Calling KN Out On His Sophistry

_{Barry Arrington

March 17, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Sophistry: “n. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.”

In a comment earlier today Kantian Naturalist stated: “The idea that the capacity to engage in reasoned discourse depends upon a commitment to ‘the rules of right reason’ is silly (at best). For one thing, there are no such rules.”

KN, I am calling you out on your sophistry. I challenge you to answer the following three simple true/false questions.

For any proposition A:

1: A=A. True or False.

2: “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. True or False.

3: “A is B” and “A is not B” are jointly exhaustive. True or False.

KN knows as well as anyone that the three classic laws of thought, i.e., the rules of right reason, are logical axioms that cannot be denied on pain of self-referential incoherence. In other words, in order to deny one of the three laws, one must first affirm it. What will he do now?

Prediction: KN will either ignore this challenge or dig deeper into the hole of sophistry he has dug for himself.

Comments

Is KN making claims about how the world actually is? It sure looks like it. But then he must admit that it is also not like it is - at the same time and in the same way - since he rejects the laws of rational thought. I don't think reasoning with this person will get anywhere. Given his epistemology he can't even say for sure that KN is KN. He doesn't need a philosopher, he needs a psychiatrist. Why argue with someone to whom yes means no and no means yes?tgpeeler_{March 21, 2013
March
03
Mar
21
21
2013
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT}

And Barry is in dynamic equilibrium with his environment; food goes in, faeces come out, hydration levels vary, nails and hair grow and get trimmed, tissues are continually replaced, brain cells die off, skin sloughs off. Is Barry still Barry?
I wanted to respond with a hearty, "Yes," to Alan Fox, but I obviously cannot, since Alan Fox is no longer Alan Fox. In fact, since no one is still who they were, all communication suddenly became impossib...Phinehas_{March 21, 2013
March
03
Mar
21
21
2013
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

F/N: This, from Wiki speaking against known ideological inclination, on the Laws of Thought c. Feb 2012 [cf Rationale], may help in understanding how the three key first principles of right reason are inextricably linked:
The law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are not separate laws per se, but correlates of the law of identity. That is to say, they are two interdependent and complementary principles that inhere naturally (implicitly) within the law of identity, as its essential nature . . . whenever we ‘identify’ a thing as belonging to a certain class or instance of a class, we intellectually set that thing apart from all the other things in existence which are ‘not’ of that same class or instance of a class. In other words, the proposition, “A is A and A is not ~A” (law of identity) intellectually partitions a universe of discourse (the domain of all things) into exactly two subsets, A and ~A, and thus gives rise to a dichotomy. As with all dichotomies, A and ~A must then be ‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘jointly exhaustive’ with respect to that universe of discourse. In other words, ‘no one thing can simultaneously be a member of both A and ~A’ (law of non-contradiction), whilst ‘every single thing must be a member of either A or ~A’ (law of excluded middle).
See what happens so soon as we make a clear and crisp distinction? Therefore, why I highlight how we are using glyphs, characters, words, sentences, symbols, relations, expressions etc in trying to make all of these novel "logics" or Quantum speculations, etc? That is, we inescapably are marking distinctions and are dichotomising reality, into (T|NOT-T) . . . (H|NOT_H) . . . A|NOT_A) . . . (T|NOT_T) etc. just to type out a sentence. The stability of identity of T, H, A, T then leads straight to the correlates, that we have marked a distinction that is "‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘jointly exhaustive’ with respect to that universe of discourse." The implication is, that so soon as we make sharp distinctions and identify things on the one side thereof, we are facing the underlying significance of such distinctions: A is A, A is not NOT_A, and there is not a fuzzy thing out there other than A and NOT_A. of course, there are spectra or trends or timelines that credibly have a smooth gradation along a continuum, there are superpositions and there are trichotomies etc [which can be reduced to structured sets of dichotomies). But so soon as we are even just talking of this, we are inescapably back to the business of making (A|NOT_A) distinctions. KFkairosfocus_{March 20, 2013
March
03
Mar
20
20
2013
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

I don't care how many "logics" there are if they are illogical. They are called laws not because they came from the sky, but because to deny them is to be self-contradictory. To deny them is to say that there is no such thing as reason, which is itself contradictory. It's like asserting that one is a "KantianNaturalist" while also denying that one is a "KantianNaturalist." Imagine the following exchange: Student: What is truth? KN: There is no truth. Student: Is it true that there is no truth? KN: It's true for me. Student: I want a refund.Mung_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Surely a true Kantian would know better.Mung_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

AF: you are on the verge of seeing why personal identity does not depend on the particular molecules in one's body at a given time. So, ask yourself real hard, why you cannot but see yourself as a unified, stable, experiencing, conscious, knowing, choosing, morally governed self. Then, ask whether a materialist view can adequately ground such a self. Then, ask whether such a view, having failed the test of the very first and central fact of our experience [and yes, I allude to the so-called hard problem of consciousness], is anything beyond a late non-starter. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

DiEb: Pardon, but once there is a distinction and so a distinct entity, the relevant principles follow. That there may be cases where there is not a distinction does not erase the fact that in a great many relevant cases [I keep on highlighting the glyphs used in text and the scratches used on chalk boards], there are. The rest follows, as we are now self-referential. If your scheme of reasoning cannot accommodate the implications of definite, distinct symbols, relationships, structures, it is little better than confusion. and one does not need to explicitly appeal to or be directly conscious of underlying principles to be using them. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

...but what about Barry is Barry? Is the Barry at the begin of the sentence really the same Barry as some microseconds later at the end of it? Hasn’t reading the sentence changed him?
And Barry is in dynamic equilibrium with his environment; food goes in, faeces come out, hydration levels vary, nails and hair grow and get trimmed, tissues are continually replaced, brain cells die off, skin sloughs off. Is Barry still Barry? UD Editors: Sigh.Alan Fox_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus: above you referred to your background knowledge of computer science. Then you should know how convenient intuitionistic logic can be. And though I prefer the classical approach in mathematics, when I reread by comments I found no place where I have used tertium non datur: you can held interesting discussions without taking it as a law, a rule or whatever.
Did you notice that when there is a distinction, there is a distinction?
Yes, there may be a distinction, there may be no distinction, or it may be impossible to decide (yet) whether there is a distinction. As for the use of symbols: in ordinary language, there is much place for ambiguity: see #40.
The objections sound ever so clev er until they are seen to be self referential, then they fall apart.
I don't think so. I do think that intuitionists miss a lot of interesting results, but intuitionism doesn't fall apart. Another non-self referential example: Schrödinger's cat with its various interpretations...DiEb_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT}

DiEb: Did you notice, how to make your comment, you relied on the distinct identity and non-ambiguous meaning of the symbols you used? Did you notice that when there is a distinction, there is a distinction? Those are the sorts of things that are at stake here, not just whether one can argue that changing things change -- that is itself a distinct thing. Much less, that we can define a non-euclidean geometry, which still relies on the same pattern of distinct identities and contrasts. The objections sound ever so clev er until they are seen to be self referential, then they fall apart. Again and again. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

DiEb @55, see the definition at the head of this post and reconsider.Barry Arrington_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

3: “A is B” and “A is not B” are jointly exhaustive. True or False.
Maybe neither :-) e.g., in the Scottish legal system, the verdicts are "guilty", "not guilty" and "not proven". When you write down your laws in the clinical way of a mathematician, you have to allow for a mathematical approach. And then you see that your no. 3 is like Euclid's fifth postulate - you can develop a system in which it is not necessarily true, and which - like non-Euclidian geometries - may nevertheless reflect some parts of reality... As for the law of identity: philosophers have thought about it for thousands of years. A=A is unproblematic, but what about Barry is Barry? Is the Barry at the begin of the sentence really the same Barry as some microseconds later at the end of it? Hasn't reading the sentence changed him?DiEb_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
02:39 AM
2
02
39
AM
PDT}

P^5S: Mr Moran, you need to pause, think twice and see just what you have been harbouring.kairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

PPPPS: Mr Moran of Sandwalk and TWT of a certain serially slanderous hate speech blog, you in particular need to read and ponder the just above.kairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
01:50 AM
1
01
50
AM
PDT}

PPPS: And it may be worth pausing to see a different perspective on the nature of Fascism as an ideology and where (never mind Stalin's talking points) it fits on the "left-right" spectrum. Don't forget, that the ideological colouring in the Nazi -- National Socialist -- party flag was red. And, visually, the key Nazi symbol, the swastika, is a broken, twisted cross. Sometimes, it is as obvious as that.kairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT}

F/N 3: In case we have a problem understanding that evolutionary materialism is a longstanding worldview with definite implications and tendencies, let me take Plato's remark of warning in the Laws, Bk X already cited in steps: Step 1: the worldview
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only.
Here, we see evolutionary materialism laid out as a seemingly plausible avant garde worldview, then dressed up in the sophisticated rhetorical guise of the sophists. STEP 2: First consequences . . . radical relativism
[[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made
This is of course couched in the terms of the pagan views of Plato's time. But, it is instantly recognisable to our own time. And, we see why there is this casting of the issue of first principles of right reason in terms of a dubious authoritarianism led by that notoriously genocidal Bronze age sky God, YHWH. NOT For, those who are caught up in evolutionary materialism can only seemingly think in rhetorical terms, and see all as a power struggle, who holds the power makes the rules. The idea that we can genuinely see that some things are self evidently, objectively and undeniably true and so binding freely on those who value the truth and the right by virtue of simply being self-evidently true and right, is alien to such. STEP 3: The open door to amorality and nihilism . . .
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might
If all boils down to power games, it is a matter of who is more cleverly manipulative and powerful, so if you want to be the more respected and feared, you have to be the more ruthless. Cats have no sympathy for mice. STEP 4: The nihilistic, domineering factions arrive
and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
Somebody opened the door . . . (resemblance to our recent history as a civilisation and current trends is NOT coincidental.) KF PS: The evolutionary materialist WORLDVIEW -- not science, philosophy [where insofar as there may be evidence of common descent etc, it is entirely compatible with common design . . . as say Alfred Russel Wallace, co-founder of the modern theory of evolution believed] -- is inherently, inescapably self referentially incoherent and self-undermining. It refutes itself. But, if you can be led to reject the first principles of right reason such as the law of non-contradiction, you can be gulled into accepting and trying to live by an absurdity. PPS: In case you cannot follow the steps of argument in the just linked, let noted evolutionist J B S Haldane put it in a nutshell:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
kairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
01:37 AM
1
01
37
AM
PDT}

F/N 2: Let me document from the draft NCSTS sampler course unit on the sins of Christendom . . .
[BREAK IN TRANSMISSION: TWT, I know in your obsessive hostility you will see this, your repeated assertion that I blame all of the world's ills on Darwinism, is patently false and irresponsibly sustained in the teeth of easily seen facts to the contrary . . . cf. here on just what it is you are doing. And Mr Moran et al, is this what you want to harbour?]
. . . what the White Rose martyrs had to say about Hitler:
It is important as well, to cite here the assessment of the martyrs of the White Rose Movement of exposure and passive resistance [--> ask yourself why we so seldom hear of this movement . . . ], from their Leaflets II and IV (of six), knowing that the following expose of the Holocaust, assessment and prophetic indictment of a false political messiah were paid for in martyr's blood; Christian martyr's blood:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way [--> one of the first documentations in public of the holocaust] . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
This happened in living memory, we must never forget it.
It is high time to stop the madness of business as usual smear- the- Christians talking point games, and face some terrible facts about living memory history. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

F/N: I think I also need to correct KN on the assertion that suggests that Christians seemingly inevitably fear and are enemies of science and democracy. In fact, contrary to such long past sell-by date rationalistic myths -- cf here on and here on -- it can fairly easily be documented beyond reasonable doubt that the Christian Faith and adherents acting out of the Judaeo-Christian worldview (read Boyle on "The Christian Virtuoso" . . . ) have had much positively to do with the rise of both modern science and modern liberty and self-government by a free people. For simple example, it is no accident that so many of the founders of modern science saw science as thinking God's [creative and sustaining] thoughts after him, and similarly it is not at all accidental that the First Amendment of the 1787 US Constitution (which is the one that protectively states the pivotal civil liberties at the behest of Dissenter . . . especially Baptist, it seems . . . Christians in the early US) pivots on freedom of conscience, worship, assembly, petition and expression, carefully applying the locality principle of Westphalia of 1648 to the circumstances of a fundamentally democratic ["We, the People . . . "], federal republic. To my mind, this clinging to rationalist myths of an irreconcilable and inevitable war of Christianity against genuinely progressive knowledge and genuine liberation is pernicious and vicious, especially where in some key cases [Evil Bible, Sandwalk and TWT, I specifically mean you . . . ] it is multiplied by an attempt to taint the Christian Faith with the only generally admitted case of widespread evil in our time, Nazism. Such is commonly seen in the attempt to pretend that Hitler was a Christian acting out of the tenets of his faith -- where, even if you refuse to look at the plain facts in the abundant and easily found documentation, the very IMAGERY of Nazism will show that this type of idolatrous political messianism was specifically (and . . . as the White Rose martyrs explicitly pointed out at the cost of their lives . . . literally devilishly) Anti-Christian. Too often, such is joined to willfully obtuse refusal to simply acknowledge patent and easily shown facts concerning the historic and worldview roots of Nazism. If physicists can face our collective responsibility for too much of modern weaponry, and especially for was it 1/4 million lives from the nuke bombings of 1945 on, surely evolutionary biology can face the ways that evolutionary theory -- per all too abundant documentation -- sustained "scientific" racism and eugenics and also the support it has given to the nihilistic tendencies of evolutionary materialism as a worldview? It is high time that there was a seriousness about the responsibilities of science in society over moral hazards connected to the sciences. And, for sure -- as Ac 27 warns by pointed historical example -- we must never let ourselves be gulled into allowing democracy to become the "might makes right" manipulated march of folly. KFkairosfocus_{March 19, 2013
March
03
Mar
19
19
2013
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

It's funny when people deny the LNC and yet spout utterances as if they think they are rationally coherent. There is no reason to argue with every little fly that buzzes the head. Sometimes you just have to swat the annoyance and move on.CentralScrutinizer_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

"I am not in the slightest bit surprised that authoritarians who distrust and fear science and democracy — and who really think that the Enlightenment was a bad idea — would be made deeply anxious at the thought that there is no Bronze Age sky-god to establish the so-called “rules of right reasons.”"
There is the confession. This is why accepting reason's rules is absolutely off the table. If the rules exist then the implication is clear. The proposition, There is no god, is for some its own non-negotiable first principle, reasoned from and not to.Chance Ratcliff_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

WJM: Time for that Plato quote, from The Laws, Bk X, c. 360 BC:
Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made. - [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them.
Evolutionary materialist philosophy -- on very long history -- naturally leads to radical relativism, and opens the door to nihilism, ruthless factionalism and a certain kind of domineering elitism. So those who advocate it should at minimum be aware of and address these moral hazards. In the context of this thread, while I do not think KN is likely ever to become an Alcibiades or the like, he does need to address the issue that straight thinking on first principles of right reason is really important, and that in that context -- and I here cut clean across Copi whom I studied from years ago -- it is evident that certain first principles really are vital, pivotal to sound reasoning. Vital in ways that are evident form the fact that those who try to dismiss or deny end up implicitly using the very same principles. And no, that is not something I got from reading biblical texts; though I do see in such texts a strong emphasis on sound thinking that contrasts refusal of wisdom as folly that is ultimately ruinous. I also find this in Paul, who is most definitely of C1 Iron age:
1 Cor14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air . . .
In short, using apt examples, he here sees how distinctness and intelligible identity are foundational to communication, meaningfulness and benefit to the listener. In so speaking, he is evidently reasoning with his audience, trying to help them see clearly and act sensibly and reasonably. This is clear communication, and even education, not emotional frothiness or manipulation. Speaking of which, this is what he later said to the same audience:
2 Cor 4: 1 . . . having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God . . . . 10: 3 For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ . . . [Cf here on for a 101 on why he thought the gospel of the Christ was well-warranted truth commendable to every man, on what sort of evidence . . . ]
In short, the apostle appealed to reason and evidence, not to blind emotions or blind adherence to authority, overturning misleading arguments and systems of thought that set up roadblocks against coming to know God. It seems, there has been some strawmannising and dismissive stereotyping of the biblical mindset here. I trust KN will think again and do better than his recent intemperate remark. (I have no confidence that the likes of a Sandwalk or a TWT or that ilk, short of a miracle, will be open to simple, basic evidence, as I recently have had to address here, cf. F/N 2 especially.)] Nor is this mere authoritarianism, blindly citing sources. We have been showing that the principles are self evident and self referential in all serious discourse. We cannot but use them, they are that fundamental. So, we only end up in absurdity if we try to deny or dismiss or set aside. They really are fundamental. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Kantian Naturalist
At no point did I so much as suggest that the norms constitutive of practical and theoretical reason are socially “constructed,” though I do think of them as fundamentally social in character.
If, as you say, they are social in character, then they were socially constructed. That follows as surely as the night follows the day. It was you who characterized reason’s rules as “norms,” not me. Definition: “Social norms are group-held beliefs about how members should behave in a given context.” For you, the Laws of Non-Contradiction, Identity, and Causality are group held beliefs subject to change and dependent on context.
(The norms are not socially constructed because there is no coherent notion of society as something that exists prior to norms.)
One’s perception or notion of a cause is not the same thing as the cause itself. Your subjectivism is overwhelming your capacity to think clearly.
I am not in the slightest bit surprised that authoritarians who distrust and fear science and democracy — and who really think that the Enlightenment was a bad idea — would be made deeply anxious at the thought that there is no Bronze Age sky-god to establish the so-called “rules of right reasons.”
On the contrary. The authoritarians are those who use power and force rather than reason arguments to achieve their ends. Anyone who denies reason's rules, which apply to everyone, will always align themselves with the arbitrary rules established by tyrants, which are designed for the benefit of a few at the expense of many. By the way, this is the third time I have asked you to define your standards for rationality and rational discourse. Will it be necessary to ask yet a fourth time?StephenB_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

AF: Pardon, but let us avoid another distraction:
In philosophy and logic, the term proposition refers to either (a) the "content" or "meaning" of a meaningful declarative sentence or (b) the pattern of symbols, marks, or sounds that make up a meaningful declarative sentence. The meaning of a proposition includes having the quality or property of being either true or false, and as such propositions are claimed to be truthbearers.
Yes, that is Wiki, which has it right on this one (certain ideologies not being at stake). The focal issue remains on the table: why first principles of right reason are not mere optional conventions that can be taken or set aside as one pleases. and, why that matters if one is to reason seriously and correctly. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT}

Barry called it here:
He thinks he is oh so wise and sophisticated ....
Note the dripping condescension and the blatant sense of superiority:
I am not in the slightest bit surprised that authoritarians who distrust and fear science and democracy — and who really think that the Enlightenment was a bad idea — would be made deeply anxious at the thought that there is no Bronze Age sky-god to establish the so-called “rules of right reasons.”
But then, to one that needn't abide by the rules of right reason, ad hominem is just as good as anything else in a rational debate, right? He's the very embodiment of those whom Plato warns against, as KF often qoutes.William J Murray_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox, your additions are as predictable as they are wearisome. Run along now and let the grownups talk.Barry Arrington_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

KN, I notice you are still dodging the three simple T/F questions in the OP.Barry Arrington_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Barry states:
For any proposition A: 1: A=A. True or False. 2: “A is B” and “A is not B” are mutually exclusive. True or False. 3: “A is B” and “A is not B” are jointly exhaustive. True or False.
Just for laughs, can I just clarify what is meant by Barry, when he uses the word "proposition"? Does he mean a factual statement about reality? If so, at both the scale of fundamental particles and the scale of large object such as galaxies, I can see problems as well as in the realm of biological entities.Alan Fox_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

PS: The plurality of axiomatic models of logic has not escaped the point that just to write them out and mean something definite, the first principles of right reason are being implicitly relied on.kairosfocus_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

KN: are you sure you want to play by Dawkins-type rhetoric games? [Cf here on on such.) It is more than enough, that we can all see how self evident it is that if we mean A we do not mean NOT-A also, and so forth. Indeed, all of your comments trying to dismiss such, pivot on the very same principle; which, let us observe, were put on record by C5 - 4 BC pagan Greek philosophers. Please, think again. KFkairosfocus_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

#33 is a head-shaker. Just because something cannot both be and not be at the same time. Here's to fragile convictions.Upright BiPed_{March 18, 2013
March
03
Mar
18
18
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply