My guess? Because we disagree regarding what constitutes an example.
Thus:
Note particular instances of this: Not the details so much as the ideas themselves — important ideas that were reconfigured.
Though [of course] once you acknowledge it, you are acknowledging in turn that it may well happen again. That there are other ideas you have here and now just waiting for someone to come along and reconfigure.
The fundamentals of RM/AO are immutable, but extended unproven theories can be modified, corrected, or just abandoned. For example (and don’t ignore it this time) we were talking about the cause of red-shift. I proposed the theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism. Phyllo suggest a different possible mechanism. When I heard his theory, it was clear to me that his theory was more probable than mine, although the theories were not exclusive, so both would have influence. So after that, I kept watching for any details concerning the issue and eventually just accepted the much higher probability that phyllo’s theory was the most significant and right.
But isn’t that what all of the objectivists note regarding their own TOE? And they either are or are not able to demonstrate if what they argue is true is in sync with what is in fact true. Speculations about the “theoretical possibility of a fading away of the blue from the light by a particular mechanism” are either more or less in accordance with whatever constitutes Existence itself.
But, again, the fact that you reconfigured your thinking here to be more in line with Phyllo’s clearly indicates that this can happen again. And, indeed, that further information/knowledge may well be forthcoming that reconfigures the thinking of both of you.
And that is with respect to interactions unfolding in the either/or world.
But you should realize that in RM/AO there are thoughts that absolutely must be true and others that are mere extended personal theory. That is something that you don’t seem to get. You appear to say “well if anything was wrong, everything might be wrong”. That is false reasoning. There are different kinds of thoughts, some of which can never be wrong.
On a thread devoted to theistic renditions of inferior Gods, how is this relevant? What here must be “absoultely true” in order to be in sync with RM/AO.
How is the Real God to be factored in here? For, say, “all practical purposes” in our day to day interactions?
Given that theology [the critical study of the nature of the divine] would seem to be greatly concerned with the extant relationship between the divine and human interactions out in a world of conflicting goods, political economy and oblivion.
Are you in fact acknowledging that RM/AO is not the optimal or the only rational manner in which to grasp human interactions out in a particular world?
What is “optimal” is contingent upon the circumstances. And there are many “rational” ways to explain the same reality. RM/AO is merely one ontology that, unlike public physics theories, is “complete”.
Okay, note a set of circumstances we might all be familiar with and discuss these contingencies as construed from your own particular ontology.
Also, as I note with Prism, is there or is there not a gap [large or small] between what you think you know about all of this here and now and all that any mere mortal would need to know about the existence of Existence itself in order make that gap go away?
Is there even a small possiblity that RM/AO is just one more run of the mill psychological contraption that allows you to subsume “I” in but one more run of the mill rendition of Certainty.
I don’t know what you mean by “about the existence of Existence”, but any “gaps” concerning RM/AO and fundamental existence are relatively insignificant. RM/AO answers many questions that public physics currently cannot answer without disagreeing with anything they have observed. RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute.
That’s my point: No one really knows what it means to discuss “the existence of Existence”. Why? Because we are encompassed in it ourselves and [here and now] don’t have access to all of the knowledge that would be needed to grasp it. It’s just that there are folks [including some philosophers and scientists] who note that right from the start of any particular discussion. You claim that “RM/AO is a completion of Science, not a substitute” but how have you actually demonstrated it?
Other than in claiming to have.
And by keeping RM/AO and the Real God as far removed from actual human interactions in the is/ought world as most such intellectual contraptions intend to.
How is it actually relevant to the many, many moral and political conflicts that are engaged right here at ILP? Between, among others, the conservatives and the liberals.
How, for example, would you connect the dots between RM/AO and the policies of Donald Trump?
Are you ever really willing to bring the “definitional logic” embedded in these epistemological contraptions out into the world of our day to day interactions?
[b]Note to others:
Sure, maybe he has done so. I don’t read all of his posts. Note particular examples that he has conveyed regarding RM/AO’s pertinence to the is/ought world.
I have done that many times. Such things are not your concern. Your priority is casting doubt and insecurity, so stick with it.
Note to others [again]:
He claims to have done this. Do you agree that he has? If so, note what you deem to be the best example of this.
And, indeed, on this side of the grave, I am [here and now] still hopelessly entangled in my dilemma. And far, far, far removed from the comfort and the consolation that comes with Certainty.
That seems to be your comfort zone, so you are certainly not interested in leaving it behind.
My “comfort zone”? I take comfort in being entangled in my dilmma embedded in what I construe to be an essentially absurd and meaningingless world that will end for me with the obliteration of “I” for all time to come!!!
I will somehow manage to drag you down into it with me.
Not a chance.
This of course speaks volumes regarding the extent to which RM/AO has become a deeply engrained psychological defense mechanism for you, James.
Unless of course I’m wrong.
In other words, not just in their heads.
All thoughts are “just in your head”.
True. But I make that crucial distinction between those thoughts in your head that you believe are true and those thoughts in your head that you can demonstrate others are obligated to believe in turn.
For example, I think that Donald Trump is now the President of the United States. On the other hand, I’ve never actually been to Washington D.C. of late, and seen him in the Oval Office doing presidential things.
All I can suggest is that what I think is true here can be demonstrated as in fact true for all of us.
I merely shift the discussion from that which can be demonstrated as in fact true to those things that we believe are true, but: but instead seem to revolve more around the meaning I construe regarding the existential interaction of self, value judgments and political power.
For example, “I” believe that Trump is a terrible president.
But to what extent can I demonstrate that this is more than just a political prejudice, a subjective point of view rooted in dasein? How on earth would I be able to demonstrate not only that all rational men and women are obligated to believe the same, but that this belief is wholly in sync with whatever needs to be known about the existence of Existence itself?