[removed]

Aaron Rogers is a not the brightest. Wonder why with his phenomenal talent he started at a JC? Forget this guy. He will probably come out as a Kanye supporter soon.

This reminds me of a couple of things.

Person A and Person B are arguing. Person A is fervent in his/her beliefs. So is Person B and they are opposing. The difference, Person A has more knowledge on the topic. This will often result in the perception that Person A wins the argument due to Person B not being able to fully refute a given point. However, the fact is that while the odds increase that Person A may be right, Person B could still in fact be right and only lacks the ability to prove it. Further, even if Person A was the foremost expert on the topic in the world, and Person B is a four year old kid with virtually zero knowledge of the topic, there is no guarantee that Person A is correct and Person B is wrong. The point, knowledge is virtually impossible (if not in fact impossible) within the constraints of current existence, only evidence and probability can point to the more likely correct answer. Ultimately, arguing and debate may prove to be of little assistance to show the actual answer and 'rightness' in a given situation.

The above applies to all things, even established science that we think of as having well established laws. As long as there is a scenario in science where the information available does not conform to the scientific law/theory governing the situation, there is the possibility that the law/theory is wholly wrong even if the math works for most scenarios. Ex: if you go into a physics forum and try to argue against relativity or that time and space are in fact separate things and that gravity only impacts the perception of time and not 'actual time' you will be met with heavy resistance. Some of it backed by argument and data. But ultimately, those arguments and data may mean nothing. Only further exploration of the topic will reveal how likely we are to be approaching the correct answer.

He was using critical thinking -

Definition - "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment"

He objectively assessed his own personal situation and formed a judgement that, for him, it would be better to not get the vaccine. He is young and healthy and likely was not overly worried about the virus bringing him much harm. Whereas, even with the risks being very low for side effects, they weren't zero with the vaccine. It's kind of a dance with the devil you know versus the devil you don't. At the time, there was more known about the virus than the vaccine side effects.

As it turns out, in many ways he may have had the correct decision based on information known now and still being questioned.

In my mind, thinking critically means not accepting purely at face value any supposed "consensus". It means to make one's own evaluation, absent of external bias, other than pure facts. How many believe in a certain fact should not come into play. If one person believes one thing and has evidence supporting it, and 1,000 people believe another thing and have evidence supporting their views, the numbers do not matter, only the idea and the supporting evidence. How many times have we seen 95% of people being wrong? The entire history of scientific advancement is basically built on the 1-5% going against the 95% "consensus".

From looking at other comments, I'm wondering if this is a place to discuss topics, or its it just another forum to trash those who don't follow group think? So many comments are just trashing Aaron Rodgers and not even discussing the premise of the article.

Edit: i went back and re-read the article to make sure i fully understood the premise. The writer is using quite a number of logical fallacies in his writing. Clearly Bandwagon Fallacy is at play. One could argue for False Dichotomy and even possibly Straw Manning. The most egregious one is False Equivalence by comparing the story regarding his knowledge of the cosmos, which has little to no bearing to his own body and health, with the situation Aaron Rodgers was faced with that directly affected his own body and health either way he ended up deciding on the issue. The two situations do not even remotely compare with each other, and is disingenuous to even suggest so.

To address those who claim Aaron thinks he's an expert - I'm fairly certain he'd have been plenty happy never talking about the issue publicly. It's only because of the constsnt poking and prodding by the public and reporters basically taunting his beliefs out of him, that forced him to have to say something to quell the ravenous hunger of those after him. I doubt he thinks of himself as an expert on any of the topics at hand. What I'm sure he does believe though is that he weighed the decision critically for himself and his health and made the best decision for himself without succumbing to Bandwagon Fallacy or any other external pressure.

To be fair, and spoken as a Packers fan, my man Aaron is a professional quarterback. While he is no doubt well versed in football knowledge, and he might even be reasonably intelligent on a variety of issues, he is also not a philosopher, a epidemiologist, or a doctor. The fact that anyone, including the news media, was giving any credibility to Aaron's views about COVID is baffling. We shouldn't need reporting on random people's unscientific and incorrect views.

[removed]

[removed]

His claim that Bertrand Russel was a logical positivist? I thought was common knowledge. At least, that’s what I learned in jr. College and I’ve assumed it was true ever since.

[removed]

Dogma is intimately tied with knowledge, just of the illogical, unrevealed kind. I'm saying that no knowledge can exist in the motley crew because they can't verify/justify it to each other because they each have different experiences. Maybe there can be overlap in some cases, but as an alternative to your kind of dogmatism, I would say that they exist in a continuous stream of agnosticism. Can they not? And in this stream of ignorance, knowledge is revealed by contingency rather than absolutes.

How can you know a stranger or know about a stranger or assume what a stranger is capable of? Tying this to ideals which justify multicultural societies that must tolerate indefiniteness within the grandeur society they all share.

I think we all accept a sort of apathetic attitude to getting to know our neighbors sometimes to justify living next to people we don't know/assume too much about. Or have no expectations of them. And this apathy rests on agnosticism rather than any knowledge. Although I can see a way out if we argue that we agree to definite laws that let us know the person next door is very likely not capable of doing anything too bad.

I find it hilarious. It exceeds simple contradictory, and becomes stupidity. Unproductive, misleading and deleterious to a mind not previously exposed to discussion/thought that has inherent value and purpose.

Being exposed to the semblance of “intelligent thought” to the average individual will lead them to believe it blindly. That logic is intensified in severity with media exposure.

Nothing about what I just said keeps all these people from co-existing. You want to know what absolutely keeps LOTs of people from co-existing though? Dogma. Dogma unbounded by empiricism, because it leaves people in contentious silos of belief with no way to paddle to one another.

[removed]

> Even mathematics starts with presuppositions and tautologies stemming from "the number of things we can physically count", which happens to be an empirical base.

Could you please care to explain what do you mean? I am a bit confused by the 'counting of physical things' as there are many branches of mathematics that are not interested in numbers, or at least not in numbers for physical counting.

I have a very rough understanding of ZFC as foundations of mathematics but as far as I know the usuals axioms in ZFC do not involve numbers at all.

> just a blanket term with nothing defined

Can't a room of 10 people with varying life experiences, different cultural background, different education level, intellectual capacity coexist with somethings not defined?

I dunno, seems hard to know, but I'm not exactly following the guy around listening to everything he says.

I've been playing "Stupid, or Asshole?" for a very long time now and my conclusion is that it's usually both LOL.

Oh, we're agreeing then

I believe you are aware of the ongoing debate that has been had for centuries on this very topic. If you would like to comment on why my assertion of repeatability when only problematic propositions (meaning those that rely on statistical domains, and not Boolean) are used.

Seriously, I come here to learn. All in good faith. I respect anyone that uses the term “preposterous” outright… so I want to understand where you’re coming from.

When the exception becomes the rule.

Any kind of critical analysis or philosophical deconstruction goes immediately out the window where dishonesty and disingenuousness is involved. And Aaron Rodgers is as dishonest and disingenuous as they come.

So what is?

Having a more poetic instead of technological relationship with nature absolutely IS Heidegger's point. Sorry.

> As for scientific method revealing the ultimate state of reality, wouldn't that actually be beyond the scope?

Yes. Science is concerned with iteratively approximating / revealing reality. This is an asymptomatic process. There is no expectation of ever reaching "ultimate" reality.

I just wanted to say that both sides build models that may or may not be eventually tested. The testing is still critical to make any statement about reality, but the discussion is still worthwhile

I think the fallacy fallacy is intended to avoid poisoning the well through an easily refutable argument and favor of some proposition.

If a proposition is argued poorly it can be seen as less true than a proposition that wasn’t argued at all. This is commonly a useful observation, but strictly speaking it is fallacious.