Lumpenproletariat
Veteran Member
- Joined
- May 9, 2014
- Messages
- 2,599
- Basic Beliefs
- ---- "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Aren't there some facts of life, or REALITIES, that we do all agree on, or that we SHOULD all agree on? and yet some of these realities or facts of life are disbelieved, or disputed?
I.e., at least on some questions there is dispute, or there seems to be, and yet the facts are known, or the proof is plainly there, such that these questions are really PSEUDO-disputes which should not be debated anymore as anything seriously in doubt. Because the truth is plain enough for any honest person to see.
QUALIFIER: it's a legitimate rule that we should
"Question everything!" no matter what.
Also -- "Question authority!" Or, question it still again, even though perhaps it has been firmly established as the truth, or as a reliable source of truth. We're never absolutely certain about it, or there's a hypothetical possibility of error, so there's never any harm in going through the proof again, review the facts again, check the sources again. Even if it's only an armchair philosophy exercise. Such armchair philosophy is legitimate, even necessary, to keep us honest.
BUT, aren't there cases where the truth has been established, in the practical sense, and yet there is widespread error about it, or dishonesty or evasion of some kind, and the truth of it is being dismissed or obscured or suppressed in some way? or the questioning of it is suppressed or curtailed? like a taboo topic?
These are cases where those who know the truth want to present the facts and yet are not getting through, because there's a dishonesty of some kind which prevails and which prevents the truth from coming out. Maybe because someone gains a benefit from having the truth suppressed, or from preventing the discussion of it.
There are probably hundreds of examples of this. From politics, religion, philosophy, history, science. The point here is to produce a listing of such examples, and obviously not everyone agrees on what are the best examples of this. Some examples will be disputed, and so the argument will be whether this or that example is really a legitimate case of it. The point then is to dispute the particular examples -- I'll give a few here -- and anyone can add to the list, giving other examples, or dispute this or that example.
First, here's a simple obvious example which no one should disagree with:
The earth is round (rather than flat).
So, can't we all agree that at least this is true, even though it was not believed 10,000 years ago and even today some pretend to disbelieve it -- either something is wrong with them, or they're playing a joke of some kind. Or -- something is out of whack that they dispute this clear case of a truth which should be obvious to everyone -- from the evidence, not from indoctrination.
So, this example proves the point, that there are some facts or realities that seem to be disputed and yet are not seriously in doubt, because "all the facts" are in, or are established and recognized. And so there's no need to seriously debate this for any practical purpose, even though philosophically it's always good to review the evidence again, and again, etc. (because of the "Question everything!" rule). But there other less obvious cases of truths which are popularly denied or disputed in spite the facts.
examples of facts/truths which everyone should recognize
⬤ The Labor Theory of Value (as taught by Smith, Ricardo, and Marx) has been totally debunked, as it is established and recognized that the Law of Supply and Demand, not the quantity of labor, is what determines the value of anything that is bought and sold.
⬤ There is no evidence that a nation must strive for a "favorable balance of trade" in order to make its economy healthy (or healthier), or that it must penalize imports if necessary to offset a "trade deficit" (where imports exceed exports) on the premise that a "trade deficit" does harm to the economy. (Or, the premise that a "trade deficit" does harm to the economy is false.)
⬤ There is no general social need to "create jobs" -- rather, there is only the general need to get necessary production performed, which in some cases even requires destruction of some jobs (replacement of them by machines to do the work at lower cost).
⬤ If God really exists (or "there is a God"), such as is taught in the major religions and accepted as a hypothetical possibility in most philosophy, then this God entity never required anyone ever to perform animal sacrifice ("blood atonement") rituals, as many Jews and Christians still pretend to believe (even though they probably know better).
⬤ The historical Jesus in the 1st century probably did the unusual healing "miracle" acts depicted in the Gospel accounts, and also resurrected back to life after being killed, or if not, at least the historical evidence tells us that he did, and so the evidence from history has to be rejected in this case for some reason (or the evidence is wrong in this case).
⬤ Donald Trump is guilty or legally accountable for having provoked the crimes committed on Jan. 6 2021.
⬤ Immigrant labor (even illegally hired) is necessary for the U.S. economy, and the U.S. standard of living would decline if the labor laws excluding this labor should be enforced.
⬤ Many of the laws have to be broken at times in order for society to function properly, even some laws which should exist because they still serve a function despite the partial nonenforcement.
All the above are disputed by this or that large segment of society, and yet all are proved by the facts and cannot seriously be disputed. Or, the dispute of them is due to dishonesty or something else wrong with our society causing people to miscommunicate or evade/suppress the truth.
Of course one can list hundreds of other examples.
I.e., at least on some questions there is dispute, or there seems to be, and yet the facts are known, or the proof is plainly there, such that these questions are really PSEUDO-disputes which should not be debated anymore as anything seriously in doubt. Because the truth is plain enough for any honest person to see.
QUALIFIER: it's a legitimate rule that we should
"Question everything!" no matter what.
Also -- "Question authority!" Or, question it still again, even though perhaps it has been firmly established as the truth, or as a reliable source of truth. We're never absolutely certain about it, or there's a hypothetical possibility of error, so there's never any harm in going through the proof again, review the facts again, check the sources again. Even if it's only an armchair philosophy exercise. Such armchair philosophy is legitimate, even necessary, to keep us honest.
BUT, aren't there cases where the truth has been established, in the practical sense, and yet there is widespread error about it, or dishonesty or evasion of some kind, and the truth of it is being dismissed or obscured or suppressed in some way? or the questioning of it is suppressed or curtailed? like a taboo topic?
These are cases where those who know the truth want to present the facts and yet are not getting through, because there's a dishonesty of some kind which prevails and which prevents the truth from coming out. Maybe because someone gains a benefit from having the truth suppressed, or from preventing the discussion of it.
There are probably hundreds of examples of this. From politics, religion, philosophy, history, science. The point here is to produce a listing of such examples, and obviously not everyone agrees on what are the best examples of this. Some examples will be disputed, and so the argument will be whether this or that example is really a legitimate case of it. The point then is to dispute the particular examples -- I'll give a few here -- and anyone can add to the list, giving other examples, or dispute this or that example.
First, here's a simple obvious example which no one should disagree with:
The earth is round (rather than flat).
So, can't we all agree that at least this is true, even though it was not believed 10,000 years ago and even today some pretend to disbelieve it -- either something is wrong with them, or they're playing a joke of some kind. Or -- something is out of whack that they dispute this clear case of a truth which should be obvious to everyone -- from the evidence, not from indoctrination.
So, this example proves the point, that there are some facts or realities that seem to be disputed and yet are not seriously in doubt, because "all the facts" are in, or are established and recognized. And so there's no need to seriously debate this for any practical purpose, even though philosophically it's always good to review the evidence again, and again, etc. (because of the "Question everything!" rule). But there other less obvious cases of truths which are popularly denied or disputed in spite the facts.
examples of facts/truths which everyone should recognize
⬤ The Labor Theory of Value (as taught by Smith, Ricardo, and Marx) has been totally debunked, as it is established and recognized that the Law of Supply and Demand, not the quantity of labor, is what determines the value of anything that is bought and sold.
⬤ There is no evidence that a nation must strive for a "favorable balance of trade" in order to make its economy healthy (or healthier), or that it must penalize imports if necessary to offset a "trade deficit" (where imports exceed exports) on the premise that a "trade deficit" does harm to the economy. (Or, the premise that a "trade deficit" does harm to the economy is false.)
⬤ There is no general social need to "create jobs" -- rather, there is only the general need to get necessary production performed, which in some cases even requires destruction of some jobs (replacement of them by machines to do the work at lower cost).
⬤ If God really exists (or "there is a God"), such as is taught in the major religions and accepted as a hypothetical possibility in most philosophy, then this God entity never required anyone ever to perform animal sacrifice ("blood atonement") rituals, as many Jews and Christians still pretend to believe (even though they probably know better).
⬤ The historical Jesus in the 1st century probably did the unusual healing "miracle" acts depicted in the Gospel accounts, and also resurrected back to life after being killed, or if not, at least the historical evidence tells us that he did, and so the evidence from history has to be rejected in this case for some reason (or the evidence is wrong in this case).
⬤ Donald Trump is guilty or legally accountable for having provoked the crimes committed on Jan. 6 2021.
⬤ Immigrant labor (even illegally hired) is necessary for the U.S. economy, and the U.S. standard of living would decline if the labor laws excluding this labor should be enforced.
⬤ Many of the laws have to be broken at times in order for society to function properly, even some laws which should exist because they still serve a function despite the partial nonenforcement.
All the above are disputed by this or that large segment of society, and yet all are proved by the facts and cannot seriously be disputed. Or, the dispute of them is due to dishonesty or something else wrong with our society causing people to miscommunicate or evade/suppress the truth.
Of course one can list hundreds of other examples.
Last edited: