand), and knowledge evolution can be also grounded in the competition over financial resources between e.g. scientific organisations, research programs, methodologies, etc.
In conclusion, the fact that knowledge is scarce in the sense I specified holds true independently from any particular political agenda, including e.g. a humanist agenda which wishes to remove barriers to knowledge access for all human beings as a way to overcome political conflicts.

One last question: are you the same user whose nickname was “Isaac” in the old forum? Your arguments and style of counter-arguing are very much like his.

[ssu]

@Astorre

However, I doubt current Europe’s ability to create a “European nuclear weapon.” Europe has a counter-state entity of comparable strength (unlike the United States), so Europe needs “strong balls.” This element is absent in modern Europe. Therefore, in my opinion, there are no compelling reasons to claim that a “European nuclear weapon” could emerge.

Furthermore, we must remember that the European Union is primarily an economic (not a military) bloc. NATO has always played a military role here. Europe lacks the speed of decision-making and adaptation that the United States has. All of this, taken together, speaks against this approach (the one you propose).

You hit the nail on the head.

However much the EU describes itself as a federation, it is, inevitably, basically more closer to a confederacy: an union of independent states where the members won’t in the end give up their independence. This is a fact that cannot be denied, however much the countries can jointly do. EU simply cannot create itself to be like the US (or UK).

This is why Europe has been all so happy with the US as being the leader in the treaty organization of NATO. And NATO has indeed prospered, unlike the former CENTO or SEATO. Now with Trump the idea of US automatically backing up article 5 is severely questioned, especially after the Greenland debacle.

Yet the EU isn’t so incapable as it seems to be. It simply is so large already that there simply has to be some member opposing the majority, thus Orban’s Hungary isn’t an anomaly. And the simple fact is that the security issues are simply totally different for example with Finland and Estonia compared to Portugal and Spain or Greece. Even NATO has already this built in: the response to an Article 5 can already be seen in Afghanistan deployment after 9/11. Some countries sent more men than others. This would be the similar even in a crisis in Europe. It’s slow, but it can in the end move.

But just how to haggle with nukes is different. Yet that several EU/NATO countries are having a debate about nuclear weapons just shows how things have changed after Putin’s assault on Ukraine and with Trump’s second term having a new anti-EU policy.

[Punshhh]

@ssu

But just how to haggle with nukes is different. Yet that several EU/NATO countries are having a debate about nuclear weapons just shows how things have changed after Putin’s assault on Ukraine and with Trump’s second term having a new anti-EU policy.

Having Putin there in Ukraine acting the inhuman way he is, is a strong stimulus to Europe to get its act together over defence. This is going the wrong way for Putin. He is achieving the opposite of his stated goal. Which is why I am looking at his politics regarding the internal situation in Russia. If his secondary goal is to cement his total authoritarian rule over Russia, he is very successful. So maybe this is his primary goal and is expecting Ukraine to bow down to him, return to Russia, in the long run anyway.

[Jamal]

This is a chat post. Please use the Current Affairs Chat.

[Punshhh]

Yes, I know it reads that way. But it does get to the root of what the OP is about. I have asked the various respondents in the thread to comment on it. But there were no takers. I was looking for the opportunity to explore the reasons for why I wanted to post it. To build my case. But I need an interlocutor to do that, otherwise I’m simply navel gazing in public.
Perhaps I’ll start a chat about it and people will feel more freedom to discuss it.

[Pseudonym]

It is that with the vast amount of historical data, archives that finally open later and the vast amount of information that is obtainable and studied by various historians creates an environment in which your argument that “historians cannot be trusted because of their bias” doesn’t hold.

Exactly. That’s precisely the point I was arguing against. That historians can discover the truth of some event because of the vast data available does not imply the actually do. Historians disagree, and when you dig into their disagreements you find nine times out of ten the interpretation is that which suits their political ideology (or that of the publishing houses, academic institutions, and think tanks they work with).

Apparently for you “historians” are some kind of monolith group with one view, which can be totally fabricated.

How did you get that from my post about how experts disagree? Was there something about…

There is expert disagreement on these matters.

… that you didn’t understand in the post you’re responding to, or did you just not read it?

promoting nazism will get you banned. Promoting a “radical” view that the Mongol Horde had a very beneficial impact on World history because thanks to them East and West got together, might be something that many disagrees with, but won’t get you banned.

This is the clarity to which I was referring. Unless you’re thinking the ban on promoting Nazism might be a bit much?

Now I don’t know these, but I can agree that indeed this might be the end of Russian Imperialism, so badly the war has gone.

That’s not Urnov’s argument. He goes back further that that, that’s why I brought him up. He directly contradicts your assertion that this is all about imperialism. I’m not saying he’s right. I’m saying if you choose to believe one narrative over another you must give reasons why otherwise we’ve git nothing to discuss.

explaining that the attack to Hostomel Airport and towards Kyiv was a planned feint, that the Russians had planned to then withdraw. He didn’t give any reason for this, perhaps that “it was obvious” and I just believed in Western propaganda. No military person that I’ve read, listened to or talked with has proposed such a ludicrous idea.

But that’s not what this discussion is about. It’s about Putin’s folly, the extent to which he’s (uniquely) mad to try an invade Ukraine. You may well have had bad experiences with people going against all expert opinion on a matter - I don’t deny that happens - but the fact that experts don’t disagree about the purpose of the Hostomel attack doesn’t mean they suddenly agree on the entire Western-lead narrative.

What is usually true is that the aggressor has to use extensively propaganda, sometimes even totally fabricated propaganda to justify the aggression

The key word there being “sometimes”. A propagandist like Putin uses what is in his favour and suppresses (or lies about) that which is not. As Bernays said “The only propaganda which will ever ten to weaken itself as the world becomes more sophisticated and intelligent, is propaganda that is untrue…”. any propagandist worth half his salt will use what truths there are to make the propaganda more compelling.

So armed with this, the fact that aggressors need to use more propaganda doesn’t tell us anything about the truth or falsity of the propaganda does it?

Just as the talk of the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction -program, which indeed was destroyed …during the Gulf War 1991, with the last remnants possibly by Clinton in Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

Good example. and how many years after the war was over did it take to fully repair that false narrative? We are still well into the war in Ukraine. The idea that we can get any clear understanding out of it, of the sort you’re claiming long-term historical study can provide, whilst it’s still ongoing, is naive.

[Pseudonym]

To me it doesn’t literally make any sense to claim that all our opinions are biased as long as “bias” refers to a cognitive mistake. If there are mistaken opinions there must be correct opinions in light of which we can assess mistaken opinions.

Which is why I raised the example of ‘all humans who have been to mars’. It makes perfect sense despite there being no members of that category. Likewise ‘correct opinions’ makes sense as a category of opinion even if it has no members.

See, we have a different understanding of bias. To me, “bias” has to do with cognitive mistakes. So a biased opinion is ultimately a cognitively defective opinion. If “bias” is simply expression of a non-cognitive preference without being cognitively defective, then it equates to my idea of “partiality”.

Close.

From the APA dictionary of Psychology. The first two meanings are the ones relating to opinion formation

APA Dictionary of Psychology

1. partiality: an inclination or predisposition for or against something.
2. any tendency or preference, such as a response bias or test bias.

So when one says “our opinions are all biased”, it means are opinions are all predisposed for or against something, revealing a preference. Indeed, much the way you’re using ‘partiality’

But then I don’t understand why it would be impossible for somebody to be part of a political competition in light of certain non-cognitive preferences and yet converge on certain shared rules (also concerning the nature of the political competition itself) which can ensure mutual intelligibility with other competitors, if that’s the point you were making against me.

Nor do I think it would be impossible. It think it would be unlikely - given, as above, our thoughts tend to exhibit bias and so given two equally plausible options for what the ‘rules’ might be, we’d tend to choose the option which best supports our pre-existing preferences. I don’t think it’s impossible. It doesn’t need to be. My argument is that it’s no less subject to bias that the ‘emotional’ appeals you’re wanting to replace with it.

Then I do not understand what you mean by “perfectly intelligible” either.The sentence “all cats are dogs” is literally unintelligible to me. Because by definition cats are not dogs. Dogs are not cats.

Come on! I gave an example right after that. “All cats are mammals”. A claim is intelligible if the possible world it entails is intelligible, it’s not the same as being ‘correct’, since an undetermined claim can still be intelligible.

How do these hypotheticals answer my question “what evidence would you need to believe that I’m not here to convince others of my political views (which I haven’t exposed yet)” ?

I literally supplied you with the evidence that I would need. You asked ““what evidence would you need” [my emphasis]. That entails a hypothetical. “…would…”, literally means ‘in the hypothetical circumstance’

My definition of politics extrapolates the notion of competition that is present in all competing political views, so it doesn’t favour any political agenda in particular.

Of course it does. It favours those that promote competition over cooperation by claiming it as a ‘natural’ state.

your examples leave undetermined the role played by epistemic concerns I find relevant to apply the notion of bias.

Unsurprising, since the chances on me providing and example of concerns you find relevant would contain a degree of mind-reading I think we’d both be alarmed at.

Concerning the first example, the existence of views that contradict other views doesn’t say anything about the epistemic value of either views.

Agreed

we find the Copernican views more accurate than the Ptolemaic views.

‘We’ don’t. Astronomers do. ‘We’ just believe the astronomers. ‘We’ don’t have the knowledge (and in this case often the tools) to adjudicate between Ptolemy and Copernicus, scientists who specialise in astronomy do. That’s the point. ‘We’ could not have (in the day) just read Ptolemy and read Copernicus and use our Very Smart Logical Capacity, to work out who was right. It’s an empirical question about how the world is. It’s resolved by further experiment and data, not by having a think about which ‘sounds right’.

if I do not have compelling cognitive criteria to choose between two experts, but I still feel compelled to choose one over the other instead of just suspend my judgement, then this must be grounded on non-cognitive criteria. Why should this be the case for all opinions though?

Because you are not an expert in the field. I can’t believe I’m actually having to spend so much time, on a forum purported to be populated with intelligent people, explaining that non-experts cannot adjudicate between competing expert opinion. I really wasn’t expecting push-back on this, it’s properly weird.

Besides, you seem to also suggest that if I do not have a domain specific expertise, by default I wouldn’t be equipped by sufficient cognitive criteria to justify my selection of one expert over the other in a rationally compelling way.

Yes, yes, and a dozen times, yes. You cannot just look at a couple of papers in a domain outside of your expertise and determine which one is right. Does this notion really seem crazy to you (to everyone here it seems!)

In conclusion, the fact that knowledge is scarce in the sense I specified holds true independently from any particular political agenda, including e.g. a humanist agenda which wishes to remove barriers to knowledge access for all human beings as a way to overcome political conflicts.

We were talking about the ‘natural’ state. what politics is at its heart. The current way knowledge happens to be distributed doesn’t relate to this. We currently also compete for resources. The question was over whether we must, not whether we currently do.

One last question: are you the same user whose nickname was “Isaac” in the old forum? Your arguments and style of counter-arguing are very much like his.

No. I’ve not participated in this forum before.

It says a lot about my small experience here thus far that presenting these views is met with “there was one other person who had these views once… you must be them, there can’t possibly be two of you”