Sounds like you need to have a serious talk about boundaries and rules with your grandparents. Boundaries going both ways. If they want you to follow rules which are too strict, they can lose you because you'll just move out when you're 18, so being mindful of your need for independence is important.

I don't know. I've experienced extreme time dilation.

Indeed. That's why I called it a Red Herring, because I've never seen anyone commit the falacy.

It feels like such a level of increase consciousness that more of reality is experienced in more ways.

I am a fan. I am saying that I have experienced absurd levels of critical thought to the point of absurdity and it absolutely stops action.

>"the exercise of strict epistemology" would render people immobile is demonstrably false.

Have you ever taken psychedelics and become critical of all beliefs and experiences to the point of absurdity? Because it sounds like you've NEVER done anything like that.

We're mixing two distinct subjects.

1. The Fallacy Fallacy, which I contend is like a distracted dog chasing a squirrel of irrelevance.
2. Truthiness? Even Science approximates accuracy with reference to the most accurate of knowledge we have, rather than revealing absolute boolean truths about the Universe. I doubt we can reliably achieve such lofty goals with regularity.

Sounds like current conservative contrarianism.

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to link it. We had a discussion about the fallacy fallacy, which I will adamantly contend is stupid till my deathbed.
I agree with you that it's obviously terrible for someone to claim something is false based on faulty argument. I'm also saying that's a red herring, because if the only thing substantiating said claim was the fallacious argument, then there is no longer support to believe such a thing. It's not that I am saying "That's a fallacy, therefore your conclusion is false" I am saying your premise is wrong so I'm agnostic to the claim till it's substantiated, important difference.

I'm honored that I could summon your PTSD a little bit.

It serves to assist our survival at times, so I suppose.

Thanks for the resource!

I think that's reasonable, but would add that the tiniest amount of sensation leads to awareness of self and not self, and to location and relation. pinhole nerve clusters, hearing, or sensation of touch is enough for empiricism.

Any group of people willing to be identified as "agnostic" with reference to any ideas they hold sacred are very likely already proficient in epistemology.

I am not claiming that all knowledge must have absolute empirical evidence prior to acceptance. That premise would be so inefficient for anyone involved that they would be frozen in a recursive cycle of defining definitions before they can make a single decision.

What I am saying is that I empirically have black hair. I have personally measured this and so have many other people who have informally seen me. I may tell you in this thread that I have black hair, and you most likely will accept my claim without further investigation. You don't accept the blackness of my hair because I'm some arbiter of truth. You accept that I have black hair because you have experienced having hair and seeing black hair. You've experienced both ideas empirically. There is no need to scrutinize simple observations which we relate to in reality because many are already shared experiences.

Though we should rely on Logical Positivism to settle disputes about our beliefs, the more consequential or extreme a claim, the more important it is that it be substantiated by empiricism. Conversely, the less consequential and more mundane a claim, the need for empiricism becomes infinitesimal.

I will attempt an answer, though we're nearing the basement bellow all of mathematics and logic, so it's not quite straight forward.
So I said "The number of things we can physically count", this was a gross over simplification. So I'm going to start at what ZFC is, from where it stems recursively.

ZFC is an axiomatization of Number Theory and Set Theory.
Number Theory is a direct abstraction of "Things we can count", so to speak.
Set Theory is the tricky part with reference to empiricism, so lets go deeper into what it's derived from.
Set Theory is the axiomatization of Naive Set Theory.
Naive Set Theory is just rudimentary definitions of the same concepts as Set Theory, described informally in natural language, rather than axiomatically. It is based on Discrete Mathematics.
Aaaannd Discrete Mathematics deals with Countable Sets, which expands into discrete integers, graphs, and logical statements.

The basis of ZFC is

1. boolean logic: yes/no, existence/non-existence.
2. discrete integers, i.e. "Things we can count"
3. graphs, i.e. "Things we can relate to one another in some way"

So I'll append my simplistic claim to something more inclusive of ALL of Mathematics, since what I originally said didn't quite make sense. Even mathematics starts with presuppositions and tautologies stemming from conditions in reality. From countable objects to abstractions of said numbers, relations of objects in reality to the abstracted graphs of hypothetical objects, and finally to what truth can be derived from said relations and the derivative algebra that's generate there of.

All deep systems of thought start with simple observations of reality, and as long as the derivative works there of are accurate and consistent I think that small tether to reality can lead to the sum total of the knowledge of mankind.

edit* added one "s". Also had to reformat because I lost my line-breaks.

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.

Lol that's a fair assessment. I'm not going to use more time on a thread I feel is thoroughly discussed.

"It might be important to note that when you've struck down an argument for A that doesn't mean that you've successfully made an argument for not A. Rather what you should do is downgrade A to whatever epistemological status it had before the aforementioned argument was made."

I agree, where we differ is that "A" is a claim of truth, and if that claim is based on a fallacy, Logical Positivism says A should be disregarded until it's been substantiated, which is exactly what we've been talking about this whole time and why I still think the fallacy fallacy is dumb.

So, I am no expert in Set Theory by a LOOONG long shot, regardless please hear me out.In Principia Mathematica, Chapter 1, right when it starts with Preliminary Explanations: "The notation adopted in the present work is based upon that of Peano, and the following explanations are to some extent modelled on those which he prefixes to his Formulario Mathematico."

I reference all this to point out that the book is built upon an older work, which is based on Logical Positivism. Russell's work is based on Direct reference theory, which he supported. The ideas in Principia Mathematica arise from, as I stated in my previous comment "the number of things we can physically count" i.e. Direct Reference Theory.

Please read the opening paragraph of the Wiki for Direct reference theory, it leads straight back to Logical Positivism, all of which Bertrand Russell was a proponent of.

Edit: The smallest of empirical tethers can lead to astonishing discoveries.

No it's not, it's literally as I described it, which is why it's stupid.

from Wikipedia: "Argument from fallacy (also known as the fallacy fallacy) – the assumption that, if a particular argument for a "conclusion" is fallacious, then the conclusion by itself is false."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

My point being that the fallacy fallacy is a red herring that leads you away from good epistemology, because the truth of a claim arrived at from a fallacy is irrelevant until substantiated regardless.

The fallacy fallacy is a dumb fallacy, because the purpose of the initial claim is to hold up an idea as true. If the claim is a fallacy, then there is no longer direct support for the idea, which directly leads to having no support to believe such a thing. The fallacy fallacy is just Gin Rummy in The Boondocks rambling: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", yeah no shit, but you don't go believing there are invisible Russian elves in your oven heating things for you, because you don't have EVIDENCE they're there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVQB1TVcD2k

You hit the bull's eye. "other forms of knowing" is just a blanket term with nothing defined, because there is no other form of actually reliably knowing without empiricism. Even mathematics starts with presuppositions and tautologies stemming from "the number of things we can physically count", which happens to be an empirical base. Even our intuitive "warm fuzzies" start from aggregate experiences which all correlate to an idea.

This was frustrating to read. In the beginning of the damn article it cites the actual purpose of Logical Positivism, which is to dispense with wasteful & specious nonsense. If our musings are not anchored to reality in some small way, through the thinnest of tethers of evidence, then EVERYTHING which comes from such musings are nonsense and can be treated as such! To do otherwise is to open ourselves to a literal INFINITE Hall of absurd ideas, all of which have equal footing to waste our entire LIVES by their volume of time taken from us. The anchor to reality is what protects us from nonsense.

Here is the acknowledgement of the purpose of Logical Positivism from the beginning of the article:
"logical positivism mounted one of the most scathing attacks on the very idea that the nature of reality could be known by reflection alone, a priori, from the so-called philosophical armchair. Logical positivism sought to put an end to what it regarded to be irresolvable metaphysical pseudo-disputes by arguing that genuine knowledge claims must be verifiable, that there must be, at least in principle, evidence that can be cited to determine whether a claim is true or false. Claims which cannot be found to be either true or false in this way, the argument goes, express meaningless propositions, and the treatises in which they are contained should be confined to the flames, just as Hume suggested."

AAAAAaand here is the wasteful reading which suddenly COMPLETELY forgets what was just cited in the beginning of the article:
"The demand that knowledge claims should be verifiable, that there must be evidence that can be provided to substantiate one’s views, seems to be reasonable enough; rejecting it would lead to a form of dogmatism. But what the logical positivists also assumed is that the criterion of verification that belongs to the empirical sciences is a universal criterion of meaning, not a domain-specific criterion that merely determines what does and does not count as a genuine scientific hypothesis. They uncritically extended the criterion of verification which governs empirical enquiry to all claims (bar tautologies) rather than acknowledging it as a heuristic principle of scientific enquiry."

We do not suddenly place Logical Positivism ONLY as a tool for Scientific inquiry which has no place in other endeavors of knowledge. It is a general shield which should be placed into EVERY consideration as a failsafe against lost time of thought and, just as important, against ignorance. The simple phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" shows that it's safe to make small assumptions about things for efficiency sake, but the more impactful a claim, the stronger it's tether to reality should be.

The best example of Logical Positivism helping mankind IMO is Special Relativity and General Relativity. Einstein held one empirical truth constant about the nature of the Universe, that the Speed of light is constant from ALL reference frames. From this empirical VERIFIABLE truth, he can then make all manner of implications and logical steps to unravel the nature of the fabric of reality itself. Such awe-inspiring truth is impossible without that initial tether to reality, evidence.

WE GOT ANAL BEADS IN FISH!!!!

If the escalation of the powdered wig kept escalating and never slowed, what would that look like today?