Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

FYI-FTR

FYI-FTR: 07 demands a list of ten self evident moral truths (answered)

As the ongoing exchange on watersheds and dual mutually polarised slippery slopes continues, 07 has been demanding: 07, 536: I am still waiting on my list of 10 self evident moral truths. If anyone else can help Phinehas out that would be appreciated! He now stands answered in the very next comment, which I headline: >>537kairosfocus May 12, 2016 at 8:56 pm 07: Your rhetorical wait is over. There is no material difference between a single self evident moral truth and a dozen, once one exists such a category is non-empty. However, there are in fact several reasonably accessible self evident core moral truths of cumulatively systematic impact: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably Read More ›

FYI-FTR: On justice and rights as manifestly evident natural moral law principles (and the early modern era reform of governance)

One of the themes that has come up in the ongoing exchanges on the perils of our civilisation (with homosexualisation of marriage under colour of law as a key case in point) is the issue of justice, rights and manifestly evident core principles of the natural moral law.  Given current trends, this issue is well worth a particular focus. (On the wider issue of the objectivity of morality, I suggest here as a start. BTW, objectors should note that when they try to show us to be in the wrong, they are showing an implicit knowledge that core moral principles are binding and generally known, including justice and rights. That is, despite talking points to the contrary they know that Read More ›

FYI-FTR: Addressing ruthless radicalism (tied to evolutionary materialist scientism and radical secularism)

In recent days, WJM put up a post on the end or reasonable discussion that soon turned into sharp exchanges on hot-button issues, especially the homosexualisation of marriage. (For months there has been a lot of baiting in and around UD to pull us into a debate on such.) An underlying factor in such is that we need to recognise not only the danger of a march of folly over a cliff: and the potential for a modern, electronic media version of Plato’s Cave manipulative shadow shows confused for reality: as well as the warning in Acts 27 that gives us a real-world case study on the dangers of manipulated democracy leading to shipwreck: but we should also take into Read More ›

FYI-FTR: On Ehrlich’s unified overview of numbers great and small (HT: DS)

Over the past month in response to a suggestion on an infinite temporal past (and the counter argument that such is dubious), there has been quite an exchange on numbers. In that context, it is worth headlining FYI/FTR, HT DS, a unification with continuum — oops, link —  based on surreals discussed by Ehrlich: where also: Such of course provides a lot of breathing room for exploring numbers and relationships in a unified context. Attention is particularly drawn to various ellipses of endlessness (not able to be traversed in finite stage stepwise do forever processes) and to both the trans-finites . . . do not overlook ellipses of endlessness within transfinite ranges — and the infinitesimals including what we could Read More ›

FYI-FTR: William Lane Craig on Dawkins’ “New Atheism” Objections to Theistic Arguments

As we continue to respond to the abuse of curriculum authority that tried to present to 12 year olds in Texas that belief in God is in effect a culturally stamped but ill supported notion, it is appropriate to pause and watch how William Lane Craig responds to the sort of arguments presented by Dawkins et al as a refutation of arguments to God. Arguments that any number of triumphalistic YouTube videos announce as “destroying” arguments in support of theism: [youtube u14dtDuEf3E] Further food for thought, and of course strictly verboten in today’s radically secularised public school classroom. END PS: It is worth the further pause to look at Plantinga’s collection of two dozen or so theistic arguments.

FYI-FTR: Ravi Zacharias on the existence of God (for Jordan and other intelligent and brave 12 year olds)

As we continue to respond to the abuse of curriculum authority that tried to present to 12 year olds in Texas that belief in God is in effect a culturally stamped but ill supported notion, it is appropriate to pause and watch the always entertaining — and perfect for twelve year olds — but oh so pointedly insightful Ravi Zacharias: [youtube VTVOufIzyPY] Food for thought — of course, strictly verboten in today’s radically secularised class room. END

FYI-FTR: Peter Kreeft on the rationality of belief in God

As we continue to address the abuse of curriculum authority that tried to present to 12 year olds in Texas that belief in God is in effect a culturally stamped but ill supported notion, it is appropriate to pause and watch Kreeft’s video lecture: [youtube gyrzhVvg3ws] Food for thought. END

FYI-FTR: Addressing the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) parody on the Idea of God in Philosophy of Religion and Systematic Theology

As just noted, a discussion thread on responding to abuse of the privilege of developing and implementing curriculum has been trollishly hijacked in what looks like an escalation of the tactics coming from a circle of objector sites. At the end, on a topic dealing with 12 year olds, sexually tinged vulgarity has been injected by word plays on a participant’s handle in an attempt to trigger a spiral to the gutter. That is the sort of ruthless nihilistic amorality and domineering disrespect we have been seeing in answer to exposure and correction of patent education abuse — of 12 year olds in Critical Thinking class . . . as in: pretending and trying to enforce under colour of education Read More ›

FYI-FTR (& BTB, 1a): A headlined response to LM: “you guys steadfastly refuse to offer any evidence at all for intelligent design or for the existence of an intelligent designer”

It has now been over a day since I responded to the above, and though LM has further commented in the thread, he has studiously refused to respond to the corrective. It is therefore appropriate to speak here for record, and in so doing it is necessary to point out the implications of LM’s speaking with disregard to truth he knows or should know, in hopes of profiting from what he said or suggested being taken as true. First, here is Dr Stephen Meyer in a readily accessible seminar, outlining the scientific case that has led him and others to champion the design inference as both legitimately scientific and in any case as a reasonably warranted view: [youtube b7Vf6MvBiz8] Let’s Read More ›

FYI-FTR, Attn LH: a Pepperoni Pizza, sliced . . .

Pizza, sliced: (Relevant to, is a finite whole greater than any of its proper parts?) BTW, Euclid, opening remarks: Axioms. i . Things which are equal to the same, or to equals, are equal to each other. ii . If equals be added to equals the sums will be equal. iii . If equals be taken from equals the remainders will be equal. iv . If equals be added to unequals the sums will be unequal. v . If equals be taken from unequals the remainders will be unequal. vi . The doubles of equal magnitudes are equal. vii . The halves of equal magnitudes are equal. viii . Magnitudes that can be made to coincide are equal. ix . Read More ›

FYI-FTR: P burns down rationality in order to save “critical rationality”

Sometimes, it is a sad necessity to make a public example. In this case, P has been attacking not only inductive reasoning but chains of reasoning in general, in order to try to make the generic chaining of warrant illustrated in the following infographic — and especially its focus on the trichotomy, (i) infinite regress, (ii) circularity, (iii) finitely remote first plausibles — seem dubious: (NB: To see where that frame of thought goes, cf here on in context. Also, here.) P commented at 101 in the DK etc thread, and I replied as follows, at 120 by clipping and commenting: _______________ >>Here is the bit of rhetorical trickery and attempted ridicule in the face of what you knew (as Read More ›

FYI-FTR: Part 13, Ongoing wedge tactics, polarisation and >>a curious thing>>

As was noted yesterday, psycho-social cascades can often create a locked-in, socially mutually reinforcing perception in a society at large or in a polarised sub culture, that can continue indefinitely. Regardless of true facts and duties of care to fairness. This is why the wedge document canard is particularly pernicious in and around discussions of intelligent design and the design inference. Especially, when it is joined to the further canards that ID is creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and that “intelligent design creationism” represents a right wing, antidemocratic, anti-science, anti-progress, totalitarian theocratic conspiracy. This toxic caricature often goes so far as to suggest that design theory was created as a way to evade the force of US Supreme Court rulings Read More ›

FYI-FTR: Part 12, More from Kuran and Sunstein; on “sheeple” mass pseudo-consensus by way of manipulating opinion (and policy . . . ) through cascade effects

It is worth pausing to pull up more from the rich motherlode of the Kuran-Sunstein Stanford law review article on opinion and reputation cascades, to help us understand what has been going on: >> the probability assessments we make as individuals are frequently based on the ease with which we can think of relevant examples.‘ Our principal claim here is that this heuristic interacts with identifiable social mechanisms to generate availability cascades—social cascades, or simply cascades, through which expressed perceptions trigger chains of individual responses that make these perceptions appear increasingly plausible through their rising availability in public discourse. Availability cascades may be accompanied by counter-mechanisms that keep perceptions consistent with the relevant facts. Under certain circumstances, however, they generate Read More ›

FYI-FTR: Part 11, a paper on inducing mass pseudo-consensus

Today, I must postpone my intended next FTR, but I believe we will find very useful,  the Olin Foundation paper as captioned, with abstract: >>Availability Cascades and Risk Regulation Timur Kuran* and Cass R. Sunstein** An  availability  cascade  is  a self-reinforcing process  of  collective  belief formation  by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception  increasing plausibility  through its rising availability in public discourse.  The driving mechanism involves a combination of informational and reputational  motives:  Individuals endorse  the perception partly  by  learning from  the apparent  beliefs of  others  and partly  by  distorting their public  re- sponses in the interest of maintaining social acceptance.  Availability entrepre- neurs–activists  who manipulate the content of public  discourse-strive  to trig- ger  Read More ›

FYI-FTR: Part 10, In reply to RTH — >>your FYI / FTR posts are a bad idea >>

It is appropriate to pause a moment to reply to RTH at TSZ: >>your FYI / FTR posts are a bad idea. Here’s why: By not allowing criticism to be directly attached to them you are not proceeding in the most intellectually honest way. You keep relinking to them so criticisms have to be redrafted after every ‘reboot’ You post on a blog that censors, edits and even DISSAPEARS whole commenters. No rationale or many times even acknowledgement is given by the moderators. The above are hallmarks of dogma, not honest inquiry. If your ideas are good, they’ll hold up under scrutiny. Exposing them to pointed criticism may help you refine them.>> The central problem with this is that it Read More ›