I love how you used the 5.88 mile length of the trail as an example of "Truth" and then explored how people (adult/child) experience that truth in different ways.
Yes, that's the balance of subjective and objective information. But even the subjective can be quantified factually; how many footsteps the path takes, how much time, how healthy the walker is, what the weather was like. Even how it made the walker feel is factually quantifiable.
I think that's more a definition error happening in their head. They're using the concept that they have a different mental world and in a way perception than others and mixing that with their actual understanding of something that is true. People oddly enough don't delve into questions like that on their own, so they don't really realize how messed up it is.
On a scale from 1 to 100, how certain are you that it blows your mind? Would you be willing to change your confidence level in this claim if I could show you enough evidence supporting that your mind is, in fact, unblown?
People use the word truth to mean perception. Anthony nicely distinguished between the reality of the trail length and the variety of perceptions. But she didn't absorb it.
Hi Anthony, been watching quite a few of your videos and I think you've improved so much at this. This was a beautiful talk. You did a great job. I have had a hard time appreciating the religious views of others in the past, and I really feel your videos have allowed me to develop more respect for others beliefs. Once again, great job. Please continue!!
+Anthony Magnabosco I would like to train for street epistemology. Is there a social media group I can join to learn more from an experienced community? It's absolutely brave and beautiful what you are doing here. :)
+Neoteric Phoenix Please submit a join request for the Private Street Epistemology Facebook Group. The SE Website will also be built up over the course of the next few weeks so that you can also interact with others interested in the method.
I think one of my favorite questions you ask is WHICH God people believe in and then one that you often ask after that is "if you were born in a different household with a different religion, would you still be a Christian?" It's one of the biggest questions I asked myself when coming to no longer believe in God. Thanks for your videos! They're always intriguing!
Thanks. Yes, that is the Outsider Test for Faith (John W Loftus) question that can be very powerful. However, for relativists who think everyone can have their own truth, new approaches are needed.
I've run into this so many times talking with friends and acquaintances who believe in god- they give credit for things they've accomplished on their own to an imaginary being rather than owning it and feeling great for what they've done on their own. Drives me crazy.
byrysh Because when I used to believe in God and spirituality, I came across these types of ideas a lot. Also, you can believe in God and a higher power without believing in hell.
Zhalfrin ok then this boils down to what is true and what is self delusion. Belief in something with no evidence is faith and faith is the most dishonest stance to hold on anything.
Carol was open and honest which made for an interesting and thought provoking conversation. Her distinction of factual truths from inner truths resonated. The factual truths she saw as objective and measurable. The inner truths she saw as subjective and felt. So she was using the word 'true' in the inner context to mean an inner resonance or comfort. So using the same word, 'true', to mean two very different phenomena was clouding the thinking and there was increased clarity when she distinguished them into the 'factual' and 'inner' categories. Well done on helping her to find these distinctions. I hope she returns.
Wow! A great insight into how others think about truth. Carol believes whether there is God is unknowable and so not, in reality, a factual truth. Hence an inner truth is more appropriate in this case. Skeptical suspension of belief until evidence arrives is not her model for the God belief. She believes it because she has found sufficient evidence to make it an inner truth and because it benefits her. Credit to Anthony for teasing out her perspective and to Carol’s honestly in articulating it. Carol’s worldview is self-consistent and gives me - a more militant atheist - a much better understanding. Well done folks 👏👏
Defining and evaluating the concept of 'truth' is a great avenue to explore. I think the initial commitment to these things means it disarms the "it's true for me" tangent, which will in turn defuses any follow-up anger in "...and I'm not gonna go around telling anyone else what to believe". Possibly also worth asking "how could you tell if something wasn't true for you?"
I wish people would start to say " I tell myself this bit of bullshit and then I do not have to ask any more questions" instead of truth is different for everyone. This was a great talk. You do get them to really examine and take apart their beliefs.
Anthony, you have mastered this. I am amazed at how you bring out answers that completely bring about revelation to people by asking themselves to think deeper than they would otherwise. Fantastic. It's interesting to watch people struggle to think through the conflicts in their belief systems and their poor use of logical thinking to reinforce them.
I've noticed this with a lot of believers, they all have this strange idea that everyone has their own truth but really they mean everyone has their own experience and perception. It's really difficult to communicate with people who think that way because they're definition of truth is so flexible that it's not a definition at all.
If they had the ability to think clearly they would be able to dig themselves out of the epistemological hole they are in. Or they wouldn't be infected by these anti-rational memes in the first place.
That's because the term 'truth' has become so corrupted. Some organizations even call themselves "The Truth" so that BY NAME, only THEY can be true. And everyone else is somehow not true. Factual, observable, physical reality might be a good starting point for discussion, rather than "truth."
"For me...for me...for me..." I hear this all the time. It's a way of saying, "this is what I believe and you aren't allowed to judge me about it or dispute it." It's a way of being making truth subjective, when the very definition of truth is the opposite. I find it to be extremely dishonest, though I don't believe most people have that intention.
leadingbyxample Yep. And this discussion exemplified that problem. Check out my "quick-clip" with Clara where I try something unique to help break through.
I think the dichotomy between the two types of "truth" kind of muddy's the water. You can have feelings/beliefs that are 'true' to you because you feel them but that doesn't equate to them being objectively true. I can feel/believe I've walked for miles and miles but the distance I've walked will only ever be the distance that I have walked. Much the same with the Bible. I can read what it says and it can mean something to me or it can 'feel' true but that says nothing about its actual truth value.
Reason over Dogma belief in a Christian god does not mean one is religous. Religous means subscribing to a particular religions ideas and interpretation in the bible or other Holy book. One can believe in the bible and disagree with Christian religions.
Yeah. I think it was more around 14:16 where she asks him " what's the other option?". And he didn't reply and she finally moved on as though it had been a rethorical question. Maybe it was, but I was wanting him to answer? Because I sometimes have that question myself 🤔
The focus on truth was interesting. I have been doing a little SE with a couple of people I know. This idea of multiple truths came up in one of my chats too. It was interesting in my chat how subjective and objective truth was a little muddled but as the chat continued, the idea of objective truth started to come through. In this chat I would say that her "factual truth" objective and her "inner truth" was subjective. Great work Anthony.
19:03 SE - “You’d prefer to have factual truth”. Interlocutor - “I do value truth…but I know it’s not reality”. The reason why truth is not Carol’s reality should be the central area of focus in a subsequent SE encounter.
This was an interesting interview. It's very difficult to have a good conversation with someone who has redefined the word "true" like this, although toward the end of the talk you were getting to the root of what she meant by this. Having listened to her, I don't think Carol cares about what is true and what isn't, at least on a certain class of issues, despite her paying lip service to caring. I think how a belief makes her feel is much more important to her than the factuality of it. This would be an interesting topic to pursue with her, should the opportunity arise.
I was about to write the same. But he gave her an example and she was still not able to understand the difference. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand, do you?
How can she say that her definition of truth is "something that's real"--- then how can what's real vary from person to person? Mindboggling. Why do people say, "Do you know what I mean?" all of the time? Then they don't wait to confirm if the other person does know what they mean! I love watching you do this. I could never do it. I would slap people.
Asking for a rating of how much they value believing real truths was really smart. They want to answer 100% and when they realise other things aren't real truths, they're drawn to getting back to that 100% level again.
In this experimental pass, there was no need to get into her views on karma and grace without first establishing her definition of truth and her value of truth.
When she speaks of subjective truths she really means emotional truths. She didn't get into grace but I'm sure she refers to emotional rewards for helping others. I think an opinion is a preference, like what do you think the best ice cream is; where a truth would be that we actually do like ice cream, but we don't all prefer the same flavors. I think she's saying that you don't know if you like ice cream until you try it - experience it for yourself. The problem with her, and with everyone else, is that we don't really know what that feeling is that gives us the strength to continue our lives. Hope and purpose. Rather than attributing it to herself she attributes it to something "outside", but these feelings and ideas came from within herself.
Thank you Anthony, Street Epistemology is not easy, your work is top notch. I would like to learn more about these techniques... do you have a book you would recommend?
Nice interview, Anthony. I have a feeling you won't change Carol's mind as she seems well aware she believes stuff without evidence but is comfortable about that - this alone is refreshing from the complete deniers.
@@Akkordeondirigent Its a joke...the tacs as antidepressants are for when he talks to clueless people... to keep his sanity. I believe in GOD because he must be a SAINT not to go bonkers listening to some interviewees...
Perception is a kind of truth that is particular to a singular person. It can be too easy to apply that to external reality though. Even false beliefs are some kind of a truth in perception as in it is true that they hold those beliefs and those beliefs effect reality. An effective belief whether or not it is false will more often than not feel more worthy than the harsh reality without that belief. Peoples' main answer to "why do you believe" is that they have a feeling you wouldn't understand. But if it can be shown that we all pretty much feel the same on average then that will pull the rug out from under that reason.
the example that the distance of the trail and the experience of different hikers on that trail was a great analogy of an empirical fact as opposed to a belief. it didn't seem that Carol caught on to that.
Interesting talk, once again! Just wondering - from talking about "truth" and into "being true to yourself", in my opinion, she suddenly conflated 2 different uses of the word truth. Although you kind of just went with it and continued the conversation and eventually went back to the original "factual" truths vs "inner truths", my question is, do you think its ever appropriate to confront the conflation (another example would be faith in god vs faithful spouse) head on and ask them about it? or is it better to do it in a "defining terms" sort of way? or just ignore it for sake of keeping the conversation going in the same direction? I just think it could get confusing sometimes and makes it difficult to keep the talk on track
She gave a very interesting answer. She said “if she took the same app that I did“, Then she would have gone the same distance. It would be true for her that the trail was 5.88 miles. To me that seems very profound, because if it were the case that the nine-year-old girl took a different path than Carol, then the proposition that the trail is 5.88 miles would be false for the nine-year-old girl, indicating that propositions truth depend on the attitude of the subject.
I'd like to be able to listen while driving but your HD video devours my data. Have you considered posting just audio somewhere or even a video with just still shots?
I'm not sure what app you're using, but on the IOS RUclips app you can save a lot of cellular data by lowering the resolution from HD to 144p. The drop in audio quality isn't that significant either.
He has the interviews in podcast form, just search for Street Epistemology on itunes and you'll find it. You can also download just the audio on his Soundcloud page here: soundcloud.com/user-534471447/tracks
I completely understand. Links to audio only on Spreaker are in nearly every recent video I've uploaded, and I've started migrating encounters over to Soundcloud, Stitcher, and iTunes. Hope that helps!
I have had a few people say that. When they do, I usually pivot to a loved family member of theirs and ask if they think that person should believe true things or not. Part of me wonders if people who say they don't value truth have a low self-esteem, and that is clouding their perception. But if we start talking about another person they love, like a child or parent, they seem to come around and re-evaluate the value of truth.
She DOESN'T kn what truth even means! She'd prefer to have the "factual" evidence, in writing, proven... But, accepts a "god-hypothesis" on....what? Her very own "true-for-her" alternative truths, because of feelings?? Wowzer's. Anthony, you are so patient and kind and really great at Street epistemology!
She should watch/read Richard Carrier's "Debunking Christianity with Science and History" she (or anybody) can find it via RUclips as his speech/lecture -or- the book w/ same title. The YT speech is PHENOMENAL!! Enjoy it, we (in Florida) sure did!!
I think she's using truth in the context of personal experience and opinion, and if that's the case then she's just failing to communicate effectively with him. She even admits that the run she went on would be the same distance for everyone else, so I wouldn't be too harsh on her.
Her world view is consumed by such concepts as "inner peace", "grace", a "bigger order", "the truth is in us", which to me are just deepities. There is nothing of substance to hang your hat on. Unpacking these beliefs is like nailing jelly to a tree. But another fine job by Anthony! :-)
Hey Anthony, great questioning. At the 11:4912:53 marks you almost got to where I was hoping you were going. But you got there your own way. Perhaps if the opportunity presents itself with someone of this type ask if experiences shape what she believes are truths. She said this. If they are changeable, could she have an experience that one day confirms what she thought might be a truth but the next day an experience contradicts that strongly held truth is that a reliable way of identifying truths? Again, really good questioning but I get the impression she wasn't listening to what she was saying. I hope she watches this back with friends. In fact it would be very effective to ask people to view these videos with their friends as they could continue the conversation and even improve your next interaction with them
Physical entities & measurements aren’t the only true or real things. It is true that I walk faster than most people who just ‘mosey” down the trail. The trail is truly easy for me but really a long & difficult path for others.
Neil degrease Tyson, when people start using the word “truth” this way, he likes to tell the person, so that’s your personal truth, as opposed to objective truth. This way, it’s just sort of like saying: that’s your belief but it’s not the same as objective truth.
+Anthony Magnabosco don't you ever get the sense that leaving those longer-than-normal pauses don't always make people think, but just zone out? I get the feeling this happens a lot actually.
As much as I want to label myself an objective truth seeker I can’t help but agree with Carol on a purely pragmatic basis. This is just my experience I admit, but it does seem that there are actually mental and physical health benefits to a kind of outsourcing of fate. I’ve never felt happier, lighter and more content than when I was an engaged believer. I haven’t been able to find the same contentment as a non-believer and I’m not sure it’s possible. Perhaps someone has experienced what I’m talking about and has a comment?
for the people saying "truth is not subjective"...its an issue of semantics. people tend to base beliefs on their experiences which are true (real) but varies from person to person. but beliefs cant really be proven OR disproven (well, cept maybe for young/flat earth and such) so whats right/real/true to one person again, varies. ... but yes - there is also object truth like science and medicine.
Anthony, if you're travelling near the speed of light, distance does change, we know this because we observe muons created in the atmosphere from interactions from particles discharged by the sun impacting on the surface of the Earth. They should decay before they hit the surface but the distance is shorter for them and so is the time.
@@magnabosco210 sorry, that came out lecture-y. I just think relativity and Einstein's work in general is really cool. It might've been interesting had they used that to argue universal relativity on all truths, though...
With the word grace at first I figured she was a Christian but then she said she had gotten away from religion and just believed in God so I thought she was a deist until she said she believed the Bible.
Houston we have a problem. Recently, people have been reporting an inability to insert paragraph breaks within the RUclips comments field and similar errors when attempting to copy and paste text from a Word or text file. I have attempted to post my comment several times without success. I will keep trying. Please excuse the repeated postings, edits and deletions. As soon as RUclips fixes the issue, I intend to delete all of my individual comments and republish them into one space efficient post. Again, my apologies.
This was a great talk, but you should have told her about the scientific method in some way. She seemed like she was really interested in actually finding the truth but honestly didn't know of a way to find it. People need another option if they are going to change their beliefs and the education system is so inadequate at explaining why the scientific method actually works that people really need some more education about epistemology.
Is truth made up of facts? Are there other building blocks for truth? If so, does that mean that there are different types of truth? Should we call the truth that is made of facts reality? And can we stay within this realm of truth (reality) for the purpose of clarity, both of thought and conversation?
There is a big disconnect in the language here. Being true to ones self is very different from everyone having their own truth about objective facts. When she hears truth, it may well be that she is thinking about being authentic to her values.
I was wondering what would happen if a believer says that believing in god makes them feel good/relieved or something similar and you gave them an example where a person feels anxiety/discomfort etc. if they do believe in god (like Reason over Dogma commented below). Then you ask them if that discomfort means that they should be justified in not believing in god or believing that it wasn't true.. I probably explained it horribly, but I could try and explain it better if you got interested, but didn't understand what I was saying...
0:39 Only those who are accustomed to wading in the shallow would be so guarded about the deep. 2:57 “But I do believe everybody’s truth can be different.” She rang the bell in less than 30 seconds. The winner and new undisputed champion. She would have had a better chance if she just held on to her original argument, something about “grace”. 8:46 “For me, that just works for my life. To have something that I’m not in control of, actually is peaceful.” Is there anything that confirms the “ignorance is bliss” platitude any better? 10:43 “Kind of like the educational variety of belief.” As opposed to the entertainment variety of belief. 11:22 “…I’ve been searching again. Finding more spiritual but believing in God.” This is why it can be beneficial go deeper, sometimes daring to venture into the area of human psychology. What are Carol’s needs? What is missing in her life that requires her to search for it within the superficial facade of mysticism instead of within herself? 12:00 “So when I live my life, running on myself and thinking I knew and I can do this and it’s all up to me, then it was just a dead end. And very hopeless and very frustrating and tiring. Then when I life my life feeling like I can depend on something bigger to give me this power….” Until the DSM includes a category for irrational religious belief (or belief in the mystical, the supernatural or "God") among the criteria for diagnosing mental disorders, SE will just have to perform the job. 13:59 “In the end, you have to be true to yourself.” If, in not knowing what the truth is, a person simply manufactures their own truth, how can they begin to claim they are being true to themselves? 14:15 “But then, what’s the other option?” What follows is a pause worthy of Jeopardy "Think" music. Priceless! 16:43 “You know what? That’s a good question. Hmm. But see, I don’t feel I am deceiving myself.” Mankind (and apparently womankind) has an infinite capacity for self-deception. 19:03 SE - “You’d prefer to have factual truth”. Interlocutor - “I do value truth…but I know it’s not reality”. The reason why truth is not Carol’s reality should be the central area of focus in a subsequent SE encounter. 19:25 Encouraged by Carol’s testimonial, I Googled god’s existence. The link was broken. The domain did not exist. 20:27 What specifically does “I believe that there’s a bigger picture of my life” mean to Carol? It appears that once Carol owns up to why she needs to cling to her wish-think, she will be able to find the tools necessary to finally release it. 23:20 If Carol were never told about Jesus or if Jesus never existed, where would she obtain her perception of “grace”? For all her initial talk and emphasis on grace, Carol never bothered to define it or elaborate about it.
When you're doing this, do you ever meet people who say they don't have any supernatural beliefs and are materialists? Do you proceed and how? Have you ever talked with anyone who actually had a coherent epistemology and set of beliefs all the way down?
Anthony Magnabosco Guess I should watch more than 6 or 7 videos before I comment lol. Listening to several people in a row struggle to describe beliefs which are clearly incoherent is enough to make me wonder if I'm the one losing, though haha
I think the opening was much better here, i.e. "Chats to delve into beliefs, .. and how confident [people] are that they're true" The 0-100 scale for the value of truth was a little strange..
She was doing allright concerning truth about the length of the trail and the relativity of how difficult it is for different people to walk it, then she wandered completely off the truth trail and got lost in the subjective belief in "god" etc. and is wandering around in the bushes of wishfull thinking/religionism.
She did seem to bounce around a bit. To be charitable, most people don't flesh these ideas out as we might. She has probably never had to defend or critically think about her views. Even her use of the word "truth" was more a political or post modern philosophical use of the word rather than a dictionary usage.
I wonder if she would adopt a better definition for truth. "Something that can be verified as correct by others through multiple forms of testing, always giving the same exact result." this would separate itself from perspective truth which she describes.
I love how you used the 5.88 mile length of the trail as an example of "Truth" and then explored how people (adult/child) experience that truth in different ways.
Yes, that's the balance of subjective and objective information. But even the subjective can be quantified factually; how many footsteps the path takes, how much time, how healthy the walker is, what the weather was like. Even how it made the walker feel is factually quantifiable.
It still blows my mind how people think truth varies.
I think that's more a definition error happening in their head.
They're using the concept that they have a different mental world and in a way perception than others and mixing that with their actual understanding of something that is true.
People oddly enough don't delve into questions like that on their own, so they don't really realize how messed up it is.
I agree with the commenter above, it may be a case of confusion about definitions. To me, it seems she may be mixing up "truth" and "knowledge."
THANK YOU. Everytime I say I have an argument with someone about something existential, I always get; "why can't you both be right?"
On a scale from 1 to 100, how certain are you that it blows your mind? Would you be willing to change your confidence level in this claim if I could show you enough evidence supporting that your mind is, in fact, unblown?
People use the word truth to mean perception.
Anthony nicely distinguished between the reality of the trail length and the variety of perceptions. But she didn't absorb it.
Hi Anthony, been watching quite a few of your videos and I think you've improved so much at this. This was a beautiful talk. You did a great job. I have had a hard time appreciating the religious views of others in the past, and I really feel your videos have allowed me to develop more respect for others beliefs. Once again, great job. Please continue!!
Thanks. I plan to keep working on it and sharing my experiences here with you.
+Anthony Magnabosco that was an awesome chat Anthony. Thanks for putting it up.
+Anthony Magnabosco I would like to train for street epistemology. Is there a social media group I can join to learn more from an experienced community? It's absolutely brave and beautiful what you are doing here. :)
+Neoteric Phoenix Please submit a join request for the Private Street Epistemology Facebook Group. The SE Website will also be built up over the course of the next few weeks so that you can also interact with others interested in the method.
+Anthony Magnabosco I'm also looking to do the same with an interesting spin. If it's ok with you I'll also submit a request to the Facebook page
I think one of my favorite questions you ask is WHICH God people believe in and then one that you often ask after that is "if you were born in a different household with a different religion, would you still be a Christian?" It's one of the biggest questions I asked myself when coming to no longer believe in God. Thanks for your videos! They're always intriguing!
Thanks. Yes, that is the Outsider Test for Faith (John W Loftus) question that can be very powerful. However, for relativists who think everyone can have their own truth, new approaches are needed.
I've run into this so many times talking with friends and acquaintances who believe in god- they give credit for things they've accomplished on their own to an imaginary being rather than owning it and feeling great for what they've done on their own. Drives me crazy.
Oh I know it. It makes me crazy too.
I think it's because your failures can be due to God too. Leaves you free to just accept things as they are.
Zhalfrin How do you know that? Free yet you have to love your oppressor or spend eternity in hell? Doesnt sound very free to me.
byrysh Because when I used to believe in God and spirituality, I came across these types of ideas a lot. Also, you can believe in God and a higher power without believing in hell.
Zhalfrin ok then this boils down to what is true and what is self delusion. Belief in something with no evidence is faith and faith is the most dishonest stance to hold on anything.
Carol was open and honest which made for an interesting and thought provoking conversation. Her distinction of factual truths from inner truths resonated. The factual truths she saw as objective and measurable. The inner truths she saw as subjective and felt. So she was using the word 'true' in the inner context to mean an inner resonance or comfort.
So using the same word, 'true', to mean two very different phenomena was clouding the thinking and there was increased clarity when she distinguished them into the 'factual' and 'inner' categories. Well done on helping her to find these distinctions.
I hope she returns.
I couldn't have resisted busting out Sam Harris' "Angelina Jolie argument."
Wow! A great insight into how others think about truth.
Carol believes whether there is God is unknowable and so not, in reality, a factual truth. Hence an inner truth is more appropriate in this case.
Skeptical suspension of belief until evidence arrives is not her model for the God belief. She believes it because she has found sufficient evidence to make it an inner truth and because it benefits her.
Credit to Anthony for teasing out her perspective and to Carol’s honestly in articulating it.
Carol’s worldview is self-consistent and gives me - a more militant atheist - a much better understanding.
Well done folks 👏👏
Defining and evaluating the concept of 'truth' is a great avenue to explore. I think the initial commitment to these things means it disarms the "it's true for me" tangent, which will in turn defuses any follow-up anger in "...and I'm not gonna go around telling anyone else what to believe". Possibly also worth asking "how could you tell if something wasn't true for you?"
I wish people would start to say " I tell myself this bit of bullshit and then I do not have to ask any more questions" instead of truth is different for everyone. This was a great talk. You do get them to really examine and take apart their beliefs.
Anthony, you have mastered this. I am amazed at how you bring out answers that completely bring about revelation to people by asking themselves to think deeper than they would otherwise. Fantastic.
It's interesting to watch people struggle to think through the conflicts in their belief systems and their poor use of logical thinking to reinforce them.
Determining if they value truth prior to conversing - I like it.
I hear Carol saying, "I'd rather not accept responsibility"
love the body language. I hope she watches this video. She was very honest and clearly giving your questions some thought.
I've noticed this with a lot of believers, they all have this strange idea that everyone has their own truth but really they mean everyone has their own experience and perception.
It's really difficult to communicate with people who think that way because they're definition of truth is so flexible that it's not a definition at all.
If they had the ability to think clearly they would be able to dig themselves out of the epistemological hole they are in. Or they wouldn't be infected by these anti-rational memes in the first place.
It is not that only. In humanist circles there are way more people who believe truth is very relative, in natural sciences.. not that many.
That's because the term 'truth' has become so corrupted.
Some organizations even call themselves "The Truth" so that BY NAME, only THEY can be true. And everyone else is somehow not true.
Factual, observable, physical reality might be a good starting point for discussion, rather than "truth."
I really enjoyed this one. She was so open and honest.
That was a nice pause @14:15 when she asks "Then what's the other option?" When you do not answer, she is forced to answer.
Thanks Anthony. Great videos they really help me remain calm in my discussions and improve my questioning
Anthony,
I absolutely love your videos. Bravo! Keep up the good fight
She was open that's a start:)
To me she was a tad incoherent.
Theists usually are incoherent. If they could make sense, they wouldn't believe in fairy tales.
WarmWeatherGuy I know what you mean... You know what I mean? Lol
"For me...for me...for me..."
I hear this all the time. It's a way of saying, "this is what I believe and you aren't allowed to judge me about it or dispute it." It's a way of being making truth subjective, when the very definition of truth is the opposite. I find it to be extremely dishonest, though I don't believe most people have that intention.
leadingbyxample Yep. And this discussion exemplified that problem. Check out my "quick-clip" with Clara where I try something unique to help break through.
I think the dichotomy between the two types of "truth" kind of muddy's the water. You can have feelings/beliefs that are 'true' to you because you feel them but that doesn't equate to them being objectively true. I can feel/believe I've walked for miles and miles but the distance I've walked will only ever be the distance that I have walked.
Much the same with the Bible. I can read what it says and it can mean something to me or it can 'feel' true but that says nothing about its actual truth value.
Wow, I thought I had watched all your videos. Did Carol ever get back to you? Impeccable approach Anthony, thanks again for all the great work.
I'm the opposite. When God was in my life, I felt more like shit. Lots of anxiety, condemnation.
exactly. religion is toxic, and stress FILLED
+Frank N. Stein she wasn't religous though, just spiritual. Just making that distinction
Ryan Johnson she believed in the Christian God she just wasn't as dogmatic.
Reason over Dogma belief in a Christian god does not mean one is religous. Religous means subscribing to a particular religions ideas and interpretation in the bible or other Holy book. One can believe in the bible and disagree with Christian religions.
+Reason over Dogma exactly.. superstion is superstition.
She asked you a question at about 14:30 and rather than answer, you said nothing. Perfect. It kept her thinking and she eventually continued.
Yeah. I think it was more around 14:16 where she asks him " what's the other option?". And he didn't reply and she finally moved on as though it had been a rethorical question. Maybe it was, but I was wanting him to answer? Because I sometimes have that question myself 🤔
That was a great talk man...I dont think I could have been that nice. Its amazing how her minds deluded her so she didnt go crazy!
Very clever, using trail distance and trail difficulty to distinguish objective and subjective truths.
The focus on truth was interesting. I have been doing a little SE with a couple of people I know. This idea of multiple truths came up in one of my chats too.
It was interesting in my chat how subjective and objective truth was a little muddled but as the chat continued, the idea of objective truth started to come through.
In this chat I would say that her "factual truth" objective and her "inner truth" was subjective.
Great work Anthony.
19:03
SE - “You’d prefer to have factual truth”. Interlocutor - “I do value truth…but I know it’s not reality”.
The reason why truth is not Carol’s reality should be the central area of focus in a subsequent SE encounter.
Another great talk. Thank you!
Hope she comes back
Anthony! I've been watching you from the very start. I just noticed, you have over 400 views on the same day! Its been great seeing your growth.
This was an interesting interview. It's very difficult to have a good conversation with someone who has redefined the word "true" like this, although toward the end of the talk you were getting to the root of what she meant by this. Having listened to her, I don't think Carol cares about what is true and what isn't, at least on a certain class of issues, despite her paying lip service to caring. I think how a belief makes her feel is much more important to her than the factuality of it. This would be an interesting topic to pursue with her, should the opportunity arise.
This happens with a lot of religious people. They confuse truth with opinion.
I was about to write the same. But he gave her an example and she was still not able to understand the difference. I don't understand why that is so hard to understand, do you?
Juan I'm not sure why it's hard to understand either.
Zaru noi yeah I read about that. And you are right that could be an important factor.
How can she say that her definition of truth is "something that's real"--- then how can what's real vary from person to person? Mindboggling. Why do people say, "Do you know what I mean?" all of the time? Then they don't wait to confirm if the other person does know what they mean! I love watching you do this. I could never do it. I would slap people.
How do you make it through these talks without slapping them? ;)
Asking for a rating of how much they value believing real truths was really smart. They want to answer 100% and when they realise other things aren't real truths, they're drawn to getting back to that 100% level again.
I really love it when you share your thoughts after. I noticed you didn't ask her confidence level, was that on purpose?
In this experimental pass, there was no need to get into her views on karma and grace without first establishing her definition of truth and her value of truth.
so by inner truths I take it she means opinions right? I think a huge problem is people telling the difference between opinions and facts.
When she speaks of subjective truths she really means emotional truths. She didn't get into grace but I'm sure she refers to emotional rewards for helping others.
I think an opinion is a preference, like what do you think the best ice cream is; where a truth would be that we actually do like ice cream, but we don't all prefer the same flavors. I think she's saying that you don't know if you like ice cream until you try it - experience it for yourself.
The problem with her, and with everyone else, is that we don't really know what that feeling is that gives us the strength to continue our lives. Hope and purpose. Rather than attributing it to herself she attributes it to something "outside", but these feelings and ideas came from within herself.
"But that's not reality". She lost me there. I'm pretty sure she doesn't really know what she means by truth or what the word truth means
Thank you Anthony,
Street Epistemology is not easy, your work is top notch. I would like to learn more about these techniques... do you have a book you would recommend?
Never mind, looked into your talk with the ACA.
+Rocky Roller Thanks. Cool. That would be a good place the start. Lots of links and resources in every video description field as well.
Oooooohh this is a good one!
This video is really good, thanks for posting!!!
Nice interview, Anthony. I have a feeling you won't change Carol's mind as she seems well aware she believes stuff without evidence but is comfortable about that - this alone is refreshing from the complete deniers.
"The facts of the bible" makes me roll eyes. Sorry. I never could be as calm as you in such conversations.
Those aren't TicTacs, antidepressants more like
@@StewsReplay I do not understand what you are trying to say.
@@Akkordeondirigent Sind Sie Deutsch?
@@StewsReplay Yes, I am.
@@Akkordeondirigent Its a joke...the tacs as antidepressants are for when he talks to clueless people... to keep his sanity.
I believe in GOD because he must be a SAINT not to go bonkers listening to some interviewees...
Perception is a kind of truth that is particular to a singular person. It can be too easy to apply that to external reality though. Even false beliefs are some kind of a truth in perception as in it is true that they hold those beliefs and those beliefs effect reality. An effective belief whether or not it is false will more often than not feel more worthy than the harsh reality without that belief.
Peoples' main answer to "why do you believe" is that they have a feeling you wouldn't understand. But if it can be shown that we all pretty much feel the same on average then that will pull the rug out from under that reason.
the example that the distance of the trail and the experience of different hikers on that trail was a great analogy of an empirical fact as opposed to a belief. it didn't seem that Carol caught on to that.
What an amazing exercise in patience.
Interesting talk, once again! Just wondering - from talking about "truth" and into "being true to yourself", in my opinion, she suddenly conflated 2 different uses of the word truth. Although you kind of just went with it and continued the conversation and eventually went back to the original "factual" truths vs "inner truths", my question is, do you think its ever appropriate to confront the conflation (another example would be faith in god vs faithful spouse) head on and ask them about it? or is it better to do it in a "defining terms" sort of way? or just ignore it for sake of keeping the conversation going in the same direction? I just think it could get confusing sometimes and makes it difficult to keep the talk on track
She gave a very interesting answer. She said “if she took the same app that I did“, Then she would have gone the same distance. It would be true for her that the trail was 5.88 miles. To me that seems very profound, because if it were the case that the nine-year-old girl took a different path than Carol, then the proposition that the trail is 5.88 miles would be false for the nine-year-old girl, indicating that propositions truth depend on the attitude of the subject.
Good job, Anthony.
I'd like to be able to listen while driving but your HD video devours my data. Have you considered posting just audio somewhere or even a video with just still shots?
I'm not sure what app you're using, but on the IOS RUclips app you can save a lot of cellular data by lowering the resolution from HD to 144p.
The drop in audio quality isn't that significant either.
+lunaticrobot
Interesting. Didn't know that was possible. I'm android but I'll poke around for that setting. Thanks!
+caldelt
Got it in seconds. Awesome. Now I can check body language and facial reactions. Thanks again!
He has the interviews in podcast form, just search for Street Epistemology on itunes and you'll find it. You can also download just the audio on his Soundcloud page here: soundcloud.com/user-534471447/tracks
I completely understand. Links to audio only on Spreaker are in nearly every recent video I've uploaded, and I've started migrating encounters over to Soundcloud, Stitcher, and iTunes. Hope that helps!
Anthony, what do you say to someone who says no when you ask them whether it is important to believe things that are true? Great video.
I have had a few people say that. When they do, I usually pivot to a loved family member of theirs and ask if they think that person should believe true things or not. Part of me wonders if people who say they don't value truth have a low self-esteem, and that is clouding their perception. But if we start talking about another person they love, like a child or parent, they seem to come around and re-evaluate the value of truth.
+Anthony Magnabosco great idea thanks!
She DOESN'T kn what truth even means! She'd prefer to have the "factual" evidence, in writing, proven... But, accepts a "god-hypothesis" on....what?
Her very own "true-for-her" alternative truths, because of feelings??
Wowzer's.
Anthony, you are so patient and kind and really great at Street epistemology!
She should watch/read Richard Carrier's "Debunking Christianity with Science and History" she (or anybody) can find it via RUclips as his speech/lecture -or- the book w/ same title.
The YT speech is PHENOMENAL!!
Enjoy it, we (in Florida) sure did!!
I think she's using truth in the context of personal experience and opinion, and if that's the case then she's just failing to communicate effectively with him. She even admits that the run she went on would be the same distance for everyone else, so I wouldn't be too harsh on her.
Man, you are so kind to these people!
Her world view is consumed by such concepts as "inner peace", "grace", a "bigger order", "the truth is in us", which to me are just deepities. There is nothing of substance to hang your hat on. Unpacking these beliefs is like nailing jelly to a tree. But another fine job by Anthony! :-)
Ayyyyy first comment!!! Btw I loooove your vids!!!💚💜💙💛❤️
"For me", your reasoning just doesn't make any sense, "you know what I mean?"
Hey Anthony, great questioning.
At the 11:49 12:53 marks you almost got to where I was hoping you were going. But you got there your own way.
Perhaps if the opportunity presents itself with someone of this type ask if experiences shape what she believes are truths. She said this. If they are changeable, could she have an experience that one day confirms what she thought might be a truth but the next day an experience contradicts that strongly held truth is that a reliable way of identifying truths?
Again, really good questioning but I get the impression she wasn't listening to what she was saying. I hope she watches this back with friends. In fact it would be very effective to ask people to view these videos with their friends as they could continue the conversation and even improve your next interaction with them
Physical entities & measurements aren’t the only true or real things. It is true that I walk faster than most people who just ‘mosey” down the trail. The trail is truly easy for me but really a long & difficult path for others.
we agree there is a trail that's 5.88 miles
everything else about it is a personal experience
I just realized how similar SE is to what TV psychologists typically do to patients.
This reminds me of the Stephan Colbert term "truthiness"
Neil degrease Tyson, when people start using the word “truth” this way, he likes to tell the person, so that’s your personal truth, as opposed to objective truth.
This way, it’s just sort of like saying: that’s your belief but it’s not the same as objective truth.
Your interviews are fascinating man.
Great talk!
+Anthony Magnabosco don't you ever get the sense that leaving those longer-than-normal pauses don't always make people think, but just zone out? I get the feeling this happens a lot actually.
16:44 one of those awesome "I'm thinking" poses.
As much as I want to label myself an objective truth seeker I can’t help but agree with Carol on a purely pragmatic basis. This is just my experience I admit, but it does seem that there are actually mental and physical health benefits to a kind of outsourcing of fate. I’ve never felt happier, lighter and more content than when I was an engaged believer. I haven’t been able to find the same contentment as a non-believer and I’m not sure it’s possible. Perhaps someone has experienced what I’m talking about and has a comment?
full credit anthony... the second she said she believed in creation, i would have wrapped it up..
But why?🤔
To sum it up most respectfully: "But for me..."
for the people saying "truth is not subjective"...its an issue of semantics. people tend to base beliefs on their experiences which are true (real) but varies from person to person. but beliefs cant really be proven OR disproven (well, cept maybe for young/flat earth and such) so whats right/real/true to one person again, varies. ... but yes - there is also object truth like science and medicine.
excellent talk, seems like it might be just the beginning for her!
Anthony, if you're travelling near the speed of light, distance does change, we know this because we observe muons created in the atmosphere from interactions from particles discharged by the sun impacting on the surface of the Earth. They should decay before they hit the surface but the distance is shorter for them and so is the time.
Okkay…
@@magnabosco210 sorry, that came out lecture-y. I just think relativity and Einstein's work in general is really cool. It might've been interesting had they used that to argue universal relativity on all truths, though...
With the word grace at first I figured she was a Christian but then she said she had gotten away from religion and just believed in God so I thought she was a deist until she said she believed the Bible.
Houston we have a problem. Recently, people have been reporting an inability to insert paragraph breaks within the RUclips comments field and similar errors when attempting to copy and paste text from a Word or text file. I have attempted to post my comment several times without success. I will keep trying. Please excuse the repeated postings, edits and deletions. As soon as RUclips fixes the issue, I intend to delete all of my individual comments and republish them into one space efficient post. Again, my apologies.
I'm beginning to believe that saying "X is true for me" is just a roundabout way of saying "I believe X."
maybe that can be used in the talks. maybe he can ask what the difference is.
This was a great talk, but you should have told her about the scientific method in some way. She seemed like she was really interested in actually finding the truth but honestly didn't know of a way to find it. People need another option if they are going to change their beliefs and the education system is so inadequate at explaining why the scientific method actually works that people really need some more education about epistemology.
Bingo!
Oprah Winfrey taught me that everybody has their own truth
12:20 gets real. great job
Is truth made up of facts? Are there other building blocks for truth? If so, does that mean that there are different types of truth? Should we call the truth that is made of facts reality? And can we stay within this realm of truth (reality) for the purpose of clarity, both of thought and conversation?
It seems like by "core truth" she means some kind of basic assumption on which other truths reny on, like an axiom.
Word definitions seem to be the biggest barrier.
"hot mess" - a person or thing that is spectacularly unsuccessful or disordered, especially one that is a source of peculiar fascination
There is a big disconnect in the language here. Being true to ones self is very different from everyone having their own truth about objective facts. When she hears truth, it may well be that she is thinking about being authentic to her values.
Painful to watch.
I was wondering what would happen if a believer says that believing in god makes them feel good/relieved or something similar and you gave them an example where a person feels anxiety/discomfort etc. if they do believe in god (like Reason over Dogma commented below). Then you ask them if that discomfort means that they should be justified in not believing in god or believing that it wasn't true..
I probably explained it horribly, but I could try and explain it better if you got interested, but didn't understand what I was saying...
Truth is not elastic, it's fixed. Dont talk in metaphors etc with this word. Truth, is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality.
0:39
Only those who are accustomed to wading in the shallow would be so guarded about the deep.
2:57
“But I do believe everybody’s truth can be different.”
She rang the bell in less than 30 seconds. The winner and new undisputed champion. She would have had a better chance if she just held on to her original argument, something about “grace”.
8:46
“For me, that just works for my life. To have something that I’m not in control of, actually is peaceful.”
Is there anything that confirms the “ignorance is bliss” platitude any better?
10:43
“Kind of like the educational variety of belief.”
As opposed to the entertainment variety of belief.
11:22
“…I’ve been searching again. Finding more spiritual but believing in God.”
This is why it can be beneficial go deeper, sometimes daring to venture into the area of human psychology. What are Carol’s needs? What is missing in her life that requires her to search for it within the superficial facade of mysticism instead of within herself?
12:00
“So when I live my life, running on myself and thinking I knew and I can do this and it’s all up to me, then it was just a dead end. And very hopeless and very frustrating and tiring. Then when I life my life feeling like I can depend on something bigger to give me this power….”
Until the DSM includes a category for irrational religious belief (or belief in the mystical, the supernatural or "God") among the criteria for diagnosing mental disorders, SE will just have to perform the job.
13:59
“In the end, you have to be true to yourself.”
If, in not knowing what the truth is, a person simply manufactures their own truth, how can they begin to claim they are being true to themselves?
14:15
“But then, what’s the other option?”
What follows is a pause worthy of Jeopardy "Think" music. Priceless!
16:43
“You know what? That’s a good question. Hmm. But see, I don’t feel I am deceiving myself.”
Mankind (and apparently womankind) has an infinite capacity for self-deception.
19:03
SE - “You’d prefer to have factual truth”.
Interlocutor - “I do value truth…but I know it’s not reality”.
The reason why truth is not Carol’s reality should be the central area of focus in a subsequent SE encounter.
19:25
Encouraged by Carol’s testimonial, I Googled god’s existence. The link was broken. The domain did not exist.
20:27
What specifically does “I believe that there’s a bigger picture of my life” mean to Carol?
It appears that once Carol owns up to why she needs to cling to her wish-think, she will be able to find the tools necessary to finally release it.
23:20
If Carol were never told about Jesus or if Jesus never existed, where would she obtain her perception of “grace”? For all her initial talk and emphasis on grace, Carol never bothered to define it or elaborate about it.
When you're doing this, do you ever meet people who say they don't have any supernatural beliefs and are materialists? Do you proceed and how? Have you ever talked with anyone who actually had a coherent epistemology and set of beliefs all the way down?
Sure. There's a whole Playlist of talks with atheists. Within that Playlist, I suggest Emily and then also Denise.
Anthony Magnabosco Guess I should watch more than 6 or 7 videos before I comment lol. Listening to several people in a row struggle to describe beliefs which are clearly incoherent is enough to make me wonder if I'm the one losing, though haha
Thanks for watching. Please share a favorite with a friend.
Classic...I know I'm not being honest with myself. But I just won't say it out loud. I'm sure she calls out hypocrisy in her daily life.
I think the opening was much better here, i.e. "Chats to delve into beliefs, .. and how confident [people] are that they're true"
The 0-100 scale for the value of truth was a little strange..
I thought the scale was strange too at first. but he used it beautifully later on.
didn't you notice?
+Frank Douglas I actually think it may have worked better than the original scale.
She was doing allright concerning truth about the length of the trail and the relativity of how difficult it is for different people to walk it, then she wandered completely off the truth trail and got lost in the subjective belief in "god" etc. and is wandering around in the bushes of wishfull thinking/religionism.
All of what she was saying felt like random, half-understood sentiments just to fill the air. So weird to watch.
She did seem to bounce around a bit. To be charitable, most people don't flesh these ideas out as we might. She has probably never had to defend or critically think about her views. Even her use of the word "truth" was more a political or post modern philosophical use of the word rather than a dictionary usage.
Sounds like "inner truth" is her word for "opinion" without the responsibility of it
She likes to think…. She says…. OMG…
I wonder if she would adopt a better definition for truth. "Something that can be verified as correct by others through multiple forms of testing, always giving the same exact result." this would separate itself from perspective truth which she describes.