Denying the Truth is not the Same as Not Knowing it

_{Barry Arrington

October 20, 2014

Intelligent Design}

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

Highlighting an exchange in a prior post:

Phinehas

As a result of your [i.e., ES’s] metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle.

Silver Asiatic

It’s amazing how difficult this concept is for some people.

Well, Silver, yes and no.

No, in the sense that it is no more difficult for them to apprehend a self-evident truth than anyone else. That is what it means for the truth to be “self-evident.” Don’t let them fool you into believing they genuinely do not perceive the self-evident. They do.

Yes, in the sense that as Phinehas has noted, ES’s prior metaphysical commitments force him to deny self-evident truths. The cognitive dissonance that is necessarily entailed by denying self-evident truths must be a difficult burden to bear.

Comments

#60 tintinnid
But I think that I have lost what the point of this whole discussion is.
The point here is that there is a difference between knowing the truth about something and actually affirming it (or denying it).
But we are only able to detect the design in a sandcastle and a lego castle because we know, in advance, that they are designed.
This brings us to the problem that ES had -- not being able to describe the difference between the sand castle and pile of sand. We do not need to know if either was designed in advance to observe the differences in the two. Right? Why not give a try to explain the differences that you would observe?Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

WJM #72
Which is why this is all a tangent. That there may be some debate about whether or not some statements are self-evidently true doesn’t call into question all self-evidently true statements.
Exactly. It's taking up a debate on an irrelevant topic. Self-evident truths exist. If someone here denies that, then they should say it. Arguing about a certain example of a self-evident truth is chasing after a tangent. It's like wanting to argue about a misspelled word in the text.Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

ES #47 I answered this for you already and you said nothing. I'll do it again: St. Thomas offers this:
… if we enter a well-ordered house we gather therefrom the intention of him that put it in order, as Tullius says (De Nat. Deorum ii), quoting Aristotle [Cleanthes]. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1103.htm
We see a well-ordered house as evidence of design/intent. We see a sand castle, as evidence of design. We do not see the same in a pile of sand.
What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle? In what scientific sense are you using “striking and obvious”? Is it from information theory, physics, or art criticism?
- Mathematical/geometric symmetry. This can be measured for each. We observe and measure a difference in each. - Pattern matching. The sand castle matches references to sophisticated architecture the pile of sand does not. - Physics. We look for the origin or source of both. The sand dump can be created by a blind, random, unintelligent process. The sand castle cannot be created by a blind, random, unintelligent process.Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

StephenB: Stagerringly stupid comment alert: "It is precisely that claim, which was also made by E. Seigner, the theist, and which is also made by many atheists, that Barry characterized as being staggeringly stupid. He was right. It is a staggeringly stupid claim. We need no advance notice or historical references to detect the design in a sand castle." The fact that you refer to it as a "sandcastle" proves my point. It is a structure known by humans, made of sand. If an alien with absolutely no knowledge of humans and human construction, or sand and sand dunes, saw a sand castle, would they automatically jump to the "design" conclusion? I would expect much more from an intelligent being. I notice that you only responded to a part of my comment (quote mine?). You failed to address the question if a complex quartz crystal formation, which can be as ordered and structured as a sand castle, is detectable as design.tintinnid_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Turbokid said:
WJM @52, so what you have affirmed is that self-evident truths can vary between individuals.
No. The capacity to recognize self-evident truths varies between individuals. Nobody has said otherwise.
You cannot apprehend the validity of 587×264=154,968 on sight therefore it is not self-evident.
I don't have the capacity to apprehend it as such, which is why I wouldn't call it a self-evident truth. It may be a self-evident truth for someone who can comprehend the totality of the mathematical statement. Nobody said that everyone can recognize all self-evidently true statements.
There are many people in the world that would be able to apprehend the validity of that mathematical statement on sight.
Just as there are many people that would be able to recognize the self-evident nature of certain phrases uttered in German, but I would not be able to. Comprehension is required for any self-evident truth to be self-evident.
So to them it is self-evident. Equally there are many that would not apprehend the validity of 2 + 2 = 4, so to them that is not a self-evident statement (by your definition).
As far as I know, I'm not talking to them. I think most people here are capable of comprehending 2+2=4 as a self-evident truth.
This is not a tangent as SA says, as it goes to an issue at the heart of self-evident truths (which is there universality).
Nobody claimed that any statement, whether mathematical or in any particular language, has the magic capacity in and of itself to force understanding on anyone who sees it or hears it, regardless of their level of intelligence or cognitive ability. Your point seems to be that because some people deny, or fail to apprehend a self-evident truth as such, this means that the self-evident truth is not a self-evident truth (or else this would be a tangent, and you insist it is not). If a blind man fails to see a wall, does it not exist for him? If I fail to understand the inverse-square law, will it not apply to lighting sources I set up in order to take pictures? There are self-evident truths that everyone here can apprehend. You might as well say that you do not recognize "I am self-aware" or "A=A" or "2+2=4" as self-evident truths as to claim that it is not self-evidently true that there is a fundamental difference between a random pile of sand and a sandcastle. Which is why this is all a tangent. That there may be some debate about whether or not some statements are self-evidently true doesn't call into question all self-evidently true statements.William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

LoL! Rich cannot put 2 + 2 togetherJoe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

Do you agree with that, StephenB?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

No, Rich. Fingerprints can be wiped clean. Evidence of a crime can be washed away. Intelligent designers can hide all clues as to their involvement. That is why it is as StephenB says.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

@StephenB - Shouldn't they *all* leave those evidential clues if they are in fact designed?rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT}

Alan Fox
It’s easier than that. E. Seigner points out that everything is designed. Beats me why we need an explanatory filter or a FSCIAO* detector.
This is another example of ignorance asserting itself. ID has no quarrel with the faith claim that everything is designed. The issue is which of those artifacts/organisms (all of which may well have been designed) leave the kinds of evidential clues in nature that can be detected in the absence of that faith claim.StephenB_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Tintinned:
But we are only able to detect the design in a sandcastle and a lego castle because we know, in advance, that they are designed.
It is precisely that claim, which was also made by E. Seigner, the theist, and which is also made by many atheists, that Barry characterized as being staggeringly stupid. He was right. It is a staggeringly stupid claim. We need no advance notice or historical references to detect the design in a sand castle.StephenB_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT}

fatman Fox:
Say I give you two test tubes of sand taken from a pile on a beach and a beach sculpture on the same beach. You can’t tell the difference, can you?
Perhaps we could. What is your point?
I’d think a pile of sand on a beach was the result of human activity, as it is not how sand lies on a deserted beach.
So no non-human force can pile sand up on a beach? Really?Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

Might help to revisit the different kinds of causes. Material, formal, efficient, final, instrumental, and exemplar. I believe this would clear up the confusion about what is designed and what is not.tgpeeler_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT}

If everything is designed then all deaths are murders, there are no accidents and all rocks are artifacts. Or perhaps ES and Alan are just deluded.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

But we are only able to detect the design in a sandcastle and a lego castle because we know, in advance, that they are designed.
It's easier than that. E. Seigner points out that everything is designed. Beats me why we need an explanatory filter or a FSCIAO* detector. *I'm rusty on the latest acronym, sorry.Alan Fox_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Whatever. I did not plow through this entire thread post by post. But thanks for letting me know that volcanoes aren't made out of sand. Evidently I picked out volcano and sand from different posts. Regrets for offending anyone's intellectual sensibilities. Back to the salient point about what is "self-evident." Let me suggest something. Let's take something as self-evident if it's denial involves a self-contradiction. For example. I do not exist. I would have to exist to deny my existence. Here's another. Rational thought is the only way to know propositional truth. To deny that requires, presumably, a rational argument. There is no such thing as absolute truth. But that is an absolute truth claim. There are many others. Another characteristic of self=evident truths is that they don't admit of proof. Again, using my existence, if some one were to ask me to prove that I exist I would reply that I do not need to do that. My existence proves or demonstrates itself. There are no premises that lead to the conclusion "I exist." I simply do.tgpeeler_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

A lot of talk about the difference between a pile of sand and a sandcastle. But I think that I have lost what the point of this whole discussion is. Is Sa trying to draw an analogy to being able to detect design in natural systems? I assume that this is what is being attempted. A pile of sand and a sandcastle (or a pile of lego and a lego castle) make it appear to be self-evident that one is designed and one isn't, and that, therefore, design in nature can be detected in the same manner. But we are only able to detect the design in a sandcastle and a lego castle because we know, in advance, that they are designed. What about the difference between a pile of quartz sand and complex quartz crystal formations. To the uninformed, the crystal formation, which can be as ordered and structured as any sand castle, would appear to be just as designed as the sandcastle, but it is not. Which is why trying to draw an analogy between human design and ID is impossible because it requires the a-priori assumption that design in nature exists.tintinnid_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

Some people can’t tell the difference between a pile of sand and a volcano without explanation of some kind… Really???
Volcanoes aren't made of sand as far as I am aware, Tom. (And that wasn't the question.) But wait!Alan Fox_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

2+2=4 would trouble children.rich_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

Maybe this wasn't the thread I should have looked at to get reacquainted with what's going on at UD. Some people can't tell the difference between a pile of sand and a volcano without explanation of some kind... Really??? And they can't understand the fundamental principles that make it so??? Some things never change, apparently. Aaaaah, the insanity of arguing with people who reject the rule of reason in matters of truth. It's good to be back...tgpeeler_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:15 PM
1
01
15
PM
PDT}

WJM @52, so what you have affirmed is that self-evident truths can vary between individuals. You cannot apprehend the validity of 587×264=154,968 on sight therefore it is not self-evident. There are many people in the world that would be able to apprehend the validity of that mathematical statement on sight. So to them it is self-evident. Equally there are many that would not apprehend the validity of 2 + 2 = 4, so to them that is not a self-evident statement (by your definition). This is not a tangent as SA says, as it goes to an issue at the heart of self-evident truths (which is there universality).Turbokid_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT}

It is self-evidently true that there is a fundamental difference between a pile of sand and a sandcastle.
Say I give you two test tubes of sand taken from a pile on a beach and a beach sculpture on the same beach. You can't tell the difference, can you? I'd think a pile of sand on a beach was the result of human activity, as it is not how sand lies on a deserted beach. Where's the fundamental, self-evident difference?Alan Fox_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT}

WJM
It is self-evidently true that there is a fundamental difference between a pile of sand and a sandcastle. Extrapolating beyond that specific example, you cannot live your life as if the difference between chance complexity and functional, specified complexity is “incidental”. That would be absurd.
So, we must live our lives as if the difference between a pile of sand and a sand castle was substantial rather than incidental? We have to acknowledge the self-evident truth that the sand castle is a castle rather than sand? Therefore we can go live in the sand castle? Referring to the other example I brought in the original context, we must acknowledge the striking resemblance of plastic fruits to real fruits, and treat them both the same because they look the same? Those who see what's absurd in this reasoning see it based on the distinction of incidental and substantial. The OP denies the truth of the necessary distinction of substantial and incidental. The denial is not obvious from the OP, because the OP is not giving the full context of what prompted it. But nevermind. Misrepresentation is the UD kind of normalcy.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT}

MF; I don't agree that it's relevant. I think it's just you trying to plumb a statement of Barry's for dissent. That particular statement is entirely irrelevant to the main issue. I'm just (probably fruitlessly) responding to your query. Without self-evident truths, there is no mathematics. There is no logic. There is no debate. There is no science. There are categorical differences (though not always obvious) between self-evident truths, necessary truths, and conditional truths. Equivocating between them gains nothing but confusion. It is self-evidently true that there is a fundamental difference between a pile of sand and a sandcastle. Extrapolating beyond that specific example, you cannot live your life as if the difference between chance complexity and functional, specified complexity is "incidental". That would be absurd. And the existence of god is not a self-evident truth, it is a necessary (even if inconvenient for some) truth.William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank, I would call it a necessary truth that can be inferred from prior self-evident truths. The reason I wouldn't call it self-evident is because I cannot apprehend the validity of the answer on sight even after understanding the nature of the statement - I must work it out according to mathematical principles in order to see if the answer is correct.William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT}

#49 WJM I am glad you agree that my comment was relevant (please explain this to SA). 587×264=154,968 - denying this can be shown to lead to the identical absurdities that denying 2+2 =4 does. So presumably this is also self-evident?Mark Frank_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT}

ES,
....you are welcome to answer the topical questions anytime. The questions: What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle?
I've answered this question, as well as your follow-up question. Instead of responding in earnest, you've issued an irrelevant distraction which has no application to the answers I gave you. Also, you are very clearly avoiding my question back to you, which is directly related to your stated objections to ID .
So, again, is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this a projection of an observer?,
Upright BiPed_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

MF said:
Is it not relevant to clear up misunderstandings over what “self-evident” means? The example Barry provided was a good opportunity to explain the potential misunderstanding.
It's not irrelevant, it's just impossible to explain it to those that are immune (via denial) to the explanation. A self-evident truth is a statement that, once one understands the statement, it is immediately recognizable as such and it would lead to absurdity to deny the statement. "2+2=4" = self evidently true; denial leads to irrationality (absurdity). "I am self-aware" = self-evidently true, denial leads to irrationality (absurdity). "A=A, A is not equal to not-A" = self-evidently true, because denial leads to irrationality (absurdity). Asserting that the sun doesn't actually orbit the earth doesn't lead to absurdity, but rather to questions about what kind of alternate physical mechanics could rationally make it appear as if the sun was orbiting the earth, while in fact it was not. The question is, is there a self-evident, significant difference between a pile of sand and a sandcastle? Does denying the difference lead to irrationality (absurdity)? Yes. That denial of anything but "incidental" differences would mean that you could not tell the difference between an organized, functional string of letters and gibberish, a random pile of rocks and the Great Pyramid, or any natural mountain face and Mount Rushmore. Denial of the difference leads to absurdity because you simply cannot act or function in any capacity without being able to distinguish the significant difference between a pile of sand and a sandcastle (so to speak).William J Murray_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Instead of trying to evade the point by going on about some tangent
Ironic.Barry Arrington_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

SA Instead of trying to evade the point by going on about some tangent and whatever, you are welcome to answer the topical questions anytime. The questions: What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle? In what scientific sense are you using “striking and obvious”? Is it from information theory, physics, or art criticism?E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply