Sarah Palin: Just say NO … to Copenhagen

_{William Dembski

December 5, 2009

Climate change, Global Warming}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Mr. President: Boycott Copenhagen; Investigate Your Climate Change “Experts”

The president’s decision to attend the international climate conference in Copenhagen needs to be reconsidered in light of the unfolding Climategate scandal. The leaked e-mails involved in Climategate expose the unscientific behavior of leading climate scientists who deliberately destroyed records to block information requests, manipulated data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, and conspired to silence the critics of man-made global warming. I support Senator James Inhofe’s call for a full investigation into this scandal. Because it involves many of the same personalities and entities behind the Copenhagen conference, Climategate calls into question many of the proposals being pushed there, including anything that would lead to a cap and tax plan.

Policy should be based on sound science, not snake oil. I took a stand against such snake oil science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population has increased. I’ve never denied the reality of climate change; in fact, I was the first governor to create a subcabinet position to deal specifically with the issue. I saw the impact of changing weather patterns firsthand while serving as governor of our only Arctic state. But while we recognize the effects of changing water levels, erosion patterns, and glacial ice melt, we cannot primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes. The drastic economic measures being pushed by dogmatic environmentalists won’t change the weather, but will dramatically change our economy for the worse.

Policy decisions require real science and real solutions, not junk science and doomsday scare tactics pushed by an environmental priesthood that capitalizes on the public’s worry and makes them feel that owning an SUV is a “sin” against the planet. In his inaugural address, President Obama declared his intention to “restore science to its rightful place.” Boycotting Copenhagen while this scandal is thoroughly investigated would send a strong message that the United States government will not be a party to fraudulent scientific practices. Saying no to Copenhagen and cap and tax are first steps in “restoring science to its rightful place.”

– Sarah Palin

Comments

Mustela,
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So far the only support anyone has provided for the assertion that moral standards are absolute or objective is “I just know it.”
Morals are premises, some things just have to be premises, otherwise you cannot have a conclusion. All arguments of morality presuppose them, if you do not presuppose them, no argument can bring you to them. There is nothing illogical about this, you have to have first principles, or else you can do no reasoning. The same is true for morality. And like I said, you yourself would be asserting objective morality in the right circumstances, regardless of whether anyone agreed with you or not, such as when, God forbid, your family were being tortured to death for fun. Some things we just know, and cannot be dismissed because they cannot provide an "is" for their "ought".Clive Hayden_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden at 106, The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. So far the only support anyone has provided for the assertion that moral standards are absolute or objective is "I just know it." Now, I think that it might be possible to derive objective moral standards. I am not opposed to the idea in principle. However, they would have to be based on something logically stronger than intuition.Mustela Nivalis_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis,
Moral standards are not so objective. Simply asserting that they are is not compelling.
Nor is asserting that they aren't. What would be compelling would be if someone began torturing your family to death for fun, then you would have a lived dialectic.Clive Hayden_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
What if I were to make the same claim about the law of non-contradiction. I can’t prove it, because it is the standard by which other proofs are established. On the other hand, I know that it is true because it is self evidently true. Would you accept the law of non-contradiction as a self evident truth that cannot be proven.
I understand that you are analogizing the dependency of logical reasoning upon the unprovable law of non-contradiction and the dependency of moral reasoning upon an unprovable "law of morality." Accepting (arguendo) your characterization of the law of contradiction as an instance of a "self-evident truth" and the subsequent dependency of logic upon that law, it follows only that there can be such a thing (a self-evident truth), not that "the law of morality" is necessarily a member of that class of self-evident truths. The latter is your primary claim, one that remains to be demonstrated, and you haven't done so. It certainly does not follow from the the fact that you can construct an analogy (LNC : logical reasoning :: moral law : further moral reasoning) that the second term of your analogy is necessarily true. In fact, one may claim the opposite: moral reasoning absent an objective, transcendent "law of morality" is not only possible, it is the only such reasoning that is available to human beings, because there are no such absolute moral laws. Indeed, it may be claimed that your moral reasoning is also of this kind, although because you are in the grip of a moral system of human devising that includes the content "this moral system is transcendent and absolute," you don't know it. I know you don't agree, and respect your disagreement. And that is the challenge of my original question: how do you demonstrate for yourself that the characterization of the above paragraph is false? So far I see nothing more than your assertion that you "just know" it to be so, now augmented with the additional argument that there are other things we can "just know." However, even granting that additional point arguendo, it doesn't follow that a "moral law" is in fact among those things "just known," and are self-evident. That requires further demonstration, which I don't see.Voice Coil_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 101, I'd like to address one of your points separately, if I may. About your absolute moral standard you said: It is both inate and self evident, just as knowledge of the law of non-contradiction is inate and self-evident. I would contend that the law of non-contradiction is not in the same category as moral standards. The LoNC is a required assumption for the application of logic. It is possible to have a set of axioms that don't include it, but such systems don't lead to useful results. Moral standards are not so objective. Simply asserting that they are is not compelling.Mustela Nivalis_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 101, Thanks for the very direct and clear response. Unfortunately, I'm still confused. ;-) You say that you know your moral standard is absolute because "It is both inate and self evident, just as knowledge of the law of non-contradiction is inate and self-evident." That really just boils down to "I believe it is absolute." You don't know it in the sense of being able to prove or logically defend it. However, when in response to my question of how to resolve disagreements over moral standards, you say "We put it to the test of reason. All moral truths are reasonable if properly understood." which suggests that you believe you can logically prove or defend you moral standard. Which is it?Mustela Nivalis_{December 11, 2009
December
12
Dec
11
11
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

@101 if for Mustela Nivalis.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT}

1) How do you know that your moral standard is absolute? (By “absolute” I assume you mean “objective” and by “know” I mean “justified true belief” which is by no means the same as “I just know.”) It is both inate and self evident, just as knowledge of the law of non-contradiction is inate and self-evident. Of course, we can be brainwashed out of it by fanaticism or we can brainwash ourselves out of it by behaving badly and looking for moral loopholes. 2) If someone else has a different moral standard that he claims is absolute, how do we determine who is correct? We put it to the test of reason. All moral truths are reasonable if properly understood.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

----Voice Call: "However, it leaves me with the unmodified reaction that you are reporting intuitive (and hence inherently subjective) convictions as a basis for a claim regarding that which is objective and transcendent. No different than a claim that you “just know” (accompanied by contentless intensifiers – e.g. “compelling” and “no less true”- that report the degree of your conviction, only), which I find very weak." What if I were to make the same claim about the law of non-contradiction. I can't prove it, because it is the standard by which other proofs are established. On the other hand, I know that it is true because it is self evidently true. Would you accept the law of non-contradiction as a self evident truth that cannot be proven. There really are very few self evident truths. The list isn't very long, so accepting them as true does not do violence to the intellect. On the other hand, rejecting them does indeed do violence to the intellect.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Hummus man @ 69... First of all you have no point as you go on to further display VERY poor reasoning with your chart of presidents and their relationships to debt. First for one major problem- a President does not decide all by himself what and how much is spent by his administration- and secondly the deficit is not just about how much is spent but about how much money is taken in. The reason why deficits went up under Reagan was because the Democrats spent us into oblivion and that IS WHY Reagan was elected. The reason why under Reagan's administration the debt went up is because when a government spends the debt lags the actual allocation until it is properly quantified. So Reagan's debt largely came from the terrible social programs of his democrat predecessors- like Lynden Johnson’s not great society. Likewise Clinton’s surplus was the result of the Regan and BUSH 1 years- Reagan's cuts of the government helped to stimulated a massive business cycle which EVENTUALLY spurred economic growth which in turn grew us out of a deteriorating budget. Clinton had his hands tied when he was in office because the Republicans lead by Gingrich operated under the contract with America which was about less spending. Clinton and his Wife tried to spend more on healthcare but it was still born because of REPUBLICAN leadership. So get your history straight. And the whole discussion is totally pointless because since 2006 we have had a Democrat senate and House and 2006 to now have been the worst years in a third of a century. And to further point out the pathetic Democrat leadership on the economy and balanced budgets you now have Obama who is on tract to spend in his first term more than ALL other presidents in US history combined. So get stop it with your fallacious argumentation and poor attempts at witticism- Dems BARROW more- and their programs are designed to GROW as the population grows- unlike a certain finite allocation to say a defense budget. That is why we could get a republican in and he could not spend any more than his democrat predecessor and yet the budge deficit could increase on a republicans watch. I can assure you if Reagan could have cut the size of government by as least a 3rd he WOULD have don’t it. If you study him you know that- but because of the remaining power of the democrats who under his administration controlled at least a large part of congress- Reagan could only do so much. But I certainly agree that Bush II spend to much- and while his father’s tax hikes probably came at the wrong time- you can thank him for the more balanced budget that Clinton dishonestly takes credit for.Frost122585_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
...The fundamental tools of reason are all based on intiuitive knowledge, which is the most compelling and dependable knowledge of all...
Thank you for your articulate post. However, it leaves me with the unmodified reaction that you are reporting intuitive (and hence inherently subjective) convictions as a basis for a claim regarding that which is objective and transcendent. No different than a claim that you “just know” (accompanied by contentless intensifiers - e.g. "compelling" and "no less true"- that report the degree of your conviction, only), which I find very weak.Voice Coil_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

StephenB at 96, If you answer the four questions that I asked you @92, you will have your answer. No, I won't, because your questions presume that my question is about morality when, in fact, it is about epistemology. Allow me to repeat the two core questions that arise from your position: 1) How do you know that your moral standard is absolute? (By "absolute" I assume you mean "objective" and by "know" I mean "justified true belief" which is by no means the same as "I just know.") 2) If someone else has a different moral standard that he claims is absolute, how do we determine who is correct? A direct answer would be appreciated.Mustela Nivalis_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis: "Actually, I’m genuinely interested in the question from a purely epistemological point of view. How do we know what we know, in general? How do you know that your moral standard is absolute, in particular? If someone else has a different moral standard that he claims is absolute, how do we determine who is correct?" If you answer the four questions that I asked you @92, you will have your answer.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

---Voice Call: "So far as I can tell you are left with your own intuitive conviction that objective standards of morality exist. Which is no different (so far as I can tell) than a claim that you “just know,” which I find very weak." The fundamental tools of reason are all based on intiuitive knowledge, which is the most compelling and dependable knowledge of all. Evidence can be persuasive, but it is always based on probabilities and totally dependent on reason's principles. In keeping with that point, the notion that we should take evidence more seriously than the intuitive knowledge on which it is based is misguided and stems largely from a postmodernist disdain for reason itself. Indeed, evidence is valuable and comprehensible only in the context of having already accepted reason's first principles. Data, for example, can only be meaningfully interpreted within the context of the law of causality and the principle of non-contradiction. If we abandoned those laws, we could not draw reasonable conclusions from evidence. What has happened in our culture is this: Due to our worship of science, which has, indeed, provided us with many wonderful benefits, we have forgotten about the first principles of reason on which science is based, such as the law of non-contradiction, the law of causality, and the law of morality. The law of morality is no less intuitive, no less compelling, and no less true, than the law of non-contradiction. These first principles are more important, more necessary, and more illuminating, than the evidence they interpret. Of course, this intuitive knowledge can be compromised in a number of ways. Religious [and secularist] fanatics can brainwash individuals into rejecting the certain knowledge of reason's principles and deaden their consciences. Similary, anyone who has acquired a large inventory of bad habits and moral vices, can brainwash themselves into believing that objective morality does not exist. It happens every day. The irony is that these poor souls often abandon any hope for improvement by questioning or denying the very moral standards that could make them better.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

StephenB:
if the law of morality is not true, you would not be here arguing on behalf of skepticism on the grounds that it is unfair to posit objective morality without evidence. If, down deep, you didn’t believe in objective, transcendent morality and fairness, you wouldn’t care one way or the other nor, for that matter, would you ever try to redress any moral problem at all.
This doesn't appear to answer my question. My question can be addressed sensibly only to persons who advocate objective morality, such as yourself. It would make no sense to address it to one who denies that there is an objective morality. Given that, my question to you is: how do YOU make the discernment referenced in my question? Given that you've already stated that one doesn't come to knowledge of objective morality by means of evidence, the questions posed and moral concerns displayed by persons like me (which can serve as evidence, at best, for you) have no bearing upon your own discernment. I asking what does. So far as I can tell you are left with your own intuitive conviction that objective standards of morality exist. Which is no different (so far as I can tell) than a claim that you "just know," which I find very weak.Voice Coil_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 92, You are trying to redress what you perceive as a wrong act. Actually, I'm genuinely interested in the question from a purely epistemological point of view. How do we know what we know, in general? How do you know that your moral standard is absolute, in particular? If someone else has a different moral standard that he claims is absolute, how do we determine who is correct?Mustela Nivalis_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

----Mustela Nivalis: "I don’t see Voice Coil arguing anything about unfairness." But he is arguing about fairness, and so are you by implying that I did not give his point a fair hearing. Why should you care? Why do you care? It will not do to say that you are concerned only about "accuracy," because you must explain why you care about that as well. By what standard do you insist that I should not misrepresent what Voice Call said? It is a moral standard, plain and simple. If you didn't know that some moral principle was at stake, you would not have bothered with any of it. You are trying to redress what you perceive as a wrong act.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

---Mark Frank: "My question is simply – is the standard itself good? Is this meaningless?" The standard is a measure of and evidence for the good. Something is "good" if it operates the way it was designed and intended to operate. A good can opener opens cans; a good pencil writes well. If someone takes a pencil and tries to open a can with it, he will not only fail to open the can, but he will destroy the pencil in the process. That is because a pencil is not a "good" can opener. A good human being is one that operates according to the way he was designed, namely to practices virtue and pursue that end for which he was made. If he denies his humanity and decides to act like an animal, he will, like the pencil, fail to achieve his end and, because of his nature, will not be happy. If there is no design, or no end, then there is no such thing as the good or bad because there is no created standard to meet or violate. Without design, there can be no morality.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

StephenB at 88, if the law of morality is not true, you would not be here arguing on behalf of skepticism on the grounds that it is unfair to posit objective morality without evidence I don't see Voice Coil arguing anything about unfairness. My understanding of his questions is that they are about evidence, logic, and reason. Saying "I just know it's an absolute standard" is not particularly compelling and certainly doesn't answer his question. How can one objectively determine whether or not a moral standard is absolute?Mustela Nivalis_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Clive, thanks for the kind words.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT}

---Voice Call: "How does one discern whether one is in possession of absolute standards, or rather in the grip of ordinary standards, of human devising, that include the content “these are obvious, absolute standards” – particularly given that evidence is not involved?" The first way is through intellectual intuition,.which is more than mere assumption. We grasp many things by apprehending their truth directly without any empirical evidence at all. The second way confirms the first and it works like this: One does a simple reductio ad absurdum: If the law of non-contradtion is not true, I could be both dead and alive; If the law of causality is not true, walls could just pop up in front of your moving car; if the law of morality is not true, you would not be here arguing on behalf of skepticism on the grounds that it is unfair to posit objective morality without evidence. If, down deep, you didn't believe in objective, transcendent morality and fairness, you wouldn't care one way or the other nor, for that matter, would you ever try to redress any moral problem at all.StephenB_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington @ 78: "Can you even imagine a world in which men who run away in battle are applauded ..." This is a somewhat unfortunate example of universal moral standards. In fact, In Europe soldiers who defected from the Nazi army are regarded as highly moral persons.Kontinental_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Clive: I still don't see a response to my question other than "one just knows," accompanied by the usual unflattering psychologizing vis those who don't share your convictions. How does one discern whether one is in possession of absolute standards, or rather in the grip of ordinary standards, of human devising, that include the content “these are obvious, absolute standards" - particularly given that evidence is not involved?Voice Coil_{December 10, 2009
December
12
Dec
10
10
2009
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT}

#76 [Barry] and related comments Barry You say the question is meaningless. Let me rephrase it slightly. According to Clive it is impossible to evaluate something as good (or bad) without comparing to a standard. My question is simply - is the standard itself good? Is this meaningless?Mark Frank_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
11:11 PM
11
11
11
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
The history of those who deny these first principles is a history of those who, offended at the prospect of objective moral truths and the demands that it might place on them, would prefer to live in an irrational world in which no truths exist at all. It’s as simple as that.
That has been my experience when dealing with them as well. Well said.Clive Hayden_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
10:48 PM
10
10
48
PM
PDT}

The law of morality is just as obvious as the law of causality and the law of non-contradiction.StephenB_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

---Voice Call to Barry A: "After all, you are describing a subjective experience (of “just knowing”), make the inherently unsupportable claim that it is universal, and announce your decision to ignore evidence to the contrary (denials of that experience.) ---"So this remains an “unanswered difficulty” for me." Evidence does not lead to the self-evident truths contained in law of non-contradiction and the law of causality, it is dependent upon and proceeds forth from them. We don't reason our way to them; we reason our way from them. Without them, all rationality, all science, and all meaningful discourse stop. Indeed, you cannot even think without assuming the law of non contradiction. The history of those who deny these first principles is a history of those who, offended at the prospect of objective moral truths and the demands that it might place on them, would prefer to live in an irrational world in which no truths exist at all. It's as simple as that.StephenB_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
10:28 PM
10
10
28
PM
PDT}

hummus man,
Seversky, told ya so.
If you will not contribute anything substantive, I will delete your comments.Clive Hayden_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

BarryA: Thank you for your response. I don't see an answer for my question therein, however, other than "one just knows," which I find a very weak basis for the claim of absolute objectivity. After all, you are describing a subjective experience (of "just knowing"), make the inherently unsupportable claim that it is universal, and announce your decision to ignore evidence to the contrary (denials of that experience.) So this remains an "unanswered difficulty" for me.Voice Coil_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Clive:
Seversky,
I know I am a “moral monster” and “rabid atheist” but would you like to be more specific about where exactly I am going wrong?
Both “moral” and “monster” imply a standard. A standard which you reject. You might think you’re moral, but you also think that morality doesn’t actually exist outside of your thinking.
Seversky, told ya so.hummus man_{December 9, 2009
December
12
Dec
9
09
2009
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply