[sethammons]

Does the alcoholic dad who wont stop drinking have integrity? His core principles say he shouldn't back down; he's not a quitter after all.

Silly example, but I find arguments fall apart most at the edges.

I challenge you to develop a better definition of integrity. For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.

[lelanthran]

> For me, integrity means I will change my mind when presented with convincing data.

It's not as binary as that.

Each new convincing data point may cause me to re-evaluate my position, but simply re-evaluation may not cause me to change my mind, but may cause me to slightly shift in the direction of the new position.

At some point, I would have ingested and/or seen so many convincing data points that my position is effectively neutral. And some point after that, my position may have actually shifted and not be neutral anymore.

IOW, it's a spectrum, and journeys across this spectrum are:

a) Slow - position moves in tiny amounts, and

b) Not guaranteed to end up on the opposite end - you might get to neutral and remain there for the rest of your life, or you might shift back towards your original position.

[nkrisc]

> Does the alcoholic dad who wont stop drinking have integrity? His core principles say he shouldn't back down; he's not a quitter after all.

Then yes, he does have integrity. He has his principles and stands by them (however misguided it may seem to others). But all this illustrates is that integrity alone doesn't define a good person.

[gjsman-1000]

The problem there though is that data completely breaks down for anything historical, philosophical, cultural, religious, miraculous, or otherwise requiring “faith.”

Anything that is not a repeatable event under a microscope has no “data” and never will.

[sethammons]

I am not a "data or it didn't happen" person. I am sure I have magical beliefs that don't play out in reality.

I'm not convinced by the argument that this falls apart for your categories. Logic and reasoning still exists. Philosophy can be argued and principals agreed upon. Historical things leave traces. And I am appalled by blind faith.

At some point, our society and ways of doing things boils down to trust or faith. I trust that people thinking about things, trying to validate those things, and who employ a way to change their minds will move towards "more correct" understandings. People knew not to hang around people with the plague before germ theory.

[TeMPOraL]

I used to look at things this way too, but I now see this picture as incomplete, missing a crucial detail. There exist another dimension to our reality, beyond the inanimate, objective one we normally study through physics and life sciences. That dimension is the social dimension. It has its own rules, and for everyone at almost all times, it's more directly relevant to survival and happiness than actual physics.

An example I also posted in another comment: you can be objectively right about the color of the sky, but that won't save you from becoming dinner to wild animals after your people cast you out for believing differently.

We've evolved to navigate this social dimension as much as physical one, because we're social creatures and other people have forever been a part of our environment. Recognizing that, and recognizing that this social reality is more relevant than physical one, is IMO the key to understanding why people behave they do - why they believe obvious bullshit, and refuse to align their beliefs with the truth of physical reality, despite ample and indisputable evidence. It's the key to understand why seemingly smart people say and believe dumb things, especially after they start a career in sales or politics. It's all because, for almost everyone and in almost every case, being seen as in good standing in one's social circles is much more directly relevant to everyday experience and long and happy life, than getting some facts right.

Having that understanding, it becomes more apparent than just about the only way to convince people to change their mind, is to make things relevant to them personally in either dimension, and at a larger scale, to bring those two dimension more in alignment.

[strogonoff]

In a world where there is no way of knowing whether my blue is the same as your blue, can there be a way to be objectively right about the colour of the sky?

[balamatom]

Yes. The color is exactly as you see it.

[strogonoff]

Irrelevant. You cannot communicate what you actually see, you only communicate labels you assign to incommunicable, inaccessible between humans feelings.

Ergo, there is no “objectively right” about the colour of the sky (or anything). There is only “using the same labels” or “using different labels” compared to everybody.

[igobivm]

your perception of blue might be different than mine, but as a society we have agreed that specific wavelengths of light are blue. those wavelengths are absolutely measurable.

[strogonoff]

Indeed, so if that particular society has apparently agreed to call “blue” a different wavelength then you are the one objectively in the wrong.

[__s]

To explain why your comment was received poorly: they're talking about integrity & you somewhat randomly brought in faith

Changing your mind given data isn't going to apply when there's no data to go by, so this concept of integrity isn't related to faith

[nathan_compton]

My feeling is that we should simply not believe in stuff where we will never have data.