rhetoric

One of the primary things keeping traditional evolutionary theory afloat is not the mountain of evidence supposedly existing in its favor, but the way in which the evidence is interpreted in the context of the pre-existing Darwinian paradigm. The key is the way evolutionary theorists tend to proceed from an observation to a series of conclusions. When you are steeped in evolutionary thought, when no alternative explanations are permitted as a matter of fiat, when the only possible interpretation open to you is a purely naturalistic and materialistic explanation, the conclusions seem to follow naturally. To paraphrase Philip Johnson’s wry (and somewhat sarcastic) observation: Evolution is really easy to prove. Since “evolution” means both tiny changes and the whole grand Read More ›

It is important, as we go on to deal with understanding the deadlock on discussions about design theory, to understand how many evolutionary materialists and fellow travellers address evidence and reasoning. For example, in recent weeks, here at UD, we have had to address how not even self-evident first principles of reason are regarded by many objectors to design thought. Similarly, once record (or testimony) does not fit the preferred narrative, it is going to be dismissed as inadequate and/or delusional or as suspected of fakery.  In effect, after all, our senses and perceptions are not utterly reliable, so if something does not fit the lab coat clad evolutionary materialist narrative, something must be wrong. The case of Jesus of Read More ›

Dr Torley has recently responded to Tayler’s Article as headlined. On a day when news is still somewhat emerging about a mass murder on a community College campus where those who affirmed that they were Christians were shot in the head, it is important to take up the issue, especially in light of the underlying, all too patent, New Atheist/Evolutionary materialism and fellow traveller concept that they have cornered the market on reasonableness and responsibility. We cannot neglect the assertions of Dawkins and co, that Bible-believing Christians are ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. That lines right up with the sub-title of Tayler’s Salon post: “The right-wing’s religious delusions are killing us—and them.” Nor is the obvious immediate trigger, the attacks Read More ›

I passed by and noted a dismissive comment (or a few) regarding US Presidential candidate, retired neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson: CASE A: he’s running for President of the United States of America; he’s a politician who’s put religion and science into his platform. He willingly exposed himself to criticism and does not deserve a pass because he did good things as a surgeon. CASE B: Dr Carson. He is clearly a talented physician, but get him talking about evolution or cosmology and he turns into Ken Ham. Looks like a classic case of willful ignorance to me; he should know better. Is that acceptable for the president of a world power? CASE C: Surgery is to science what carpentry is Read More ›

It is time to get back to basics (BTB henceforth) on ID, but as step zero, we have to set first principles of right reason straight. For instance, it seems that — once we are certain that we can be certain of nothing falls apart in absurdity — the fallback position on the issue of distinct identity is that it is only about an empty tautology, A = A that sets up a tiresome little game we call logic, when we would rather be playing another game, Science . . . actually, a priori Evolutionary Materialist Scientism and/or its fellow travellers. (Now, I know I know, this is not about the scientific specifics that some crave getting back to the Read More ›

In the Why thread, commenter KH has challenged: KH, 157:>>What you see as “self evident first principles”, others may not see it that way. And, with respect, the tone in which you berate them I’d not going to do anything to convince them that you are right.>> Now, the issue is of course both more complex than that and more simple than that. On tone, it is easy to pose as on one side of an issue as a moderate then spend one’s rhetorical effort undermining that side. Given the history of abuse, targetting and trollery that regularly invades UD, that unfortunately has to be reckoned with; and in a wider context of addressing very serious and destructive agendas haunting Read More ›

Havel’s 1978 essay on the power of the powerless has much to teach our civilisation in this time of PC triumphalism and cynical imposition of agendas. For instance, consider his reflection on a sign in the window of a greengrocer’s shop: >>THE MANAGER of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: “Workers of the world, unite!” Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment’s thought to Read More ›

It seems that Seversky has fallen into an exemplary case of error in the nothing certain thread that needs to be headlined and corrected for the record: Sev, 13: >>What I see in the writings of the likes of kf, BA and BA77 is the same craving for certainty [in context, held by murderous dictators of C20 and compared to “religious zealots” of the remoter past] – some impregnable bedrock Truth – on which their lives and beliefs can be founded. Let me say that I don’t believe for one moment that anyone here would knowingly do anyone any harm in the name of their beliefs. But the siren-song of that need for certainty is what can and has lured Read More ›

One of the issues that has come up in recent days is the fallacious misuse of definitions that beg questions at stake. Accordingly, I think it advisable to headline a comment from the Nihilism thread and give an example from origins issues: _____________ KF, 262: >>Aleta (attn BA, LH, ES & WJM): While a lot else happened, this is important: [A, 227:] A definition, as a stipulation within a logical system, can’t be in error because we are just declaring that it is what it is. Definitions, even in formal systems, can beg questions (etc. of course) and become dubious as a result. The fallacy of begging the question in an explicit definition or a definition by discussion or a Read More ›

WJM, of course, often puts up gems well worth headlining and pondering. Here, he tackles truth denialism in reply to KS in the is nothing certain thread: _______________ >>I’ve never understood what Keiths point is in making this argument. So there is some technical chance that god or aliens or demons are deceiving us into believing false propositions. So what? What difference in day to day life would it make to keep reminding oneself that there is a technical possibility that they are in error about anything they think? People still have to act as if they are certain about all sorts of things. People still have to argue as they know some things are true. Keith is as operationally Read More ›

In the Nihilism thread, Aleta has asked whether A = A is of real-world importance. Given the depth of the breakdown in reason that we are seeing, I think this is important to take up. I took a moment to suggest an answer, which I think I should headline: ______________ KF, 111: >>Aleta, 100: >>can anyone give an example of a logical argument that uses A = A to help advance the argument? Examples from math are easy. In solving 2x – 5 = 17, students write 5 = 5 in order to “add 5 to both sides of the equation”, invoking a principle [–> an axiom held to be self-evident, in fact] from Euclid that “if equals are added Read More ›

The list of fallacious darwinist rhetorical resorts continues to grow day by day. The one I now headline turns on a failure to realise that each of us is personally accountable before the truth and the right, and so should seek to make sure that he is correct, regardless of anyone else being able to rebut or dismiss. And recall, this tactic is being used in the teeth of the LOI, LNC, LEM cluster, i.e. self-evident first principles of right reason that only the stubbornly irrational will dismiss: _____________ >> . . . as for the you don’t know how to reply rhetorical gambit [remember you are objecting to self evident truths], here is the real problem, per Robert L. Read More ›

Overnight I have felt it necessary to reply to a case as just outlined, in the Nihilism thread, adding to the long and yet growing list of fallacious Darwinist rhetorical tactics that have had to be headlined in warning: _________________ KF, 47: >>I cannot but comment on this: [LH, 20, to BA:] Are you asserting that you are infallible only when it comes to analytic propositions? I cannot but notice the personalisation and subtext of accusation. First, no sane human being claims infallibility, which does not prevent us from being demonstrably right on certain matters. Even, before we rise to the matter of self-evident truth. Second, the matter at stake is self-evident truths, to wit, such as: SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS: 1: Read More ›

As has come up as pivotal in recent discussions here at UD, we must recognise that logic and first principles underlie any serious discussion, including origins science, and in sciences  — especially those addressing origins — the issue of chains of cause will be pivotal. The two are connected, as can be seen by first examining chains of warrant: Now, Peter D. Klein, in the Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, highlights: The epistemic regress problem is considered the most crucial in the entire theory of knowledge and it is a major concern for many contemporary epistemologists. However, only two of the three alternative solutions have been developed in any detail, foundationalism and coherentism. Infinitism was not seriously considered as a solution Read More ›

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 ›