Who cares?
What ‘you’ are essentially saying and professing to here is that ‘you’ cannot see ‘Reality’ as It is. Which means then is who would care about what ‘you’ ‘see and claim’? By your own logic, what ‘you’ ‘see and claim’ is NOT ‘Real’ anyway.
Yes, they do. No-one claimed that the categorization of “unreliable” must be something made by the consumer of that information.
And before you say that it’s all subjective, no, there are standards by which we can measure an information source: whether any claims are backed up with explicit cites (from experts and data that the reader can check for themselves), whether they publicly acknowledge errors, whether they mention if it is a representative view, whether all the information fits a given agenda or is allowed to go against it, etc etc.
I’m not interested in going further down this tangent.
I don’t know what “full” critical thinking would mean, but yes I practice critical thinking: I’m skeptical of claims, in proportion to how noteworthy / odd they are, and require evidence before holding even tentative opinions.
Meanwhile, this was your opening sentence in this thread:
Any critical thinking applied to that? Can you go through the concrete evidence?
You asked:
…and I replied:
Do you not recognise this as an answer? It’s the best one I have. 
Point of Information: I always speak and write with honesty. I get lots of things wrong, as we all do, but I do so honestly. Always. 
[I am autistic; I cannot do otherwise.]
So, why do you trust “unreliable sources”, exactly?
And, no one said nor claimed otherwise.
Does any one say to “themselves”, “I trust unreliable sources”?
To everyone, the sources they trust are “reliable”. Obviously, if the sources were “unreliable”, to them, then they would not trust them.
Now, and again, obviously people trust what they call “reliable sources” but what others call “unreliable sources”. So, once more, who decides on what is “reliable” and “unreliable” sources, exatly?
Will you provide any examples?
I can provide an example here. Scientific literature continually states, “In the early Universe … [such and such]”. Is scientific literature a “realiable” or an “unreliable” source, exactly?
Here is another example of when people shut down, shut off, close up, and/or refuse to just be open and honest any further. They do this because of the consequences if they were to be open and honest anymore.
Again, lying is clearly a very stupid thing to do, well from my perspective anyway.
Once more, subjectivity can be seen very clearly here.
‘Climate change’ is a prime example of not being noteworthy and a very odd claim, but then again, some people have the complete opposite subjective view.
Also, let us not forget that people with two completely opposing beliefs and claims can both claim that they practice critical thinking and believe that others need to explicitly learn critical thinking principles.
Also, if you do not yet know what ‘full critical thinking’ is, then you have more to learn and understand, right?
[quote=“Mijin1, post:82, topic:3023”]
Meanwhile, this was your opening sentence in this thread:
This was NOT my opening sentence in this thread, but anyway, let us continue;
you would obviously have to first explain what ‘critical thinking’ entails, exactly, for me to answer this properly and Correctly, for you?
Yes.
Are ‘you’ able to ‘look from’ another’s perspective?
If yes, then when ‘you’ do this from ‘Everyone’s perspective’, then ‘you’ can and will ‘see’ the irrefutable and objective Truth of ALL things, ‘Reality’.
But, if ‘you’ are not yet able to ‘look and see’ from ‘another’s perspective’, then okay.
you ask a question, and you shrug, but you have also added that;
That was, of course, ‘a reply’, but ‘an answer’ I am not so sure. One minute you say and claim that ‘objectivity’ can’t be recognised, realised, or known, exactly, but the next minute you said and claimed that ‘objectivity’ is recognised, realised, or known as ‘an intellectual concept’.
So I am not sure which one is the ‘true’ answer, and which one is the ‘false’ reply.
Are you able to and will elaborate further and clarify?
Okay.
So, when you said and claimed that ‘objectivity’ can’t be recognised, realised, nor known, in some so-called ‘real world’, and probably can’t be, but then said and claimed that ‘objectivity’ is an intellectual concept, then which one is right and which one is wrong, exactly?
The concept of objectivity is easily described and understood. As an intellectual object, it seems clear. But then, as we are humans, we are tempted to claim that we have objective knowledge of things. This is a nonsense, IMO.
N.B. I consider “objectivity” to take its strict meaning: mind-independently corresponding to that which actually is. The lesser meanings the word carries are just confusing and misleading. If you want to say, “well, we did our best to be impartial”, just say it. Don’t imbue your ideas with a quality that is inaccessible to humans, and always will be. There is no way you (or anyone) could know that they are objective.
< rant over > 
Both, as above.
Well, I could easily make the claim that I see reality as it is.
Easy enough to make such a claim.
So, if ‘objectivity’ is an ‘intellectual concept’, and is all it is, as you claim, it supposedly cannot be recognised and known as anything and probably cannot forevermore, then this is just your own ‘subjective view’, only. Which, as always, could be completely false and wrong.
That you believe, absolutely, that ‘objective knowledge is nonsense’ is also just your own personal ‘subjective view or belief’, which again could be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, or Incorrect, correct?
Now, you also believe, absolutely, that ‘my words’ above are contradictory, which, once more, is only your own personal subjective point of view that, let us not forget, can be absolutely False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect.
And, from your perspective here, you have no way of knowing either way if ‘your view and belief’ here is Right or Wrong, False or True, et cetera.
So, ‘I’ asked ‘you’;
you say;
And now ‘you’ consider ‘objectivity’ -
So, from your own person view and perspective ‘objectivity’ can’t be known, in the days when this is being written, and probably can never be known forevermore.
Which, again, is just your own personal view that could be completely Wrong, correct?
And, if you want to say, “Rats run down drain pipes”, just say it.
But since both of these sayings have absolutely nothing at all to do with absolutely anything here, ‘we’ have now just both gone completely off tangent for absolutely no reason at all, while just adding more confusing and misleading words here.
Says ‘the one’ coming here claiming that its own personal subjective view could be the one and Only absolute or objective view and perspective to. Which obviously is ‘an idea’ attempting to be imbued into others here.
What I have said and am proposing here I KNOW is absolutely accessible to ALL human beings, and always will be.
Also, noted is the deep-seat beleif that you were always carrying here, which you have finally exposed. It took a bit of work to get it from ‘you’, but ‘we’ got here.
Before ‘you’ were ‘trying’ your hardest to appeart to be somewhat open, and ‘impartial’, by saying, that ‘objectivity’ “probably” can’t be recognised and known, but ‘now’ ‘you’ have expressed ‘your true belief’ that ‘objectivity’ will “always” never be recognised and known.
The people who make this absolutist claims never seem to miss the absolute irony in claiming, absolutely, things like; " ‘the truth of things’ can never be known."
you say this like it is an absolute or objective truth that no one could refute.
And, the fact that what ‘you’ just claimed here is an absolute, irrefutable, or objective truth, in and of itself, besides being in absolute contradiction of the claim itself, has ALREADY been proved False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect, but, as always, ‘you’ are absolutely free to have or hold absolutely any subjective view or belief that ‘you’ want to.
Now that ‘your rant’ is over, once more,
I have already expressed, and partly explained, HOW ‘objectivity’ is found, recognised, seen, realised, and known. And, as always, this is open for discussion with further explanations, with absolutely anyone who is curious and interested here.
Also, note HOW and WHY the answers to these sorts of thousands-of-years-old philosophical questions have not yet come to light, for most people in the days when this was being written, can be clearly seen in the ‘subjective-only responses’ from “patternchaser” here.
So, just to be clear, do you mean that they are both right, both wrong, or both right and wrong, exactly?
That might be easy enough for you to claim, but, especially in a philosophy forum, ‘I’ will question and challenge ‘you’ to see if you can back up and support ‘your claim’.
Now, either ‘you’ see ‘reality’ as it is, or ‘you’ do not, and if you really want to claim that ‘you’ cannot, then okay. I accept that ‘you’ cannot see ‘reality’ as it is. Which would explain WHY ‘you’ are saying and claiming some of the things that ‘you’ do here.
Now, only those who already know HOW to find, recognise, see, realise, and know the Objective Truth of things also know WHERE the reliable source is, exactly.
For everyone else they are subjectively only claiming this or that source is “reliable” or “unreliable” without ever really knowing, for sure.
I have seen that the universe is a giant blue apple, half-peeled.
When I saw that, I was outside of my cave.
Begin your examination.
If ‘that’ is what ‘you’ “saw”, and ‘now’ want to believe and claim is real and true, then that is perfectly fine and okay, ‘with me’.
‘I’ obviously cannot logically dispute nor refute what ‘you’ “see” and “saw”, and where ‘you’ were when ‘you’ claim to have ‘seen’ what ‘you’ ‘saw’ has no real bearing here.
So, if ‘you’ really want to maintain and claim that ‘that’ is what ‘you’ ‘saw’, then so be it.
Well, OK. But you just now said:
That might be easy enough for you to claim, but, especially in a philosophy forum, ‘I’ will question and challenge ‘you’ to see if you can back up and support ‘your claim’.
I apologise; it would have been better if I made things clearer for you here. I was thinking, but did not add and write, ‘If I have the interest’.
Also, did you make it clear that ‘you’ were seeing ‘reality’ as it is?
Or, did you just express what ‘you’ saw?
Would you like to really claim, in this publicly visible philosophy forum, that ‘reality’, to ‘you’ is the Universe is a giant blue half-peeled apple?
I stepped outside of my black and silent cave and experienced reality directly. It is a giant blue, half-peeled apple.
Well, not ‘to me’. To everyone and everything. It is reality itself. No one can escape reality itself.
And I certainly would not like to claim it. It’s embarrassing. But I have no choice. I saw what I saw. I’m hoping that you can prove me wrong. I want you to prove that I didn’t actually escape my cave and see reality directly.
Please examine me and my claim. And disprove it.
Well you said: “NO one trusts “unreliable sources”” – the clear implication being that you think the classification is made by the person themself. If that’s not what you meant then I genuinely have no idea what your argument was.
Firstly in answer to your question, yes, the scientific literature is reliable as they cite the actual data (CMB, redshift, astronomical spectroscopy, etc etc) that the reader can check for themselves.
An example of an unreliable source might be, say, the joe rogan experience, that platforms kooks about history, vaccines, politics etc without evidence and never makes any corrections. Of course JRE is not trying to be a good research source, but regardless fans of the show typically believe a whole bunch of easily-debunkable bullsht.
I’m not your dancing monkey. Just because you want to talk about a tangent – that isn’t the thread topic – doesn’t mean I am obliged to, nor that it shows bad faith that I don’t want to.
Apologies; I don’t know how / why I missed your two earlier posts.
Not really, because it is a standard term in english. It means forming a position objectively and skeptically.
And this to you is evidence, that a person critically-thinking would agree points to god?
Is this what you believe I think?
Have you ever trusted a source that you had classified as being “unreliable”?
Do you know of anyone who has?
Now, I have not claimed that the categorization of “unreliable” or “reliable” ‘must be’ something made by the so-called consumer of that information. I have also not claimed that the categorization of “unreliable” or “reliable” ‘must not be’ something made by the so-called ‘consumer of that information’.
There is NO ‘must’ here. I certainly did not make any implication that there is a ‘must’, like you were implying I did. However, people obviously ‘can and do make classifications’, obviously.
If you know of ANY one who trusts what they consider to be “unreliable sources”, then will you please name them here?
Who said I had an argument?
The fact is, NO one trusts what they consider or classify as an “unreliable source”, clearly.
And, what is just as clear and obvious is that people trust sources that are found out to be “unreliable sources” or even keep believing what are “unreliable sources” to other people. But why would anyone trust what they consider, think, or know is an “unreliable source”; that is, if absolutely anyone would do this?
Obviously, data is scientific literature. But what ‘we’ have here is another example of confirmation bias. “mijin1” believes absolutely that scientific literature is “reliable” and so “mijin1” now believes, absolutely, that ‘the data’ cited is the ‘actual data’. “mijin1” believes this because they do not consider that anyone in the ‘scientific community’ would cite anything but the ‘actual data’.
Also, ‘data’ ‘actual or not’ does NOT necessarily prove anything.
Again, obviously.
‘you’ seem to be ‘looking at’ this from a very shallow or superficial level only.
Do you know what else is a very easily-debunkable interpretation? Some of the ‘stuff’ written in scintific literature, like, for example, and once again, “In the early Universe”.
No one has ever thought, let alone suggest nor said that ‘you’ were.
What do you now believe I want to talk about, exactly, which you say is not the thread topic?
So are ‘love’, ‘mind’, ‘consciousness’, and ‘time’ standard terms in the english language, but most people still do not know how to explain what these things are, exactly, although they continually use those words and terms.
Yet her ‘we’ are where some people believe, absolutely, and claim that there is no objective position no way to obtain one.
So, how do you, personally, form a position objectively and skeptically, exactly?
So, ‘my answer’ would be ‘Yes’, to ‘your question’, now.
People who think critically or not do not necessarily come to the same agreement. In fact, and once again, two people who claim to be ‘critically-thinking’ can and do come to and form different and even opposing conclusions and positions. So, ‘critically-thinking’ alone does not work in finding ‘objectivity’ itself.
‘My answer’ to ‘your question’ here, by the way, is ‘No’.
For example, people who ‘critically-think’ have not even defined what the word ‘God’ or ‘god’ means, or refers to, exactly, yet, in the days when this is being written.
1 Like
@ages
All your responses are either condescending dismissals or being obtuse.
If it’s trolling, you are pretty good at it, I’ll give you that. But I’m done.
Again, ‘you’ are absolutely free to believe whatever you like. But, once more, what you believe is never necessarily true at all.
Most here are done.
That you cannot refute nor counter what I have been saying, pointing out, showing, and proving here it is not surprising and the reason why most do just give up.
1 Like
What? Are you sure you just didn’t see a giant blue half-peeled apple? - I mean even at that point it’s crazy but…