What should/can we all agree on?

[Lumpenproletariat]

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.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

I chose the last option - keep arguing. There are some branches of maths where 2 +2 doesn't equal four. The earth is not a perfect sphere but classed as an oblate spheroid. Supply and demand doesn't always function as the economic theories suggest. While there may have been a person that is known as Jesus now, there is no evidence for his specific activities. I agree with the rest of the points in your post.

 

[Bronzeage]

Why should I question everything?

 

[TomC]

First, here's a simple obvious example which no one should disagree with:

Here's a couple of more appropo examples.
1) The earth is close to 14 billion years old. The earth is close to 5 thousand years old.

2) Earthly species are the result of millions of years of natural selection.
Species were brought into existence in a week.

I'm not exactly sure why Young Earth Creationists have lost faith in a roundish earth, while keeping faith in the other big parts of Biblical science. But they have. Google Ken Ham for more information.
Tom

 

[abaddon]

There's a basic, universal, indisputable fact that's even surer than evolutionary thought or really any scientific theories.
And that is consciousness. All that is known is known by consciousness. And Descartes was right with his cogito - to experience is to know, in a way that any doubt of it can only be inattentiveness or ideology, that experiencing happens. All the rest of reality (insofar as sentient beings can know it) is derivative.

Consensus knowledge isn't a consensus on facts about "external reality". It's a consensus on experiences -- it's people trying to extrapolate speculations about "external reality" from those experiences.

This might seem like "angels on pinheads" philosophical talk because most humans are by default naive realists and they rarely re-think that basic assumption. We tend to imagine the world comes in through the senses straight to a "me" residing "inside" of a skull. That's very naive unthinking but it's also incredibly hard to shake. But there are pragmatic reasons to deconstruct naive realism. It's an obstruction to knowing the role our minds play in constructing and presenting to each of us a "world". And there's no complete description of nature without including mind in it.

Amazingly to me, consciousness has been disputed. Like religionists denying aspects of reality that don't fit their "theory of everything", some physics-mimic positivists have declared that consciousness is an illusion. They start with the premise that physics is true. So for a phenomenon to "really exist", it has to be accounted for in physics. Else it only *seems" to exist but doesn't really. (Nevermind that physics isn't designed to know all reality, cuz they also assume positivism is true and positivism presumes the supremacy of physics).

The reason this argument is bonkers, is you can't have an illusion of "seeming" except in consciousness. So the argument to "it only seems like it's there" actually demonstrates consciousness because the very seeming is consciousness! The argument is on a level of stupid with Samuel Johnson trying to refute Georges Berkeley's idealism by kicking a rock. "I refute it thus!" he shouted and kicked a rock... thereby demonstrating that his mental experience of a mental foot striking a mental rock resulted in mental pain.

The world does not come in at the eyes and ears and mirror itself inside your brain. The world is [re}constructed in the brain and "you" are in that construction and so you are in effect inside your own universe. It doesn't matter which "worldview" is true -- whether physicalism or idealism or panpsychism, or whatever the fuck else anyone believes, the "things" you see "around you" are permutations of consciousness. Look at the world like it's here in "your" mind with you, like you're having a very consistent lucid dream, and you'll be that little bit less deluded.

 

[steve_bank]

Nothing is certain except death and taxes - This famous quote about taxes originated with Benjamin Franklin in 1789. Over 200 years later, it still rings true.

One thing is sure, endless debate on that which can never be resolved will exist until the last two humans around to debate.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why should I question everything?

(Is this trip necessary? Does this require another Wall of Text?)

The rule "Question everything" doesn't really mean that you literally have to question everything you encounter. No one is able to do that -- there's not time. We have to make decisions, survive, do the daily tasks, and to question every speck of dust before we can act, or to disbelieve anything in life until we first scientifically research and prove it, would make living impossible. The truth-seeker is entitled to do this research and proof in any particular case, but is not required to in all cases.

So this rule means freedom to question everything, or something like not submitting to any demand or rule or authority that cannot be scrutinized or questioned, like to someone claiming infallibility, or like a rule or formula claiming to be universal and to be followed by everyone, or in all conditions, in all places, everywhere in the universe, without reservation, without condition. Rather, there should be sufficient reservation or satisfaction that whatever is dictating something to us can be questioned, or has been questioned, and tested, or put through a process to demonstrate its reliability as a standard for guiding decisions, or as a source for what is true.

Even "2 + 2 = 4" can be questioned, in the sense that someone must be allowed to give their refutation of it, and any such claimed refutation has to be considered -- maybe not by everyone, but by someone. There may be a reason why such a formula or truth statement should be accepted, as inherently true and irrefutable. And yet even so one has to at least give the explanation why this kind of statement must be true without any exception. So some explanation is required -- even if the rule has to be true in all possible cases. Even then there has to be an explanation why this rule has such status.

So "Question everything" doesn't literally demand that nothing is ever assumed without proving it. Rather it means the "proof" does exist, or there is an explanation why a rule holds true -- possibly in all conceivable cases -- and that this explanation is available to us, whether we choose to experience the explaining process or not. So it's subject to being examined, and nothing is immune to being examined to determine its validity. And the choice to examine it, analyze it, scrutinize it, seek flaws in it, etc., is always open to us, and we're free to exercise that choice. We're entitled to an explanation why any particular rule or authority is legitimate.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

For all practical purposes, some facts/truths have been established.

There are some branches of maths where 2 +2 doesn't equal four.

Even so, everyone knows, including those mathematicians, that 2 + 2 = 4. They are not really telling us that we are mistaken when we claim 2 + 2 = 4. And if they teach math, they teach the students that 2 + 2 = 4. So they do agree that 2 + 2 = 4.

Is the Earth not really "round"?

The earth is not a perfect sphere but classed as an oblate spheroid.

Being "round" is not necessarily to be a "perfect sphere." What we all know is that "The earth is round rather than flat." And spheroid is "round" even if it's not a perfect sphere, but an imperfect one.

If need be we can make it even more explicit: "The earth is round like a ball rather than flat." That is a fact everyone does agree with -- how could any honest person insist that the earth is flat rather than round like a ball? unless they're playing some kind of word-game? -- even though the flat earth was believed 50,000 years ago by most humans. It's not about "perfect roundness" but about being a ball kind of shape rather than flat.


Is the Law of Supply-and-Demand debunked?

Supply and demand doesn't always function as the economic theories suggest.

Which economic theories? Of course there are many theories which might need to be improved. But the basic theory is correct, that more supply = lower value, and more demand = higher value. This always is true, but it's difficult to measure the quantities demand and supply, and it's difficult to identify the "value" over time, as it varies with the unpredictable ups and downs. Or even unmeasurable ups and downs. But when the supply and the demand can be measured easily and correctly, the value always goes up as demand rises (all else being equal) and also goes up as supply decreases (all else being equal). When does the law of supply-and-demand not function this way?

When you choose complicated scenarios, the "law" gets more difficult to apply. But in all the simple scenarios, where it's easy to test, supply-and-demand always does function as it's supposed to.


No evidence about the historical Jesus?

While there may have been a person that is known as Jesus now, there is no evidence for his specific activities.

It's true that there's very little such evidence. But it's incorrect to say there's "no evidence" or zero evidence for his activities. There's almost no evidence for some historical characters, like Zoroaster, e.g. (less evidence than for Jesus). But even for Zoroaster it's agreed by all the experts that he founded a new Persian religion or religious philosophy, which is one "specific activity" of his.

Maybe in some cases of these known facts/truths the probability of it is only 98%, rather than 99.99%. Maybe even 96 or 97% (slight uncertainty). So my claim is not that there's absolute certainty about it. But it's well-enough proved (very high probability) that something is usually wrong when educated persons claim to disbelieve it. It's easy to give examples of believers, religionists, etc. claiming to believe contrary to established facts -- clinging uncritically to their traditions -- but there are also examples of disbelievers and skeptics and Gospel-debunkers who make up stories in order to prove their case.

 

[lostone]

We all want a world where everyone can do as well as possible

 

[steve_bank]

1.Disagree, 2+2 = 4 in arithmetic, the + operator has more than one use.
2. Disagree, the Earth is not round. It is oblate spheroid.
3. Disagree, left and right are the equally unbelievable.
4. Disagree, see 3.
5. Disagree, a principle of western liberal democracy is freedom to choose beliefs. There is no mandate that you mus choose.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Amusingly, I thought up the other day common situations where 2 + 2 =4 can be a misleading or ambiguous claim. Incidentally, I thought a similar thing last year that would have applied to a certain thread but I never posted it then.
It is to do with objects, not pure mathematical numbers.
2 pies + 2 pies = 4 pies. 2 whole pies + 2 half-pies = 4 items, but only 3 whole pies. So, in this and many similar familiar cases 2 + 2 = 3 or some other number.

 

[steve_bank]

When Unknown Soldier appeared on the form he argued that because across mathematics the statement 1 + 1 does not always algebraically add up to 2 that math was wrong.

In philosophy the problem is always narrowing the scope and possibly of interpretations.

We commonly say the Earth is round but in fact it is not. We commonly say planets revolve around the Sun, but in fact the Sin and planets rotate about the center of mass of the solar system.

Instead of 2 + 2 = 4 if it was stated that if I have 6 apples in one pile and 3 in another then the total is 9 I;; say we can all agree it is always true. Or you could say arithmetic is always correct.