Funny Stuff Over at TSZ

_{Barry Arrington

September 11, 2015

Intelligent Design}

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

Over at The Skeptical Zone Elizabeth Liddle writes:

Barry Arrington [says] A=A is infallibly, necessarily true. What does this claim even mean? . . . Is his claim even coherent?

Really folks. You can’t make this up. She wrote that. If I made this stuff up someone would accuse me of lying. But she really wrote that.

Fortunately, not everyone at The Skeptical Zone is a complete idiot. Kantian Naturalist replies:

It means that every object is necessarily identical with itself. Which is true, and in a certain sense of “self-evident”, self-evidently true.

Why do they kick against the goads with such vehemence? Not only do they make fools of themselves, they seem eager to do so. It really does beggar belief.

Comments

Mung, the issue on the table is foundations of rationality. Disagreement after disagreement has been chased back, and we are at the root level now. Lo and behold, we find that a lot of objection to design thought is coupled to problems with first principles of right reason. As in, ouch. To find oneself in opposition to first truths of reason must be hard, especially when giving up such opposition looks like heading where you don't want to go. KFkairosfocus_{September 12, 2015
September
09
Sep
12
12
2015
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT}

Box, existence is just that, it is not a declaration that an entity is non-contingent and autonomous. Do you exist? Are you non-contingent? KFkairosfocus_{September 12, 2015
September
09
Sep
12
12
2015
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Mung: To me this is not just a statement of logic, but one of ontology. It’s not something decided by our epistemology, which is the mistake Elizabeth makes. To say that a thing exists is to assert the law of identity.
Is to say that a thing exists, to say that it has autonomous existence? When we say that a red balloon "exists", do we say that its existence does not depend on anything else than what the red balloon seems to be?Box_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
11:59 PM
11
11
59
PM
PDT}

Instant Karma's gonna get ya. Wake up peoplemike1962_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT}

Aleta: I’ve always liked the saying attributed to Wittgenstein: “A thing is what it is, and not another thing.” Yes. The "and not another thing" is what was missing from what was offered by KN at TSZ. To me this is not just a statement of logic, but one of ontology. It's not something decided by our epistemology, which is the mistake Elizabeth makes. To say that a thing exists is to assert the law of identity. No wonder we here at UD take it to be fundamental to rationality. Foundational, even. But as has been pointed out, self-evident truths are not self-evident to everyone. But who ever said otherwise. So I think we still have a duty to make the case. And in asking her question, Elizabeth shows that she's ignored the posts where that case has been set out. Surely, if she is going to critique the views set out here at UD that is part of her intellectual duty.Mung_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

I thought that Elizabeth was asking an honest question. She got a bunch of nonsense in return. The psychology of UD. The psychology of Barry. etc. She then asked for people who think A=A means something to weight in. At which point KN offered his wisdom. But then Elizabeth went on to ignore it. Which calls into question my original assumption, lol. Do they really not understand the law of identity? Or is it just that the truth doesn't matter, esp. if it's declared at UD.Mung_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT}

Even in the weird quantum world, where the existence of A may not be determined until it is examined, the A on both sides of the = go through the same phases of "probability". A=A. Certainly most usually. However, I have failed to find even any exception case. (The finding of some strange exception case does not nullify the general case, however.)bFast_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

Aleta, a good summary. KFkairosfocus_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

M62, I think there may be a problem of confusing partial set membership . . . a way of characterising degrees of an attribute . . . with identity. For a temp controller the thermometer indicating T, may be 70% warm, 10% cold and 20% hot but the thermometer indicating T is indeed its own distinct thing. Then the programmed control action may weight the degrees as given and come up with the control action relative to a set target, which "crisp" action will then be again its own distinct thing. At no point have we asserted A is not itself. And BTW the degree of memberships needs not sum to 100% nor follow neat smooth curves. Long stories. KFkairosfocus_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

I've always liked the saying attributed to Wittgenstein: "A thing is what it is, and not another thing."Aleta_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT}

BA, if we cannot find willingness to agree that say a bright red ball on a table is itself and not something else, it is no surprise that forever after we see all sorts of intractable objections. We are here dealing with manifestations of a root of irrationality in our civilisation that leads some to say truth is falsity and falsity truth, light is darkness and darkness light, good is evil and evil good, and more. Such, in the end is diagnostic of a spiritual state and that kind goeth not out save by scripture:
Jesus, Matt 6:22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness! Paul, Eph 4:17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,[f] which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor . . . Isaiah, Is 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and shrewd in their own sight!
So, we have two ways before us and must choose this day what and Who we will serve. For none may serve two masters. KFkairosfocus_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT}

Liz "Well, no – fuzzy logic is a very useful logic system, and A is sometimes only approximately equal to A, or may equal A if it passes some threshold of probability of being A" Uh, no. In fuzzy logic A is still always equal to A. A may be approximately equal to B or something else, but A is always equal to itself.mike1962_{September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply