The most alarming thing about the current war is that the battlegrounds are in regimes which are at…
Peter Wang
113

Ok, “hippies with flamethrowers” is a keeper — thx!

But I think that when you say “The big problem is that we’re going to have to tear down a lot of prior models of physics and philosophy.” you’re possibly conflating some important distinctions. Physics changes/evolves in a distinctly different way than does philosophy.

Philosophical change is a function of communities of interest and practice and respective dialogs, coupled with group power dynamics.

Physics changes in response to the inability to replicate or predict observed phenomena.

In both cases there is a “priesthood” that insists that “reality is that which is consensually validated”. Here I think I’m paraphrasing Harry Stack Sullivan, an obscure psychiatrist, more to the point, some of his thoughts about the webs of relationships and interactions that define personalities make it easier to see that the difference between dialogs about beliefs based on words vs those based on physical reality are what I tend to think of as “the place to put the chisel” to pry open the gap between bullshit and reality.

In college I had a roommate who was a philosophy major for a time. During one of the late night bull sessions he went on and on about how reality is only in our heads, etc. and that nothing is real. I punched him; we didn’t revisit that topic.

I don’t disagree with most of what you’re saying, only that there are some common points of reference that are (almost) universal and that can be (maybe) useful in trying to get people closer to a consensus view of what’s going on around them. Without that, as lots of people have noted, it’s hard to see how we move past our current state.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.