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

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 becomes irrelevant if the discussion focuses on tangents and re-definitions rather than the primary point of the post. The difference between a sand castle and a mound of sand is self-evident. You haven't said that you either agree or disagree with that. Barry gave the example "I am conscious" as a self-evident truth. There have been other examples. To argue about one of those examples without offering better ones and without referring to the main point that Barry made is moving the discussion towards irrelevant tangents. Sure, as a side topic, the best examples of self-evident truths can be given. As a side topic, the means to create the most truly random set of characters can be discussed. But those are diversions from the main topic - which often does not get addressed at all by the people arguing about the tangent. Why is that?Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

ES #41 "given the rotten atmosphere of this site" You seem to spend quite a lot of time here.Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

#42 SA
Barry’s point is that there are self-evident truths and that a person’s metaphysical commitment can cause that truth to be denied, even though the truth is known.
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.Mark Frank_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

Does this mean that a heap of sand dumped from a truck does not function in the world of humans?
No, those images perceived by humans serve a function as well. But they do not meet the specification that a castle made of sand does. Is this subject matter difficult to understand?
UB: Is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this merely the interpreted projection of an observer? ES: Now, which question of mine is this supposed to answer? Obviously none.
You have argued that an inference to design in biology is illegitimate, partly because design is projected onto objects by human observers. But that which organizes inanimate matter into biological function is not determined by human observation. 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
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT}

I think I am about to be criticised for the Darwinian Debating Tactic of asking for precise definitions
I think you're using a Darwin Debating Device that has been used before but I don't know which one it is or what it's called (maybe we need a new one?). It's "chasing an irrelevant tangent". This happened with the Shallit threads. A point was made about the difference between randomly generated text and an excerpt from Shakespeare. Instead of dealing with the point in question (how we recognize the difference), the topic chased after an irrelevant tangent and went on for days. The tangent was "Barry's text isn't random". As I said at the time, this is like arguing about a spelling error in an argument (then going on about the history of the misspelled word, etc) and using that to score a point against the entire argument - and ultimately claim a victory. Something like ... "You misspelled a word, and therefore your argument is false". "Your example of random text is not really random, and therefore we ignore the point you were making." (Why not offer truly random text instead?) In this case, the tangent is that one of Barry's examples of self-evident truths comes under debate. Barry's point is that there are self-evident truths and that a person's metaphysical commitment can cause that truth to be denied, even though the truth is known.Silver Asiatic_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Upright BiPed
It simple ES. The “striking and obvious” distinction is that the perceived image of the sandcastle meets a specification in the world of the humans, no differently that the perceived smell of raw meat meets a specification in the world of wolves. They function.
I suppose this is in response to What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle? You say about the sand castle that it "functions". Okay, let's suppose it functions. Does this mean that a heap of sand dumped from a truck does not function in the world of humans? Or that even a natural dune does not function? Do they not have specifications? Upright BiPed
Is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this merely the interpreted projection of an observer?
Now, which question of mine is this supposed to answer? Obviously none. You answered the first question question-beggingly, and you looked completely past the followup: In what scientific sense are you using “striking and obvious”? Is it from information theory, physics, or art criticism? Normally I would consider your attempt a non-answer, but given the rotten atmosphere of this site, I will simply note this as the UD kind of answer by UB. Thanks for trying. I have no further questions to you.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

I think I am about to be criticised for the Darwinian Debating Tactic of asking for precise definitions – but I really think there is a genuine confusion here between 1) self-evident in the sense of not requiring evidence 2) self-evident in the sense of being obviously true. 1) is about the truth conditions for a proposition – what makes it true – and is independent of people’s reactions to it. 2 ) is about people’s perception of the proposition and will very from one person to another. As TK writes some savant’s will find 587×264= 154,968 obviously true while an infant might not find 2+2=4 obviously true. I can see no reason why the truth conditions for a complicated mathematical equation differ from a simpler one. They are both the consequence of deductions from axioms. Anyone who wants to assert that 2+2=4 is self-evident (in sense 1) while 587x264=154,968 is not has to find some fundamental difference between them and deal with borderline cases e.g. is 17+18 = 35 self-evident?Mark Frank_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

Some people are so dense that they can be considered walking black holes. E Seigner fits into that category. :razz:Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

It simple ES. The "striking and obvious" distinction is that the perceived image of the sandcastle meets a specification in the world of the humans, no differently that the perceived smell of raw meat meets a specification in the world of wolves. They function. Is the fact that hemoglobin functions by carrying required oxygen to the tissues of vertebrates an objective reality, or is this merely the interpreted projection of an observer?Upright BiPed_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

Turbokid:
And to a savant, 587×264= 154,968 might be just as obviously true as 2+2=4 meaning what is self evidently true depends on the individual.
It doesn't take a savant to multiply 587x264 in their head.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Yes Upright Biped- point ES to your answer(s) so she can ignore them again. ;)Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:55 AM
4
04
55
AM
PDT}

@Upright BiPed Point me to your answer. It belongs to this thread now.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

ES at 29, It is not in the least bit difficult to answer the questions you ask, and you've already been given most of the answers (by me) in previous exchanges. The issue here is that the answers to your questions are entirely too coherent, and coherent answers do not serve your purposes. Consequently, you are immediately forced into the debating tactics that you've rightly been accused of.Upright BiPed_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

tintinnid:
Yes, I believe that I am conscious, but I also know that any number of physical or chemical interventions can affect this. So, is my consciousness physical and chemical, or god given? I have to go with the former until evidence suggests otherwise.
Wow, so tintinnid accepts something for which there isn't any evidence and rejects something else because she/ he feels that there isn't any evidence. Unbelievable how our opponents employ double-standards without blinking.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT}

Barry:
Here is the classic example: 2+2=4. A person perceives the truth of the proposition merely by understanding it. Interestingly 587X264=154,968 is not self-evidently true.
My apologies but I do not understand that. 587X264=154,968 may not be self-evidently true to someone who cannot multiply but it is to someone who can.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

E Seigner:
s usual, you miss both the point and context by a wide margin, but I’m trying to see if you have any ability to focus on what is actually happening here.
LoL! Nice projection.
What is the “striking and obvious” difference between a dump of sand and a sand castle?
The arrangement of the sand, duh.Joe_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:59 AM
3
03
59
AM
PDT}

Materialist: I hold that all that is, is “material”, which means that I hold our observed universe to be “nothing but” the result of blind forces of nature acting on matter-energy in space-time, in light of chance circumstances across time. Theist: Does it follow from your metaphysics that 'blind forces of nature acting on matter-energy' are, so to speak, behind the driving wheel of your reasoning? Materialist: Absolutely Theist: Are 'blind forces of nature acting on matter-energy' capable of (or even interested in) rational argument? Materialist: Of course not! Theist: Does it follow that you are incapable of rational argument? Materialist: .... [crickets chirping]
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. [J.B.S. Haldane, "When I Am Dead"]
Box_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

KF As usual, you miss both the point and context by a wide margin, but I'm trying to see if you have any ability to focus on what is actually happening here. The OP says "Denying the Truth is not the Same as Not Knowing It". Question: What is the truth that is being denied? The OP does not say. This is the context where the above remarks were taken from: 1. ES is being faced with images of a dump of sand and a sand castle and is asked to explain the difference. 2. ES explains based on the paradox of the heap, using the terminology of classical metaphysics common throughout history from Aristotle to Aquinas and beyond. 3. ES asks in return how the persons who posed the question at stage #1 would describe the same difference. 4. Answer from them: "As a result of your metaphysics, you are unable to describe in any meaningful way the difference between a mound of dirt and a sand castle." Plus a series of OP's, including this one, on "Darwinian Debating Devices" of ES. As we are, I still have no answer. So, focus now, KF, and give the answer: 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? And since it's all supposedly a self-evident truth, then let's see you answer briefly to the point.E.Seigner_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT}

MF (& T-K, TT etc): It has long been discussed in and around at UD (and long before that, elsewhere . . . ), that self evident truths, ON UNDERSTANDING such, are directly seen as true, and as necessarily true; typically on pain of PATENT absurdity on attempted denial. Notice, not merely a synonym for obviousness . . . a very common caricature or misunderstanding that easily becomes a strawman set up to be knocked over. As you know there are results in say logic calculus, that can be shown to be so on pain of self contradiction (and others that subtly self-refer and contradict), but such will be seen only after significant effort. These are not self-evident. Self evidence will require actual truth, necessary truth easily seen based on our experience of the world as rational creatures, and patent absurdity or error on attempted denial. Aquinas long ago gave the refining point that such may be so in themselves, but for one not in a position to understand, they will not be seen as such. (IIRC, he gave as an example, truths of Plane Geometry.) For the cases above, something like 2 + 3 = 5 is simply seen once the direct substitution from the Indo-Arabic numerals to representative "stick" counters is made: || + ||| ---> ||||| But in your attempted objection, no such direct simple process is at work. First, there is a complex involvement of the place value notation system, which when I had to teach it for digital electronics, showed itself very involved. Second, the operation of multiplication (repeated addition) is so involved that people usually simply memorise -- with considerable effort -- the times tables over the course of a few years in school. This is taken basically on authority. Then, in the attempted undermining case, the feasible mechanism is one or more of the long multiplication algorithms, again usually accepted on authority with maybe a simple example or two to make it palatable. In short, your attempted counter example is haring away on a tangent, after a red herring. The point is brought out in BA's second case:
I am conscious. If I deny that statement I have descended into patently absurd self-referential incoherence.
TT tried to assert emergence of consciousness as a known effect of brain chemistry, not realising -- thanks to today's ever so pervasive indoctrination in unreflective, lab coat clad a priori evolutionary materialism -- that in fact this view is not only not warranted by any chain of scientific evidence, but that it ends directly in self-referential absurdity. As famed evolutionary theorist J B S Haldane pointed out over eighty years ago:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes [--> including of course self-aware, perceiving, rational, reasoning, warranting, knowing, understanding consciousness] 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.]
Oops. (Cf here on in context, especially the sections on the Smith model and the challenge to evolutionary materialism. The onward note on grounding of morality will help also.) Of course, the longstanding root problem for you MF and others of like ilk is, that self evidence is a grounding issue, setting limited, certain start-points for reasoning that serve as plumbline tests for worldviews, cf. here on. Here, there be ~~dragons~~ -- FIRST PRINCIPLES OF RIGHT REASON and CORE KNOWABLE, UNDENIABLE TRUTHS (such as the classic one from Josiah Royce via Elton Trueblood: Error exists). Long time UD regulars know all about the vapours ever so many materialists get when we start, behold, a bright red ball on the table (or in the sky . . . ), A, such that we see the world-partition: W = { A | NOT_A } Hence, identity, A is A, not NOT_A, and hence the immediate concomitants LNC that (A AND ~A) = 0 and LEM (A X-OR ~A) = 1. And no, Q-mech is not an out (it rests on these first principles), and no you are not free to go on demanding turtles all the way down or in a circle. The buck stops here. And, such first principles of reason do great execution across the various post-/ultra-modernist schemes of thinking as well as to a priori evolutionary materialism, as such turn to deny self evident truth and land in absurdities. Denying the patent truth is not the same as not knowing it, or having a duty to acknowledge it. (And no, per the same patent absurdities in moral form, might and manipulation do not and cannot make 'right.' which points like a compass needle where so many would not go, the only serious candidate for an IS capable of grounding OUGHT at world-foundations level, is the inherently good creator God who is a necessary, maximally great being the root and sustainer of reality. Not a proof beyond all doubts and hyperskepticism, but a strong indicator as to the nature of a reality in which we find ourselves inescapably governed by ought.) It is high time for fresh thinking. KFkairosfocus_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

And to a savant, 587x264= 154,968 might be just as obviously true as 2+2=4 meaning what is self evidently true depends on the individual.Turbokid_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

Barry
Here is the classic example: 2+2=4. A person perceives the truth of the proposition merely by understanding it. Interestingly 587X264=154,968 is not self-evidently true.
Are you not confusing "self-evidently" with "obviously"? Whatever the grounds are for the truth of mathematical equations (a famous condundrum), surely they are same grounds for both these equations. It is just that in one case it is more obvious.Mark Frank_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT}

Barry: "“So long” means “goodbye.” It does not mean “you’re banned.” Sheesh." I'm also pretty sure that it doesn't mean "I apologize", but I could be wrong.tintinnid_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT}

Daniel King to Box
Explain yourself. What are tintinnid’s metaphysics that compel your characterization? Rule of argumentation: Putting words in other peoples’ mouths is misrepresentation. (A lot – really a lot – of that goes on here.)
Box is not putting words in tintinned's mouth. The latter has said explicitly that he is a materialist.StephenB_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

"So long" means "goodbye." It does not mean "you're banned." Sheesh.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT}

Tintinned
Am I to assume that “so long” mean that I am banned?
No, it means that he regrets the error and has nothing more to say. Your perception of the justice or injustice of previous bannings is not really relevant since you don't know the complete history of interactions that prompted them. What may seem frivolous on your end may have been the last straw on the other end.StephenB_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT}

Daniel King: Explain yourself. What are tintinnid’s metaphysics that compel your characterization?
Why don't you explain yourself? Explain why you ask for the sake of asking.Box_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT}

Barry: "Tin @ 16. Now you are boring me. At least before you were committing somewhat interesting errors to expose. So long." Why am I boring you? Because I am requesting an apology for a false statement you made about me? I have watched while you banned people for refusing to apologize to you for making far weaker transgressions against your character. Are you really so shallow that you will not hold yourself to the same standard you hold everyone else? Am I to assume that "so long" mean that I am banned?tintinnid_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

Banning rule #842: Don't bore Barry.Daniel King_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

Tin @ 16. Now you are boring me. At least before you were committing somewhat interesting errors to expose. So long.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

“I have to go with the former” And why do you have to go with the former? Because the former is amenable to your metaphysical commitments. For the reasons I explained above, the former is most certainly not the most rational position to hold. Indeed, until someone can explain how a “thing” can have subjective self-awareness, it is totally irrational to “go with the former.”Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply