Everyone being their own hero really sums up our modern malaise to me

>Not everyone has a moral obligation to look at all bodies of evidence for all scientific theories.

Sure, but that's not what I'm suggesting. The question is whether one has an epistemic or intellectual obligation to accept a given scientific proposal (or any proposition, in general) provided there is sufficient evidence supporting that proposal and one is aware of the evidence. The hypothetical obviously doesn't apply to situations where one isn't aware of the relevant evidence.

So again, the question is whether there is such a thing as an epistemic duty or obligation: are we under any normative obligation to accept a proposition (or scientific proposal) when we are in possession of sufficient evidence for that proposition? Or does anything go, as far as the morality or normativity of belief is concerned?

>Belief in God is not the only foundation of morality

Very interesting. Can you point to other foundations of morality?

We need heroes for inspiration until we learn to become our own hero.

>In other words, if you're presented with a body of evidence sufficient to establish a given scientific proposal to an acceptable degree of probability or certainty, do you then have an epistemic obligation or duty to endorse/accept that proposal...

You are mixing things that are right with things that are not quite right.

Not everyone has a moral obligation to look at all bodies of evidence for all scientific theories. Each of us has a limited amount of time and expertise. The obligation to follow the evidence in a given area of scientific inquiry for practical reasons must fall to a limited number of professionals whom we are asked to trust to examine, explore, and to simplify the evidence for us.

It is the obligation of those professionals to follow the evidence though, even if it means being banned by those who put pressure on them to support a narrative.

Is that true? Definitely useful though. The diacritical lets you know that it is two syllables, that the "a" and the "i" are separate.

Unfortunately, it is true.

You think the story of London’s world-changing sewage system is most effectively told through the lens of a guy digging the hole?

The fellow who, despite public opinion being against him, managed to get it done takes a back seat to that? What story are you telling here?

Anyway, you retain the Great Man approach her too.

Big

>The alternative is boring, dry history with unfocused stories that no one really remembers or cares about

That is not true. There are many alternatives and each one has their pros and cons. Problem or solution orientated history is much more interesting than hearing what charles Dick the 5th has done in his life. I would rather read about how London solved their wastewater issue than hearing about the deeds of some random dude who played some part in it. Chronological history can sometimes be very boring, as there is no inherent storytelling involved. But luckily you are able to combine several approaches.

Haha holy smokes man, sounds like we were brothers born on opposite sides of the country😂.

The escape during the day to nature, I go for rides personally. I got into woodwork and other similar projects in the last little bit as well as arduinos and other mechatronic based hobbies too!

Films and artsy anime that friends have recommended was what I was filling time with. Spirited away and Cowboy Bepop and stuff like that that I still haven’t finished. Roller coaster tycoon has been good, I had the old remake on my phone for a while.

That’s hilarious that diamond is your ceiling too, my buddy and I have been trying to break into diamond 3 for months now.

I haven’t messed with FL Studio since high school though personally. Sorry, don’t mean to go on, just your first comment resonated so much with me, and now hearing that it sounds like we’re very similar people is even more funny.

If you ever want to chat or mess around in Rocket League DM me! I’d love to chat and see what else we have in common and haven’t tried. Maybe we can bounce new hobbies or ideas off of each other. 👍

Sure, but isn't there also some intellectual or epistemic normativity involved in what scientific proposals/models one accepts, depending on the strength of the evidence and whether the subject is aware of that body of evidence?

In other words, if you're presented with a body of evidence sufficient to establish a given scientific proposal to an acceptable degree of probability or certainty, do you then have an epistemic obligation or duty to endorse/accept that proposal (albeit provisionally, pending future evidence, as with any empirical or scientific matter of fact)? Put more succinctly, are there such things as epistemic duties or obligations? I don't think its self-evident that there are not or cannot be.

>But nowadays, if you question the narrative, some people like to demonize you

Nowadays? I think its the basic reaction since always.

Wonderful point. But can I ask you a honest question I’d ask anyone that posted here. Did you read the whole article?

I think your point is valid and I also wonder how much of our problem is “hyperbolic language”

And herein lies the issue with the people who view “Great Man Theory” as some evil.

The alternative is boring, dry history with unfocused stories that no one really remembers or cares about

Of course not, because they don't exist.

[deleted]

God is on everybody's side.

A person who goes to crime and evil when God is mentions - the Ten Commandments are for you.

>So it wouldn't be a moral duty or virtue to accept any particular theory (e.g. a duty to accept, say, general relativity), only to accept theories well-supported by the evidence (and conversely, to reject theories that have been empirically falsified).

There is a moral duty to be completely open and honest about the evidence rather than be tempted to tweak it due to political and social pressures or for monetary gain or for fame and/or glory.

They’re not the arbiters of English.

> That is the basis idiot :

So now you've resorted to name calling.

I will just answer to the first assertion since this is clearly not a constructive debate: Frontal lobe damage a d general brain damage CAN be caused by neuroleptics as well as trauma (such as concussion, diffuse axonal damage, etc), metabolic imbalances (hyperammonemia, etc.) Nutritional deficits (chronic vitamin b deficiency), and a very very long list of more causes.

Are we sure about that? Isn't there an element of epistemic normativity (both in general, and in science in particular), i.e. a duty to follow the evidence and accept the proposal or model most consistent with the relevant evidence?

So it wouldn't be a moral duty or virtue to accept any particular theory (e.g. a duty to accept, say, general relativity), only to accept theories well-supported by the evidence (and conversely, to reject theories that have been empirically falsified).

>The truth is that if you believe that God is on your side, you are capable of committing any crime necessary to whatever ends you attribute to him, as we've seen throughout history.

True, but potentially misinformative (a vague term, and used as such for appropriateness).

Replace God with most any ideology or methodology and it is also true.

What part of cognitive function are we born with, and what develops during childhood?

Problem solving and intelligence in general originate from the ability to make associations between pieces of information. For example, seeing a banana and seeing a fellow animal eat it, touching a hot plate and experiencing pain, or hearing a question and associating it with a relevant answer. What part of cognitive function are we born with, and what develops during childhood?

The NYT uses them though