Frankness & Scientists: Is There a Connection?

[JaredJames]

Right I can't be bothered to quote anymore so I'll work through in points.

Have you ever had a gf? Say "can we talk about something else" or "I really don't care about such things" and it's as good as saying yes.

I can't see how you can make that statement, that corporeal rubbish is 'the world'. It exists, everything on it exists, nothing philosophical can change that. You see a girl/boy you form an opinion to give that opinion whether hurtful or not is being frank with them. It exists as soon as you think it.

I try to avoid arguements with philosophers, I am an engineer, a realist. I deal in facts. Not idealogical arguments which serve no purpose but to prolong this discussion into uselessness. From what I can see you are trying to say opinions on people don't exist, or that the matter the opinion is formed on doesn't exist. Utter BS.

If beauty, truth, genius and willpower exist then so do opinions, beauty is an opinion. genius is a viewpoint determined from what you judge it on.

Something more meaningful? Not telling someone they are rubbish at playing an instrument would prevent them improving. If they don't know it, they can't do anything about it. It's like you telling me to design and build something, I do and give it to you, you look at it and instead of saying "it's wrong fix this and try again" you just let it go and start production. It doesn't help and you end up with a pointless product/musican which/who is no good.

So when asked "is this idea commercially viable" you would rather skate around the edge of the matter and not give a definite answer, possibly leading to massive expendature on a project which was doomed to fail from the start, as opposed to just coming out with a simple no and loosing nothing. That would fit the description here, that would be an example of your 'it doesn't exist' argument.

 

[Civilized]

Have you ever had a gf? Say "can we talk about something else" or "I really don't care about such things" and it's as good as saying yes.

It may surprise you to learn that there are women who don't watch TV or movies or read novels (relevance: in many cases these sources of fiction are where the deranged behaviors you are describing were learned in the first place), who don't ask questions like "does my bum look big?" because they see such questions as meaningless, just as I do. Personally, I would never get intimately involved with a woman who asked questions like that, very quickly I would find such banal questions to be absolutely intolerable.

I can't see how you can make that statement, that corporeal rubbish is 'the world'.

Plato called it the world of shadows. According to Plato's philosophy the things in the physical world are mere shadows of the ideal forms which are what actually exist. Therefore I am willing to grant that the world of coporeal rubbish exists as a shadow of the world which I care about. Opinions about these shadows are what I consider to be meaningless.

It exists, everything on it exists, nothing philosophical can change that.

Of course it can, over the centuries philosophy has caused many people cease to consider the world of shadows as existing in any meaningful way.

You see a girl/boy you form an opinion to give that opinion whether hurtful or not is being frank with them. It exists as soon as you think it.

No I don't, I consider sex to be the mere sublimination of the urge to do mathematics, which is so much more vivid and satisfying than forming opinions about 'girl/boy' that I have ceased to participate in the latter.

I try to avoid arguements with philosophers, I am an engineer, a realist. I deal in facts.

I work as a theoretical physicist, condensed matter with applications towards quantum computing.

Not idealogical arguments which serve no purpose but to prolong this discussion into uselessness.

Just because you have not discerned the purpose does not mean that there is none.

From what I can see you are trying to say opinions on people don't exist, or that the matter the opinion is formed on doesn't exist.

No, I am just saying that these are mere shadows that are not worth having opinions about. I see now that "exists" was a confusing word, although that is what Nietzsche used. I am not suggesting anything naive like 'the world is made of thoughts and spirits and were all just hooked up to the matrix, man.' Those people have no relation to philosophy. What I am trying to show is that frank opinions exist in only in the filthy gutter of intelectual life.

If beauty, truth, genius and willpower exist then so do opinions,

First of all, I never said opinions don't exist (my posts are full of opinions). I am only arguing against opinions about things which have no meaning.

beauty is an opinion. genius is a viewpoint determined from what you judge it on.

No, I am not concerned with opinions about whether a particular thing posesses beauty or genius, I am concerned with the ideal forms of beauty and genius themselves.

Something more meaningful? Not telling someone they are rubbish at playing an instrument would prevent them improving.

I disagree, an important characteristic of musical talent is the capability of self-criticism.

So when asked "is this idea commercially viable" you would rather skate around the edge of the matter and not give a definite answer, possibly leading to massive expendature on a project which was doomed to fail from the start, as opposed to just coming out with a simple no and loosing nothing. That would fit the description here, that would be an example of your 'it doesn't exist' argument.

Commercial viability is not subjective, I would consider this to be a lot like "Frankly, the concentration of uranium 238 is x.x%" that someone used earlier. To me "frank opinions" are subjective valuations in a social setting, e.g. it is possible (but I argue not desirable) to have frank opinions on musicians, waiters, women, but not on theorems or facts.

Right I can't be bothered to quote anymore so I'll work through in points.

I consider these forums a good place to practice dialectic, but if you are running out of stamina then I understand and for my part release you from your obligation to defend your statements. Besides, I think I've made my solution to the frankness problem sufficiently clear for anyone who wishes to employ my solution in their own lives.

 

[MissSilvy]

Personally, I would never get intimately involved with a woman who asked questions like that, very quickly I would find such banal questions to be absolutely intolerable.

Well, to be frank, I don't believe you'll ever have to worry about being in a position to worry about such choices :)

Carry on.

 

[bassplayer142]

I am scientific and very honest. I do say what is on my mind because when you lay out all the cards you can actually see how the hand worked out. How are you supposed to fix personality problems if nobody tells you your problems. To me, any supposedly insulting comment may just be a lesson.

 

[dx]

There's often more cleverness in carefully choosing what to say (for your own convenience, or some one elses sake) than just telling the truth, so I don't see any connection between being frank and being a scientist. Being honest with oneself is a different matter. Feynman said it best:

But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves -- of having utter scientific integrity -- is, I'm sorry to say, something that we haven't specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you've caught on by osmosis

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.​