Category: Logic and First Principles of right reason
Let us soberly ponder, reading between the lines: Food for thought. END PS: By way of sharpest contrast:
Revealing in-thread exchanges on the imposition of evo mat scientism/ naturalism (and on the tactics to deflect attention from that)
The imposition of evolutionary materialistic scientism (aka naturalism) is one of the key issues driving the march of folly in our civilisation. It is also very difficult to discuss as there are some very powerful rhetorical deflectors at work. Sometimes, then, the best thing we can do is to clip from one of UD’s exchanges […]
is our ruinous nightmare. This can be seen through a game, from the conspiracism thread: KF, 86: >> . . . there is a silly little mental game we can consider. [The Crooked Yardstick Effect:] Step one, define that a certain crooked yardstick, S, is the standard of straight, accurate and upright. Once that is […]
President Duterte, this is what it means to say that God is the necessary being at the root of reality
|July 29, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Philosophy, Selective Hyperskepticism|
Recently, President Duterte of the Philippines issued a challenge to prove the existence of God. About a week ago, I showed that to believe in God is reasonable and responsible; indeed, he credibly exists. (BTW, the hits:comments ratio was interesting.) Today, I will explore a bit on what it means for God to be the […]
|July 17, 2018||Posted by News under Culture, Intelligent Design, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Science|
From Ruth M. Bancewicz at Science + Belief, on key points offered by Dutch philosopher Professor René van Woudenberg at a recent Faraday workshop, including: There are all sorts of ways in which scientists find some theories more satisfying than others, but science itself is not always a deciding factor in the decision. Logic, reason, […]
|July 15, 2018||Posted by News under Intelligent Design, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Philosophy, Science, science education|
And Big Science is afraid to confront it. From Katherine Timpf at National Review: A course that will be taught at Hobart and William Smith Colleges next year will teach students that “objectivity” and “meritocracy” are examples of “white mythologies” and “social constructs.” … The idea that objectivity is somehow a myth, or that it […]
A handy source on the broader view of naturalism (as a bit more elaborate than a dictionary and a tad more credible than Wikipedia) is Encyclopedia Britannica: >>Naturalism, in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are […]
As we continue to explore the mathematical domain of abstract reality and objective truth, we come to first the Godel point (as summarised by Nesher): where, recall, the domain of facts starts with something like the surreal world of numbers: and then also, we come to the world of Mathematical Platonism/ Realism. So, let me […]
In recent days, I have taken time to show that while subjects study the logic of structure and quantity (= Mathematics, in a nutshell), the body of knowledge — including axiomatised systems — is objective. Where, “objective” effectively means, tied to such a body of accountable warrant and to foundational self-evident facts that the substance […]
|June 7, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics, Selective Hyperskepticism, warrant, knowledge, science and belief|
Over recent days, there has been an exchange at UD on the objectivity vs subjectivity of mathematical knowledge. This is relevant to our understanding of knowledge, and to our recognition of the credibility of Mathematical findings on debated matters. This instantly means that the specific concern and the penumbra of generalised perceptions of Mathematics, Science […]
BO’H asks: “aren’t the axioms that mathematicians assume subjective? (they may be rational, but they’re not the only possible axioms that could be used)”
|June 4, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under Epistemology (the study of knowledge and its conditions), Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics, Philosophy, Science, worldview issues/foundations and society|
This is yet another significant issue that emerges from the ongoing exchanges on subjectivity, objectivity, possibility of objective moral truth, etc. And, the deep interconnectedness of what we are discussing is proving quite fruitful. So, I think it is useful to now headline Bob’s remark in the rebooting ethics education thread, which ties in Mathematics. […]
On reflecting on the ongoing discussion on ethical matters (as part of the science and worldviews in society theme of UD) in the thread in response to Sev on moral truth, I suggest yes. Not least, because the already in progress, suicidal moral bankruptcy of our civilisation will take down science, math, technology, sound governance […]
Responding to Sev: “Moral claims are not about what is but about how we ought to behave, primarily towards one another. They are not capable of being either true or false”
Again, it is vital for us to see what today’s evolutionary materialism, scientism, athiestical advocates and fellow travellers are thinking in their own words, and we must answer them on the merits. Where, as captioned, it is being argued in the intersubjective consensus thread, that there is no such thing as moral truth. This means, […]
Sev, JDK, the value of philosophy [esp. metaphysics] and addressing the intersubjective consensus challenge
In the PZM on the state of atheism thread, some key fundamental issues have emerged: JDK, 12: >>to both ba and kf: because I think your belief in the power and importance of metaphysical philosophy is excessive and misguided . . . >> Sev, 17: >>[to BA77,] You consistently ignore the possibility that a consensus […]
It has been said that 99% of practical arguments rely on authorities, i.e. sources. We can start with dictionaries, parents, teachers, officials, records and serious writings, or even the news and punditry we all follow. (And yes, this paragraph is a case in point, here, C S Lewis making a general point; which I amplified.) […]
Correcting Trollish errors, 2: AK’s “A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims . . . ” (selective hyperskepticism rises yet again)
|May 21, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games, Correcting trollish fallacies, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Selective Hyperskepticism|
It is clearly time to hammer selective hyperskepticism again. Here is AK at 49 in the Answering thread: A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims. And I don’t apologize for that. BA, UD President (and a lawyer familiar with correcting fallacies) duly hammered the fallacy: BA, 50 – 53 : >>50: . . . Like the […]
Answering AK’s claims [a] “[the so-called Gish Gallop is an] ID technique” and [b] “evil is a concept fabricated by religion”
|May 12, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games, Answering the problem of evil (vs good), Atheism, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Geo-strategic issues, Logic and First Principles of right reason|
Sometimes, one of UD’s frequent objectors makes an inadvertently telling objection that deserves highlighting in order to publicly document what we are up against. In this case, AK has provided us with TWO, as headlined. Accordingly, over the past several days, I responded in the Skeptical Review thread. This morning, on seeing doubling down, I […]
|May 8, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under academic freedom, agit-prop, opinion manipulation and well-poisoning games, Darwinist rhetorical tactics, Design inference, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics|
It seems we cannot escape epistemological questions when we address ID issues. AK opens the squeaky-hinged door yet again in the US National Association of Scholars thread. My comment: KF, 9: >>[AK,] I see your: If they are published in reputable peer reviewed journals, they are scientific findings. We need to distinguish key terms and […]
|February 18, 2018||Posted by kairosfocus under Back to Basics of ID, Big Bang, Logic and First Principles of right reason, Mathematics, matter, thus atoms, ions, molecules, phases etc, Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology|
The hyperreals are an extension of the real number line that brings to bear a reciprocal relationship between the very large and the very small. By so introducing extensions to the real number continuum, it forms a base for an infinitesimals approach to the calculus and makes sense of a lot of the tricks used […]
Can Wikipedia be fixed? (And, should we care? [Is it time to walk away and lock it out like a virus?])
By 2012, the longstanding Encyclopedia Britannica had published its last print edition. Microsoft’s Encarta has long since bitten the dust, and so has Collier’s notable effort. Wikipedia, like it or lump it — mostly the latter — seems to have taken over that go-to first source slot. Indeed, for a great many subjects a Wikipedia […]
PaleoNeonate, a self-described “agnostic with naturalist pantheistic tendencies, who has long ceased to believe in the supernatural,” proved quite vigilant in preventing any change to the ID page. On October 27 at 6:41 p.m., a user removed the word “religious” from the entry calling ID a “religious argument.” At 6:43 p.m., PaleoNeonate put “religious” right back in.>>
DI’s David Klinghoffer adds:
>>As soon as it’s a subject that gets people riled — specifically, the sociological slice with enough time on their hands to monitor Wiki articles around the clock — then you know you can’t trust what they say. Conversely, the less anyone cares, the more you can trust this ubiquitous information source.>>
But of course, it is hard to tell whether such a termite lurks in a seemingly solid piece of furniture.
Now, too, from the viewpoint of say a UK-style approach to defamation, the root problem isn’t really Wikipedia. It’s just yet another case in point of the notoriously broken state of American law on defamation. If Wiki’s core leadership and more activist basement lurkers were to face accountability before the courts with fines and court orders to pay the costs to bring them to book in prospect, we would doubtless see a very different approach.
Indeed, a recent case in Trinidad regarding defamation by Facebook is quite revealing:
>>Delivering a 18-page judgment in a landmark case, brought by a couple whose neighbour falsely accused them of sexually abusing their children in a series of Facebook posts, High Court Judge Frank Seepersad considered social media cases in Commonwealth jurisdictions to develop a local [common law-based] position on the issue as there are currently no laws which directly address it . . . .
While Seepersad noted that local laws only contemplate libel as printed or written words on traditional formats, he said it should be interpreted to include statements on social media platforms . . . . “Social media ought not to be viewed as an unregulated media forum and anyone who elects to express views or opinions on such a forum stands in the shoes of a journalist and must be subjected to the standards of responsible journalism which govern traditional media,” he said.
Seepersad said users would be held accountable if they make defamatory posts on their accounts themselves, if they give third parties permission to make the posts and in circumstances where defamatory posts are uploaded by unknown parties and are not removed within a reasonable time. [–> that is, he applied the Editorial responsibility standard.]>>
Talk about the proverbial “whiff of grapeshot” as a cure for rioting!
But, is the “cure” worse than the disease?
In all fairness, there are obvious, reasonable duties of care to truth, logic, fairness, innocent reputation and more. These are routinely flouted by the willfully malicious and by those who delight in inventing or spreading information that puts others in a bad light. Such is corrosive to community life. But at the same time, freedom of conscience, inquiry, expression, assembly and association must be guarded. Where, sometimes, painful and unwelcome truth needs to be spoken.
So, how do we strike a balance?
First, by heeding the reasonable, responsible person standard.
For instance, here is how I put it fourteen years back for a local talk show:
Obviously, Wiki fails the test, it is clearly a class-F information/media source on topics of any serious significance. It is in important regards, a misinformation, manipulation and fake news site. It should be filtered out and marked as suspect by search engines and browsers etc.
So, it is unsurprising that various alternatives have been created; with varying degrees of fairly minor success.
Obviously, defamation law in the USA is unlikely to be reformed anytime soon, too.
So, the answer is to red-line Wikipedia and the like, exposing them sufficiently that their loss of credibility will be a sobering lesson. Part of that is to cite them (if at all) as a lowest common denominator suspect view source illustrating what we have to be better than.
And, we need to build more responsible alternatives. END