Having an open mind is great and all, but once you’ve gathered enough information to take a position you’re not obligated to coddle those who remain willfully ignorant. I’ve personally never found astrology “fun,” it’s stupid woo that encourages people to adopt other stupid woo. At a time when anti-intellectualism is being institutionalized into government policy (in the US at least,) I don’t see how anyone in good faith can actively encourage that.
I link this article every time the discussion comes up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_presidential_party
The first paragraph is a doozy.
I’m a fallibilist: I don’t believe we can know anything for certain. The best we can do is base propositions off contingent statements: “If what I see is reliable, then what I see in the mirror is not a brain in a vat.”
A brain in a vat is not a very useful starting axioms, so I have no reason to give it serious consideration. By contrast, while taking the general accuracy of my own senses as axiomatic eventually leads me to conclude they can be fallible (example: hallucinations,) it is nonetheless a way more useful axiom for deriving a base of contingent knowledge.
Your brain is you, though, just like your hands are you. Whether there’s a lag between the time that imaging detects you made a decision and you say you made one does not change the fact that you’re the one making the decision.
To clarify: are you saying that there is a “you” who is a separate entity from your brain (and the rest of your body?)
Do you see it as your fingers are typing a reply and you’re just watching them do it on their own? You wouldn’t say that you’re the one typing?
How does a hardcore determinist believe in “shouldn’t?” Doesn’t that imply that people have the ability to change their behavior?
Freezing cold