Selective Hyperskepticism

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 ›

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 ›

For some weeks now, in the teeth of repeated correction, SS [attn, LH, DK etc] has been abusing the Golden Rule by dragging it as a red herring across the track of the issue of grounding OUGHT in a world-root level IS, and then setting up a strawman argument on how reciprocity adequately founds moral government of responsibly free agents. He has done it yet again in the ongoing DK -Euthyphro dilemma thread, and so, it is now necessary to headline(and augment)  a corrective for record: ______________ >>SS, 130, I have addressed the world-root level grounding question on this thread and other places and times on UD, as well as extensive comments about the so-called OUGHT-IS gap (bridged by reciprocity Read More ›

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 ›

Here. Now, let us collect a well-known live example, Lewontin, in NYRB 1997, reviewing Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted world; here, with my annotations: >>. . . to put a correct view of the universe into people’s heads [–> notice, the context of intended indoctrination, with a hint of being backed up by secularist institutional power to enforce such indoctrination] we [–> who? the Evolutionary Materialist elites, that’s who] must first get an incorrect view out . . .   the problem is to get them to reject irrational and supernatural explanations of the world [–> note the ready equation of ethical theism with ignorance and irrationality], the demons [–> notice, equating the inherently good Creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, Read More ›

It is instructive to see this inadvertently revealing comment on a blog post by Jason Rosenhouse. But first, let’s remind ourselves of a very important visually made point: And now: >>eric April 15, 2015 Of course, you can challenge my definition. You can say that it’s just a product of my own subjective judgment that it’s bad to harm sentient beings. But so what? I have not read Arrington’s posts, but I would bet that he is exactly going after the subjective vs. objective distinction. There’s been a recent spate of philosophers and/or reasonably prominent atheists trying to propose an objective morality (without the need for a god). I would bet he is going after these ideas. It may be Read More ›

As I ponder the ongoing debates over and consequences of a priori evolutionary materialism (especially when dressed up in the lab coat) I am more and more led to think that the issue of responsible freedom tied to rationality and to our inescapably being under moral government is utterly pivotal. An excellent place to begin is with Martin Cothran in ENV back in 2012, as he reflects on Sam Harris’ challenges in addressing responsible freedom: >>The first thing we must get clear about the book is something that Harris himself, given his thesis, must certainly agree with: he had no choice in writing it. But that has little to do with the neurological state of his brain. He operates under Read More ›

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 ›

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 ›

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 ›

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 ›

In a current UD News thread, we see how Megan Fox at PJ Media reports: >>If you want to know why people dislike atheists, it’s because they’re thoroughly dislikeable. And if you should find yourself on the wrong side of atheists, like I did by simply posting a video [–> perhaps, this] of myself walking through the Field Museum in Chicago asking questions about evolution — a topic many still view as controversial — be prepared to have to go to the police and file reports of harassment and cyberstalking. You are not allowed to question the gods of the atheists, namely Darwin and the scientists who bow at the altar of Darwin. If you do, you’ll face nothing but insults, Read More ›

The captioned comment comes by way of an email, from YM: >>nobody has solved the OOL challenge from an ID perspective either. And they never will until ID proposes the nature of the Designer (AKA God) and the mechanisms used (AKA “poof). >> (In addition, I have received a slander-laced remark from one of the denizens of the circle of hostile sites that confirms on the ground stalking and includes implicit threats. Duly shared with appropriate authorities. This sort of uncivil reaction strongly suggests that this series is having an impact.) The response as headlined indicates that there is now an attempt to shift the burden of warrant to ID regarding OOL. This, we will now address, first pausing to Read More ›