Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

L&FP, 64: The challenge of self-referentiality on hard questions (thus, of self-defeating arguments)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

One way to define Philosophy, is to note that it is that department of thought that addresses hard, core questions. Known to be hard as there are no easy answers.

Where, core topics include metaphysics [critical analysis of worldviews on what reality is, what exists etc], epistemology [core questions on “knowledge”], logic [what are the principles of right reason], ethics/morals [virtue, the good, evil, duty, justice etc], aesthetics [what is beauty], and of course meta issues emerging from other subjects such as politics, history, Mathematics, Theology/Religion, Science, Psychology, Medicine, Education etc. As we look at such a list, we can see that one reason why these are difficult is that it is very hard to avoid self-referentiality on such topics, opening up question-begging on one hand and self-referential, self-defeating incoherence on the other.

For striking example, in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis, Nobel Laureate Sir Francis Crick [a co-discoverer on the structure and function of DNA], went on ill-advised record:

. . . that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll’s Alice might have phrased: “You’re nothing but a pack of neurons.” This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.

The late Philip Johnson, of course, aptly replied that Sir Francis should have therefore been willing to preface his works thusly: “I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” Johnson then tellingly commented: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” [Reason in the Balance, 1995.]

This problem is fairly widespread, and a point that should be borne in mind when we try to argue on big questions. Regrettably, this seems harder to do than one might at first imagine.

However, Elton Trueblood, building on Josiah Royce, may have put a way forward on the table, though this turns on an irony. For, one of the points of consensus of debate is that error exists. For empirical evidence, kindly refer to primary school sums duly marked with the infamous big red X’s. (That’s why I went out of my way to use green as my marking colour . . . )

However, this is not just an empirical fact, it is an undeniably true and self-evident knowable truth. To see this, set E = error exists, and try to deny it ~E. But this means, E is . . . an error. Oops. So, we know the very attempt to deny E instantly produces patent absurdity, a self defeating self contradiction. But this simple result is not a readily dismissed triviality. No, apart from being a gentle reminder that we need to be careful, it shows that self evident, certainly knowable truth exists which instantly undercuts a wide swath of radical relativist views. Their name is Legion, in a post modern world.

We can widen the result, take any reasonably identifiable subject, G. Assign, that O is the claim that some x in G is an objective, i.e. warranted and credibly reliable truth. Try to deny it, ~O. Has o shifted away from G? No, it is still a claim on the subject matter G. So, it refutes itself. Once there is a reasonably identifiable subject, there are objective knowable truths about and in G. This is a first such truth. Of course on many topics, the second truth is, we know little more than the first truth. That is Mr Donald Rumsfeld’s known unknowns. Beyond lurk, the unknown unknowns.

BTW, Morality and History count as reasonably identifiable topics, as do Economics, Politics, etc. Controversy does not prevent us from knowing truths.

And, Dallas Willard et al (with slight adjustment) are right:

To have knowledge in the dispositional sense—where you know things you are not necessarily thinking about at the time—is to be able to represent something as it is on an adequate basis of thought or experience, not to exclude communications from qualified sources (“authority”). This is the “knowledge” of ordinary life, and it is what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, math teacher, and physician. Knowledge is not rare, and it is not esoteric . . . no satisfactory general description of “an adequate basis of thought or experience” has ever been achieved. We are nevertheless able to determine in many specific types of cases that such a basis is or is not present [p.19] . . . . Knowledge, but not mere belief or feeling, generally confers the right to act and to direct action, or even to form and supervise policy. [p. 20] In any area of human activity, knowledge brings certain advantages. Special considerations aside, knowledge authorizes one to act, to direct action, to develop and supervise policy, and to teach. It does so because, as everyone assumes, it enables us to deal more successfully with reality: with what we can count on, have to deal with, or are apt to have bruising encounters with. Knowledge involves assured

[–> warranted, credible] truth, and truth in our representations and beliefs is very like accuracy in the sighting mechanism on a gun. If the mechanism is accurately aligned—is “true,” it enables those who use it with care to hit an intended target. [p. 4, Dallas Willard & Literary Heirs, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge, Routledge|Taylor& Francis Group, 2018. ]

Of course, that easily leads to the situation where false or tainted or materially incomplete knowledge claims can capture this prestige, so our knowledge institutions should be open to reform.

For this, an adapted JoHari window is helpful:

Coming back to focus, let us be on guard against making errors of self referentiality. END

Comments
When you mix red and blue, purple **emerges** Who could have predicted that? Who could have predicted water, when you only know H and O? So, .... maybe from a warm little pond ... life ** poof** and .... , maybe when you have a bunch of neurons ... consciousness **emerges ** Do you get the emergentists' vibe?Origenes
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
"Why are you denying that?" JVL, I'm not denying that stuff happens. Let's call it Stuff Happens instead of Emergence with the pretense that it means something. That would me slightly happier. Andrewasauber
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Jerry Emergence is a nonsense idea.
To explain a nonsense idea like darwinism you need to use more nonsense ideas .*Poof* magic wand. Poor darwinists ! all the big events already happened and they have only randomness in their magic hat to explain everything including functional information , conscience,morality . *Poof*Sandy
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
Asauber: Still not an explanation… which is what science is supposed to be for. It's a category observation that has been labelled. Sometimes you get something you couldn't have predicted when physically combining some things together. That does happen, clearly. Why are you denying that? What is your explanation of why combining two poisons together yields a substance necessary for many forms of life?JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
"you get something you didn’t predict" ...like a rabbit from a black top hat, a plastic wand, and some magic *POOFERY* in the air. Still not an explanation... which is what science is supposed to be for. Why are you advocating for Not Science? Andrewasauber
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
Asuaber: The point is that Emergence is not an explanation. It’s the whirl of a black cape and a *POOF* of smoke. The rabbit Emerged from the hat. It’s just a lame turn of phrase for the weak-minded. The point is that sometimes combining some things/elements/compounds/structures togethers gets you some new properties or effects that you could not have predicted just knowing the properties and effects of the constituents. This is clearly true. So, the term for properties and effects not predictable from the properties of the constituent parts is emergent. What is the problem? Sometimes, when you put stuff together, you get something you didn't predict. Duh. It is NOT the same a a rabbit coming out of a hat.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Andrew at 146, I suspected the Jedi mind trick. Thanks for clarifying.relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
01:00 PM
1
01
00
PM
PDT
Relatd: Salt, when chemically analyzed, consists of sodium and chloride. You are taking scientific facts and making them sound mysterious. I am saying that salt has properties that sodium and chloride do not have and those properties of salt are not predictable based on the properties of sodium and chloride. And why would human beings be designed to need salt? Planned and designed to need salt for life functions. Not the point. You clearly are just trying to waste my time.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
JVL, The point is that Emergence is not an explanation. It's the whirl of a black cape and a *POOF* of smoke. The rabbit Emerged from the hat. It's just a lame turn of phrase for the weak-minded. Andrewasauber
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
JVL at 144, You are taking the Darwinist, life just "emerges" position. Salt, when chemically analyzed, consists of sodium and chloride. You are taking scientific facts and making them sound mysterious. And why would human beings be designed to need salt? Planned and designed to need salt for life functions.relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
Relatd: Sodium and chloride are always poisons and the combination always results in salt. Nothing unpredictable there. Again, you seem to be missing the point. Could you predict, before you knew the outcome, that mixing two poisons together would give you something essential for life? That property is emergent. I'm beginning to suspect you're arguing just to be belligerent. You seem to be missing the point intentionally. For what reason I know not.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
JVL at 142, This falls under the anarchist category, where things just 'happen' on their own. Sodium and chloride are always poisons and the combination always results in salt. Nothing unpredictable there.relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
Relatd: Chemistry cannot be done, and industry could not function, if “… those changes are not predictable.” Some reactions are predictable; we're talking about the times when new properties arise which were not predictable. Which does happen. You could not predict the specific properties of water from the properties of hydrogen or oxygen. Take NaCl. Sodium and Chlorine are stupidly poisonous on their own. Together they form a simple compound used by all of us everyday in our food. Could you predict that based on the two constituents? It DOES happen that some compounds or combinations yield results which are unpredictable from the constituent parts. The properties of the compounds or combinations that cannot be foreseen are defined as emergent properties. They exist. You're running out of road. Look, if you don't get the point why not just stop arguing?JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
Kf at 139, Energy storage? Who brought that up? I'm talking about something "emerging" in TOTALLY unpredictable ways. Yeah, right...relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
JVL at 138, Chemistry cannot be done, and industry could not function, if "... those changes are not predictable."relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Relatd, the problem is, apart from nukes, the densest energy storage is diesel and gasoline. KFkairosfocus
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:42 AM
10
10
42
AM
PDT
Relatd: 100% fake. Nothing emerges from anything. Everything has properties and potentialities. Period. These are built-in and predetermined by the laws of atomic physics. Well, I'll leave it up to you to argue against the philosophers who have argued about the existence of emergent properties. Your attempt to create a fake “something from nothing” situation is fake. Nothing “emerges.” Period. At room temperature oxygen and hydrogen exist as gases. Water is a liquid. Combining things together sometimes introduces new properties, sometimes modifies existing properties. And those changes are not predictable. They 'emerge'.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
How dare you tell me to "chill out"? I will chill out when I'm good and ready... :)relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Relatd: What? Industry – with lots of money – could not afford to install scrubbers on their smoke-belching smokestacks. Why? Because their competitors wouldn’t do it either. Losing millions of peasants is OK. Don’t you get it? And plastic? Electric cars? Oil companies and oil companies. Electric cars were available in 1905 but oil barons could not get rich that way I just offered a minor opinion. Chill out.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
JVL at 134, 100% fake. Nothing emerges from anything. Everything has properties and potentialities. Period. These are built-in and predetermined by the laws of atomic physics. "Would you agree that water has properties not shared by hydrogen and oxygen?" Absolutely not. Water can exist as a solid, liquid and gas. Built-in, happens every time properties. Your attempt to create a fake "something from nothing" situation is fake. Nothing "emerges." Period.relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
Relatd: Why do some metals combine to form alloys while some cannot? The alloy has properties of the combined metals. I think “emergent” is a fake idea. You're focusing on what can or cannot combine NOT what properties 'emerge' (sometimes) when combinations occur. That is the point: emergent properties are those which are not apparent or predictable when some combinations occur. Not all combinations. And it's not a statement about what can and what cannot combine. Would you agree that water has properties not shared by hydrogen and oxygen? I can't think of any metallic examples but I wouldn't be surprised if some exist. Anyway, the concept of emergence exists outside of chemistry and metallurgy.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Origenes at 131, It's totally fake. The laws of physics apply. In my kids' chemistry set, I got two clear liquids that, when one is poured into the other, turn purple. I can't just pour ANY two clear liquids into each other and get a purple result. Clear?relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
JVL at 130, What? Industry - with lots of money - could not afford to install scrubbers on their smoke-belching smokestacks. Why? Because their competitors wouldn't do it either. Losing millions of peasants is OK. Don't you get it? And plastic? Electric cars? Oil companies and oil companies. Electric cars were available in 1905 but oil barons could not get rich that way. https://archive.curbed.com/2017/9/22/16346892/electric-car-history-fritchlerelatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
Relatd@
I think “emergent” is a fake idea.
When you mix 2 Blue and 1 Red, the color Purple *emerges*. Is that fake news? :)Origenes
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
Jerry: What happens to an ecology when a species is introduced that is superior to all the others in the ecology in terms of reproduction? Will that ecology survive? Most likely that will change the ecology so, strictly speaking, the previous ecology does not survive. IF the change happens slowly enough then adaptations will occur AND some marginal lifeforms may become winners while others may become losers. On could argue that what human are doing to the Earth's climate is such an example: there will be winners and losers and many humans will be losers but possibly not the species overall. Of course in the case of humans it's not just reproductive expertise that's causing the problem. On the other hand, if there were only 1 million humans over the whole planet those 1 million individuals could drive the largest gas-guzzling SUV available, use single-use plastics all the time, keep their thermostats set to 75 degrees, etc and not significantly affect the overall planet's climate. Too many humans + too much environmental degradation and overuse of some natural resources is a fairly toxic combination.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
JVL at 127, Why do some metals combine to form alloys while some cannot? The alloy has properties of the combined metals. I think "emergent" is a fake idea.relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT
Origenes: It makes sense to say that a statement about the system as a whole must come from a position outside the whole In mathematics there are many, basic, easy-to-prove within the system statements that apply to the whole system. There are infinitely many prime numbers is a good example; you can easily prove that within the axiomatic system. All prime numbers are within 1 of a multiple of 6 is another.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Relatd: This is a subatomic/quantum effect. And not explainable as emergent anything. Well, I think water does exhibit properties not apparent or present from its constituent parts so it seems to me that those properties of water are emergent properties by the definition of emergent. The fact that things combine or not is not the emergent bit; it's the new properties that are present. Sometimes it is better to use terms as they are commonly used in the literature to ensure people know what you are talking about. It seems to me you are talking about something at a different level than simple emergence.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
I'm not sure we've latched onto the real notion of axiom, at least in mathematics. Again from Wikipedia:
An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ?????? (axí?ma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'
The precise definition varies across fields of study. In classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. In modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning. In mathematics, an axiom may be a "logical axiom" or a "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are taken to be true within the system of logic they define and are often shown in symbolic form (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory, such as arithmetic. Non-logical axioms may also be called "postulates" or "assumptions". In most cases, a non-logical axiom is simply a formal logical expression used in deduction to build a mathematical theory, and might or might not be self-evident in nature (e.g., the parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry). To axiomatize a system of knowledge is to show that its claims can be derived from a small, well-understood set of sentences (the axioms), and there are typically many ways to axiomatize a given mathematical domain. Any axiom is a statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Whether it is meaningful (and, if so, what it means) for an axiom to be "true" is a subject of debate in the philosophy of mathematics.
So, I don't agree they are like syntax which has to do with an arbitrary structure governing expression NOT was is or is not 'true' in that axiomatic system. But, clearly, axioms cannot be 'proven' to be true since they are akin to assumptions or bases upon which the rest of the axiomatic system is built.JVL
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
JVL at 123, A little chemistry lesson. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water. If you take a tank with hydrogen gas and one with oxygen, and light a handheld torch on each, and combine the output, you get water. This is a subatomic/quantum effect. And not explainable as emergent anything. Another example: If a building fire gets hot enough, any water present within decomposes to hydrogen and oxygen and feeds the fire. Water turning into ice at a given temperature is another subatomic/quantum effect. The examples involve subatomic combinations under given conditions. I would never use the word emergent. It is a case of phase transition/combination. One last example. Some metals combine readily to form alloys, others cannot do this.relatd
January 30, 2023
January
01
Jan
30
30
2023
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply