Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Chains of warrant and of causation in Origins Science

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As has come up as pivotal in recent discussions here at UD, we must recognise that logic and first principles underlie any serious discussion, including origins science, and in sciences  — especially those addressing origins — the issue of chains of cause will be pivotal.

The two are connected, as can be seen by first examining chains of warrant:

A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}
A summary of why we end up with foundations for our worldviews, whether or not we would phrase the matter that way}

Now, Peter D. Klein, in the Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, highlights:

The epistemic regress problem is considered the most crucial in the entire theory of knowledge and it is a major concern for many contemporary epistemologists. However, only two of the three alternative solutions have been developed in any detail, foundationalism and coherentism. Infinitism was not seriously considered as a solution because of the finite-mind objection. [article: “Contemporary Responses to Agrippa’s Trilemma,” OUP 2008.]

That is, once one looks at the logical structure of warrant — it naturally chains, one is led to infinite regress, or circularity at some level, or else one has to terminate in some finitely remote set of first plausibles, defining what I have come to call a faith-point.  Notice, it is often perceived as a central problem, and thus as a problem rather than a framework that defines how worldviews have to be structured, leading to the situation that the only viable option is finitely remote first plausibles held in light of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy (covers all material facts), coherence (logical and dynamical) and explanatory power (neither simplistic nor an ever growing ad hoc patchwork).

In effect, we are humbled by our circumstances as contingent, finite, fallible, morally struggling creatures who are far too often stubbornly irrational and ill-willed. So, we can only hope to have a reasonable faith as a worldview sustained on comparative difficulties analysis, not a frame of utterly certain start-point premises.

Similarly, origins science is concerned with causal roots of our cosmos, our world, the world of life, and our own roots. Therefore, we face the reality of chains of cause as well, and thus we see that the implications of successive chaining confront us again. For instance, let us note how the Smithsonian Institution presented a tree of life model a few years past:

Darwin-ToL-Smithsonian400

The concept here is a branching tree of causal chains, starting from a root, origin of life.

(BTW, this instantly highlights that the attempt to lock away the OOL challenge from attempts to provide a naturalistic account of the world of life fail the test of logic. So, when design thinkers connect the two and insist that both have to be adequately addressed on credible, actually observed capable mechanisms that adequately account for origin of the required functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I], starting with copious quantities of coded DNA information, this is a matter of basic logic and prudent warrant for explanations. And the fact remains that the only actually observed capable causal source for FSCO/I is design, a point backed up by the reasoning that underlies the statistical reasoning that undergirds the second law of thermodynamics.)

In short, once we look at origins, we readily see that the logic involved means that causes also come in chains, leading to the simple topological issue, infinite regress vs circularity in the root vs finitely remote ultimate beginning.

Of these, a circular root involving origins is immediately problematic. For, patently, non-being — a true nothing — can have no causal power. So, proposed circular causation would involve action before existence, which is not credible.

Infinite regress in steps, implies the problem of descent from minus infinity to zero:

minus-infinity –> minus (infinity less one) –> minus (infinity less two) –> [and yes, I know this is absurd, that is precisely the point] . . .

– 2, – 1, 0 [origin of our world], +1, + 2, . . .

+ us here today [say at 0-point + 13.7 BY]  –> . . .

Though some may argue for it (as they find the alternative quite uncomfortable), it is not credible that anything can traverse the transfinite in successive distinct steps, so this, too is not a reasonable view.

If you differ, kindly give a reasonable and empirically, observationally warranted account: _______________

And  yes, I am applying Newton’s Vera Causa premise, that we should use only things observed to have relevant causal capacity to cause the like effect as traces we observe in explanations of things we cannot directly see for ourselves.

(Predictably, there will be none as no one has seen an infinite succession of distinct causal steps traversed.)

This all means that we need to take the cluster of observations that led to the conception of origin of our world through a big bang singularity seriously, e.g.:

The Big Bang timeline -- a world with a beginning
The Big Bang timeline — a world with a beginning

That is, on the best science we have available, per observations since the 1920’s, we face a finitely remote distinct origin of our cosmos. There are many multiverse speculative models, but such lack definitive observational warrant. Where, it is particularly to be recognised that a suggested — not actually observed — quantum foam bubbling up sub-cosmi such as ours per fluctuations is not a proper nothing, non-being:

Video (C Richard Dawkins vs Rowan Williams):

[youtube m9H2bxHIBfg]

Infographic based on clips:

nothing_3Where does all of this leave us?

We are looking at getting our logic straight in order to think in a logically, epistemologically and dynamically coherent fashion about origins issues, linked science and worldview implications.

Yes, this is about first principles of right reason.

Go amiss there, and all else thereafter will wander off into thickets of error.

The logic of chains of warrant and of causation (thus the triple alternatives) is patent and effectively undeniable on pain of absurdity.

This of course does not prevent the committed, determined objector from trying to divert attention or dismiss what he does not wish to face, or stop him from erecting and knocking over a suitably loaded strawman caricature. But it does highlight what such an objector will be forced to do: cling to absurdities, ill-founded speculations and divert attention by going on the rhetorical attack.

As is so sadly familiar from years of debates in and around UD.

What is the bottom-line?

I: Chains of warrant and those of cause are real and force us to face the three alternatives for roots: infinite regress, circularity, finitely remote start-point.

II: Of these, only the third is a serious option.

III: On warrant  this forces us to recognise that warrant for claimed knowledge inevitably embeds worldview foundational issues and sustaining of a reasonable faith on comparative difficulties analysis.

IV: On cause and origins, this points strongly to a finitely remote origin of our world, and to the need to reckon with causal adequacy undergirded by actual observed capability to cause relevant phenomena.

V: For the world of life, that means, we have to reckon with the only known, actually observed capable cause of FSCO/I, i.e. design — intelligently directed configuration. (Indeed, empirically, FSCO/I on a trillion member observational base, is a reliable sign of design, whether or not this sits well with currently favoured, institutionally dominant, evolutionary materialism based origins narratives.)

VI: For cosmological origin, we have clear signs of a finitely remote distinct origin of our observed cosmos, perhaps 13.7 BYA, and of fine-tuning and intricate configuration that supports C-Chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life, which again puts design on the table as the causal explanation to beat.

In short, Intelligent Design is a logically, dynamically, scientifically and philosophically reasonable view.

Not what one would imagine, on the press it is often given.

But then, mere logic is usually not enough to decide public views on or policy regarding culturally important, ideologically loaded matters.

But, it may well be one of the warning signs that our business as usual path is unsound:

change_challFood for thought. END

Comments
... and for the record, I have never challenged "The LOI, LNC and LEM". I do not doubt them. sean s.sean samis
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @92:
The LOI, LNC and LEM are not on trial, SS, you are.
Perhaps; perhaps we all are. But you are not my judge; you’re just an accuser. I am confident in the jury of reasonable people and the judgment of the future. sean s.sean samis
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
kairosfocus @91: My #87 is a mispost. It belong on another thread. I requested its deletion on this thread but management at UD appears to have refused my request. Treat it as clutter. sean s.sean samis
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
@kairosfocus You have not established the validity of any subjectivity, let alone utter subjectivity. The laws which you apply without limit, precludes the validation of subjectivity. Any trial which judges us in terms of being the owner of our decisions, I would be let go, whereas you.... How I would fare in a trial based on the facts about how classically beautiful my face is, I would probably be put in prison for contempt of court.mohammadnursyamsu
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
SS, as for the you don't know how to reply rhetorical gambit [remember you are objecting to self evident truths], here is the real problem, per Robert L. Kocher:
suppose that I say that the red pen I happen to have in my hand at this moment is a red pen. Further suppose that someone else says it is not a red pen, but is instead a flower pot, or a suitcase or a TV set. As a practical matter, I am unable to refute the assertion that what I am holding in my hand is not a flower pot. That does not mean that I’m incorrect when I say that it is a red pen. Nor does it mean that I am intellectually weaker than the other person who is arguing that it is not a red pen. Nor does it mean that his assertion that it is not a red pen is correct. It means that I have no stronger argument than the red pen being in my hand. There is no stronger argument possible than the simple fact of the red pen being in my hand. No stronger refutation of the other person’s arguments is possible. At some point there must be agreement on what constitutes basic reality . . . . It has become common for people who routinely engage in chronic psychotic levels of denial to consider themselves as being mental powerhouses, and to be considered by others as being mental powerhouses, because no one can break through their irrationality. This is often supported by a self-referencing congratulatory inner voice which says, “(guffaw) He REALLY didn’t have an answer for that one!” And they are correct. He didn’t have an answer.
Other than of course to shake his head sadly at clinging to absurdity. The LOI, LNC and LEM are not on trial, SS, you are. And so far, failing. KFkairosfocus
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT
SS, in 87 you make a comment that has nothing to do with this thread. It is also refective of an utter failing on your part to understand the inductive logic of inference to best current explanation wen it does not suit your ideological agenda. KFkairosfocus
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
06:24 AM
6
06
24
AM
PDT
MNY, SS, Aleta et al, Remember, it is not the LOI, LNC and LEM that are on trial but us. Sadly, revealingly so. Next, I simply note that to post comments at all, you have had to use the principle of distinct identity thus the LOI, LNC and LEM are inherently involved. The existence of a world, beauty is an example of such a distinct entity to which the laws apply. As has been long since clear5 enough but the strawman tactic seems to be irresistible to today's type of objector. Then, even were beauty utterly subjective it would not overthrow these laws. And, today's sadly broken down mentality is no good yardstick to assess whether or no beauty is bereft of objective framework. And in fact the very fact that women know what to do with makeup and plastic surgeons with the knife should tell us better than that beauty is utterly subjective. Similarly, as I had occasion to already highlight, Nefertiti's sculpted head speaks across time and civilisation to us on the subject of the stability of judgements of classical beauty. But we can see where much of the trouble is, as beauty is a value, closely connected to ethical values, as in justice, truth and beauty. Those who hate the valuable will ever seek to undermine its basis and roots. KFkairosfocus
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
@sean samis As was explained "beautiful" refers to a love of the way the painting looks. This love is what chooses the word beauty in expression of emotion with free will. Therefore the existence of this love is a matter of opinion, meaning that to say that the love is real is an equally valid answer to saying the love is not real. The law of identity cannot apply to what is real or not real as a matter of opinion, subjective issues.mohammadnursyamsu
September 11, 2015
September
09
Sep
11
11
2015
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Sean, I don't know what your reading preferences are like, but you might like "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett. Google him and it to see what I'm talking about. And I agree with what you wrote,
I believe there are BILLIONS of people across time who believe they personally met their god. Unfortunately, their testimonies about their gods are inconsistent to the point of violence against each other; their testimony is not reliable. And since I have never met any god, I am left to doubt this unreliable testimony and to seek my own way. If there are god(s) out there, I am confident that god/those gods don’t care if I believe in them or not. If they exist and decide to care, they will let me know.
Aleta
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
I tried to give this OP a fair reading, and I think I have. The problem I have is in the claim that
But if we know of no process or set of processes whose likelihood or generating S exceeds Dembski’s Universal Probability Bound, then by default, we should opt for Intelligent Design as the most likely explanation.
As you say,
Of course, such an inference is provisional, insofar as it is based on what we currently know, but all science is like that.
How do we get from such a “provisional” inference to greater certainty? In science, the method is called “empiricism”. No provisional inference is ever left standing, they are treated with great caution until they can be tested; and then they are tested until they break or prove themselves. How do we test the inference you say should be “default” in these situations? You wrote that this provisional inference is a “rational one”
Even if we have absolutely no idea who the intelligent agent is or why the agent chose to generate S,...
How do we test an inference to an unknown (perhaps unknowable) designer? There really is no way I can see. And there are too many ways to inaccurately guesstimate the probabilities you predicate your inference on. I think that there has to be a better way, and there is. Given some phenomena S (even some specified complex system S) the first (and most natural) question needs to be asked: Could humans have made S? If ‘yes’ then a provisional inference of being artificial makes sense even if S is a radio signal from the stars. If ‘no’ then the next question needs to be asked: Do we know of an Agent (intelligent or not) capable of making S? If ‘yes’ then a provisional inference of being artificial still makes sense. If ‘no’ then a provisional inference of being natural makes the most sense. A provisional inference of being artificial makes no sense unless that inference is testable. If it is not, then the provisional inference must be that S is natural NOT because it is or is not more probable but because that inference is the only one that is TESTABLE. In science, the probability of a particular inference must take a back-seat to its testability. If we mistakenly infer natural causes for something that was artificial, the worst is that we’ll learn some new things on the way to discovering that we can’t explain S, and the best is that we figure out how the designer did it. Win-win. sean s.sean samis
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @76:
[KF:} Now, Peter D. Klein, in the Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, highlights: ...
This is philosophy and opinion. Klein’s words have no authority over me or anyone else. They prove only what Klein’s opinion is.
1 –> On the contrary, it was shown that the chaining structure of warrant leads to a regress.
A “finitely remote start-point” interrupts the infinite regression, which is the only regression we need worry about here. Finite regressions are not a problem.
2 –> In turn, this raises the issue of where/how it ends if ever, as a general issue necessarily relevant to any exercise of reasoned thought intended to warrant claims and ground knowledge.
This is mooted by the fact (referenced above) that we all know how to avoid infinite regress.
3 –> Which, patently, by direct implication holds for science, and becomes especially relevant in Kuhn’s times of paradigm crisis. Especially where worldview level ideologies such as evolutionary materialistic scientism are warping the course of scientific investigation.
The implication is overplayed, as is Kuhn’s paradigm crisis. Your concern about “evolutionary materialistic scientism” is a red herring.
4 –> So, the dismissiveness above is little more than a demand to propagate the status quo of ideologically warped science, which renders the objective of science to seek and warrant truth about our world, impotent.
I support letting scientists follow the evidence wherever it leads. You want to put tight bounds on them. We disagree. So be it.
5 –> In short, this response by SS is a symptom of the ideological captivity of science in our day.
In short, you and I disagree.
6 –> Au contraire, scientists routinely apply chains of warrant, which automatically entails the issue of the other end if any.
Yes they do employ “chains of warrant”, but not down to the roots of reality. Just down to the “next layer of the onion”.
8 –> In short, we see clear demonstration in an education policy context, of the ideological captivity of education in science to a priori evolutionary materialism, ...
Science is materialistic and naturalistic because that’s all science can work with. When you show us how to test and verify/falsify something outside of materialism or nature, you’ll get a Nobel Prize.
9 –> As this is an education context, ethics is also relevant so it is appropriate to note that this ideological worldview imposition and straight-jacket of evolutionary materialism is also inescapably amoral, ...
On other threads I have already shown how this is false.
10 –> Relevance has already been shown, ...
This is only relevant to the philosopher. The scientist is only looking at the next link in the chain of evidence (I totally borrowed that from Aleta.)
11 –> This simply ignored previous discussions on implications of ...
This simply ignored my comments in those previous discussions.
12 –> Of course the issue is to produce such empirical basis, or the matter is not science at all, just speculative cosmological philosophy that is highly mathematical, done while wearing a lab coat.
Speculation is essential to science, when you face a new unknown, you have to speculate on what the explanation might be so you can design a program to explore this unknown. The empirical basis of any theory must wait until speculation leads to an idea of what to test or observe.
14 –> Science is the empirically grounded open-ended investigation of our world, seeking to describe, explain, predict and influence or control phenomena. And, it starts with observations and patterns that seem to occur in those observations, not in speculation largely unconnected to empirical reality.
As before: speculation is essential to science, when you face a new unknown, you have to speculate on what the explanation MIGHT BE so you can design a program to explore this unknown.
16 –> Not after a generation.
There is no time limit on how long we get to take testing and verifying/falsifying a theory. Heliocentrism took almost 300 YEARS to prove. That’s about 15 GENERATIONS. There is no logical reason to set a dead-line.
18 –> The pivotal issue of logic, chains of warrant and the structure of worldviews and their context of comparative difficulties is dodged.
I have responded to this here and on other threads. You just don’t know how to reply to my arguments.
20 –> It is also well worth noting that hyperskeptically dismissive fallacy of confident manner skeptics such as SS typically fail to adequately reckon wit the inconvenient fact of millions of people across the world and the ages as well as today, who have personally met and been transformed by God.
I believe there are BILLIONS of people across time who believe they personally met their god. Unfortunately, their testimonies about their gods are inconsistent to the point of violence against each other; their testimony is not reliable. And since I have never met any god, I am left to doubt this unreliable testimony and to seek my own way. If there are god(s) out there, I am confident that god/those gods don’t care if I believe in them or not. If they exist and decide to care, they will let me know. sean s.sean samis
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu @74:
The law of identity does not apply to subjective issues.
Sure it does. “the painting is beautiful” is A. “the painting is ugly” is B. A = A B = B A =/= B
The logical validity of an opinion depends on...
This is a change of topic, the law of identity does not tell us about validity, only that something is itself. sean s.sean samis
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
@kairosfocus As far as I know you are saying that because we can see the word beauty therefore beauty is objective. I don't think that's an argument. It is granted that the word beauty is a created thing, and the word table, and an actual table, are created things as well. And all what is part of creation is objective, and the laws would apply, as I have already said, but that does not make any what is in the creator category objective. Subjectivity is radically different from objectivity, they are not together on a sliding scale of certainty, where fact is at the high end, and opinion at the low end. Facts are obtained by force, and opinions arrived at with freedom. Look at the plain logic about how choosing works. There are the alternatives, they are in the future. Or one could say there is the single possibility in the future. Then there is the decision, which means one of the alternatives becomes the present, or otherwise, the possibility becomes the present or not. That is the basic structure of decisionmaking. And from this structure the question naturally arises, what, or who, is it that made the decision turn out the way it did? How to answer that question?mohammadnursyamsu
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Hi mny: You write,
that both the conclusions ugly and beautiful are valid
Here's where I think the confusion is arising. The statement "The painting is beautiful (or ugly)" is not an example of the law of identity. The painting is equal to itself (P = P) is an example of A = A. Making a further statement about the painting, whether it be objective (the painting is square) or subjective (the painting is ugly) may be valid conclusions (objective or subjective), but they are not simple logical statements about the identity equivalence of the object with itself.Aleta
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT
MNY: Let's try:
{I|~I} + {f|~f} . . .
For starters. That is the very glyphs and sounds you use have distinct identities, and so LOI, LNC, LEM are already at work so soon as you hit the keyboard or begin to speak. In fact, long before that: {MNY|~MNY}. Necessarily true, pervasive self evident first principles of right reason are very hard to escape. In case that still is not enough, try to make an objecting comment without resorting to things that manifest a distinct identity. Including terms beauty and ugliness and perceptions as to what is one or the other. On which, I would suggest to you that here are in fact objective principles by which beauty or its absence can be rationally assessed. And for morality there is much the same. Knowledge, notoriously so. Such are not on trial, you are. KFkairosfocus
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
@kairosfocus If you can demonstrate that the logic of laws of identity is inherent in common discourse about subjective issues, then I have not seen that. Common discourse operates as I say it does, that both the conclusions ugly and beautiful are valid, if the conclusion is chosen. I have no doubt about it. It is a matter of fact issue, not a matter of opinion.mohammadnursyamsu
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
kf, my use of "infamous" was just being light-hearted - the proposition has certainly been the subject of quite a bit of emotion here, and I was making a bit of fun about that. Other than that, do you agree with my post at 78 that you and I are agreeing with each other?Aleta
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
Aleta, you are evading. I refer you to what is already on the table, and notice what infamous means:
AmHD: >>in·fa·mous (?n?f?-m?s) adj. 1. Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious: an infamous outlaw. 2. Causing or deserving severe public condemnation; heinous: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" (US Constitution, Amendment 5).>>
Terms of extreme distanciation are simply not appropriate to speaking of self-evident first principles of right reason. MNY, you are refusing to address what you must implicitly use just to comment. I have already addressed issues of axiological truth and its objectivity, both aesthetic and ethical. That is not in question, your behaviour about first principles of reasoning is, and the report card to date is not a happy one. KFkairosfocus
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
kf writes,
F/N: It seems we have now arrived at trying to put question marks against the law of identity, evidently not fully recognising that simply in order to think and communicate, we are forced to intuitively apply it
Uh, that's what I said also. I wrote,
So let me address the infamous law of logic A = A. In the world of logic, it is undoubtedly, and may I say, self-evidently, true. In respect to using that law in respect to the world (as opposed to just an axiom in logic as a formal system), it is a rule that we agree will always be considered true - a rule we agree to use whenever we set up any model of the world.
which agrees with what kf wrote. I also note that kf and I agree that something must have a distinct identity to apply. He wrote, "Where borders are fuzzy, that simply means clarity of where a distinct identity exists is required." I agreed with that, and pointed to some examples of where clarity might be required.Aleta
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
@kairosfocus (obviously) love, goodness, mass and velocity do not mix as all of the same general category, to which all the same rules apply. The law of identity being a case in point, it applies to the one category but not to the other. There are 2 fundamental categories, the creator and the creation, 2 ways of reaching a conclusion releveant to each domain, opinion and fact, that is creationism.mohammadnursyamsu
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT
F/N: Re SS at 3 above: >>[SS:] Regarding the OP: [KF:} Now, Peter D. Klein, in the Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, highlights:
The epistemic regress problem is considered the most crucial in the entire theory of knowledge and it is a major concern for many contemporary epistemologists. However, only two of the three alternative solutions have been developed in any detail, foundationalism and coherentism. Infinitism was not seriously considered as a solution because of the finite-mind objection. [article: “Contemporary Responses to Agrippa’s Trilemma,” OUP 2008.]
[SS:] The Grounding Problem (or the chain of warrants problem) might be important to some philosophers, but outside their Ivory Towers, this “problem” has little impact.>> 1 --> On the contrary, it was shown that the chaining structure of warrant leads to a regress. 2 --> In turn, this raises the issue of where/how it ends if ever, as a general issue necessarily relevant to any exercise of reasoned thought intended to warrant claims and ground knowledge. 3 --> Which, patently, by direct implication holds for science, and becomes especially relevant in Kuhn's times of paradigm crisis. Especially where worldview level ideologies such as evolutionary materialistic scientism are warping the course of scientific investigation. 4 --> So, the dismissiveness above is little more than a demand to propagate the status quo of ideologically warped science, which renders the objective of science to seek and warrant truth about our world, impotent. 5 --> In short, this response by SS is a symptom of the ideological captivity of science in our day. >> [KF:] Similarly, origins science is concerned with causal roots of or cosmos, our world, the world of life, and our own roots. [SS:] For professional scientists engaged in research in their chosen disciplines, this “chain of warrants” thing amounts to nearly nothing. It does not change how they do their work or how they teach their students.>> 6 --> Au contraire, scientists routinely apply chains of warrant, which automatically entails the issue of the other end if any. By simple logic, as long since seen. Thus the issue of infinite regress, or circularity or finitely remote first plausibles or first commitments, is material. (And, stopping short at well accepted results, is a short hand, and appeal to authority of the cumulative state of the art and cumulative observations as summarised thereby -- perhaps with some fresh addition in the case in view. All of which then points to how no authority is better than his or her facts and reasoning, i.e. the chain is still there unless there is a fallacy of appeal to modesty and blind trust in the face of august authority.) 7 --> Let me cite the US NSTA Board, 2000, on science education to see how this issue becomes highly relevant to the ideological captivity of education today:
The principal product of science is knowledge in the form of naturalistic concepts and the laws and theories related to those concepts . . . . Although no single universal step-by-step scientific method captures the complexity of doing science, a number of shared values and perspectives characterize a scientific approach to understanding nature. Among these are a demand for naturalistic explanations supported by empirical evidence that are, at least in principle, testable against the natural world. Other shared elements include observations, rational argument, inference, skepticism, peer review and replicability of work . . . . Science, by definition, is limited to naturalistic methods and explanations and, as such, is precluded from using supernatural elements in the production of scientific knowledge.
8 --> In short, we see clear demonstration in an education policy context, of the ideological captivity of education in science to a priori evolutionary materialism, which is both question begging directly, and it is also irretrievably self-falsifying by way of self-referential incoherence regarding the roots of mind. 9 --> As this is an education context, ethics is also relevant so it is appropriate to note that this ideological worldview imposition and straight-jacket of evolutionary materialism is also inescapably amoral, opening the door to nihilism and chaos, thence tyranny under the false front of restoring order. Arguably, this breakdown is already well in progress. >>Certainly, there must exist something that is eternal, something that’s always been there; something that is the embodiment of some first cause. This is not a new idea; scientists have reckoned with it since the beginning. At a philosophical level, this must be true. But for most scientists it is irrelevant; it does not affect what they are researching currently, and is unlikely to affect what they research in their entire lives.>> 10 --> Relevance has already been shown, this is just a case of saying, we like to keep our present worldview in its position of dominance over minds and institutions, by locking out serious reflection. >>Whatever this eternal, fundamental thing is, it need not be any “person”. It does not need any attributes of “mind”. It can be a mindless “thing” unaware of its self, its surroundings, or its behavior.>> 11 --> This simply ignored previous discussions on implications of this being a world in which we are there as morally governed beings, pointing to the issue of a world-root IS capable of grounding OUGHT. It also dismisses without serious consideration strong evidence pointing to design of the world of life (including ourselves) and of the fine tuned cosmos that supports such life. >> [KF:] There are many multiverse speculative models, but such lack definitive observational warrant. [SS:} Your comment is two words short of being true. The truth is that multiverse speculative models …lack definitive observational warrant SO FAR.>> 12 --> Of course the issue is to produce such empirical basis, or the matter is not science at all, just speculative cosmological philosophy that is highly mathematical, done while wearing a lab coat. 13 --> the need for empirical warrant for any significant scientific claims is patent, and here we are talking of a generation. >>Science is the discovery of what is not yet known. Theories properly go first: they speculate on what might be and then experiments test the properly speculative theory.>> 14 --> Science is the empirically grounded open-ended investigation of our world, seeking to describe, explain, predict and influence or control phenomena. And, it starts with observations and patterns that seem to occur in those observations, not in speculation largely unconnected to empirical reality. 15 --> We see here the smuggling in of un-announced philosphy dominated by evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat and presented as though it wee the same sort of thing as what we have seen for centuries. This is the decay of science. >> Multiverse theories are relatively new, that they are yet unverified is no big deal.>> 16 --> Not after a generation. >>And BTW, theistic speculative explanations lack definitive observational warrant AND PROBABLY ALWAYS WILL.>> 17 --> Well and atmosphere-poisoning subject switch and projection of empty talking points. 18 --> The pivotal issue of logic, chains of warrant and the structure of worldviews and their context of comparative difficulties is dodged. 19 --> As for the dismissiveness, I suggest the interested onlooker will find here on in context helpful: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu and also: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-1-biblical-foundations-of-and-core.html#u1_grnds 20 --> It is also well worth noting that hyperskeptically dismissive fallacy of confident manner skeptics such as SS typically fail to adequately reckon wit the inconvenient fact of millions of people across the world and the ages as well as today, who have personally met and been transformed by God. >>As a “finitely remote start-point” (to borrow the term from the OP) a multiverse theory is quite satisfactory.>> 21 --> It is a philosophical model, and as such it is indeed a case of a finitely remote start point, though in some cases we see the problem of infinite causal regress. >>The rest of the OP is essentially just elaboration in error, or futility.>> 22 --> More selectively hyperskeptical dismissiveness that dodges a key case in which Dawkins tried to re-assign a quantum foam model to being nothing in the proper sense, following the error of Krauss. 23 --> By their dismissiveness shall ye know them. _______________ Okay, more later when I can snatch some time. But one slice of the failed cake has in it all the ingredients. As DV we shall see. KFkairosfocus
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
MNY, Pardon but, just simply to speak or think meaningfully, the LOI is already at work, cf 73 above. And as 73 also outlines, LNC and LEM are actually integral facets or immediate corollaries, so that once something has a distinct identity, all three are necessarily present. And so long as you are thinking coherently, they are present. If you are not, they point to why your thoughts will collapse in confusion and meaninglessness. In other words these three laws of thought are self-evident criteria of simply being rational. I suggest you ponder the force of Paul's remarks to appreciate that. Then, think about a situation where communication in a community is compromised through spreading incoherence and confusion to see i/l/o Kant's Categorical Imperative that humbling oneself before these laws of thought is also a moral imperative if we are to do good by our neighbours. KFkairosfocus
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT
@Aleta The law of identity does not apply to subjective issues. Both the conclusions "the painting is beautiful", and "the painting is ugly", are valid conclusions. The logical validity of an opinion depends on that the conclusion is chosen, and that the conclusion refers to what makes a decision turn out the way it did. That means the opinion "the painting is beautiful", for it to be valid it must have been chosen from other options like that "the painting is ugly" or something. The beauty is a love of the way the painting looks. The love is what chose the word beauty. Chosen in expression of emotion with free will. That is the second criteria for valid opinions demonstrated. An opinion must refer to what makes a decision turn out the way it did. In this case "love" is referred to with the word "beautiful". That means the existence of the love is a matter of opinion, that is the root of how the beauty of the painting is an opinion. The conclusion that the love is real is just as valid as the conclusion that the love is not real, same as that the conclusion the painting is beautiful is equally valid to the conclusion the painting is ugly. Which means there is a general category of a spiritual domain, and all in this domain chooses which way the material domain turns out. The existence of all in the spiritual domain is a matter of opinion, and the existence of all in the material domain is a matter of fact.mohammadnursyamsu
September 10, 2015
September
09
Sep
10
10
2015
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
F/N: It seems we have now arrived at trying to put question marks against the law of identity, evidently not fully recognising that simply in order to think and communicate, we are forced to intuitively apply it on pain of absurdities of confusion. I find the Apostle Paul on this an absolute classic:
1 Cor 14: 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. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. 12 So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church. [ESV]
So, we can directly see how to question this law while using language is self-defeating. But, how does the law come to be? Take some distinct thing A (and if just one such distinct thing, e.g. the number 2 exists this applies . . . here, in all possible worlds) and recognise how that distinction partitions the world, W: W = {A | ~A} From this by inspection, the distinction dichotomises W, and A is itself, LOI. Likewise, the bar shows how A is not ~A and nothing x is such that x = A AND ~A, i.e. LNC. Thirdly, equally immediately, any x is such that x is in A or in ~ A but not both or neither; i.e. LEM. Where borders are fuzzy, that simply means clarity of where a distinct identity exists is required. Once such obtains, instantly LOI, LNC and LEM apply. Even, in a day where some wish to demand that to suit themselves we reckon the tail of a sheep the fifth leg. But, a tail simply hath not what it takes to be a leg and the exercise rapidly descends into folly and absurdity. The core three first principles of right reason are indeed self-evident and even just to write out or speak an objection implicitly relies on what it objects to. Still prelims, busy with urgent items coming in on the plate. Later, DV. KFkairosfocus
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
So let me address the infamous law of logic A = A. In the world of logic, it is undoubtedly, and may I say, self-evidently, true. In respect to using that law in respect to the world (as opposed to just an axiom in logic as a formal system), it is a rule that we agree will always be considered true - a rule we agree to use whenever we set up any model of the world. Note that the first thing this assumes is that there are things in the world distinct enough to stand out from the rest of the world so that we can clearly say "this is A." An obvious example is a stone, for instance. Other things are not so clearcut. Is a rainbow a thing? Is a photon a thing? Is an aspen forest in which many trees are part of the same underground root system one thing or many things? To even talk about A, these are questions we have to answer within our model. Things also change over time. An onion A is, from most practical points of view, the same as the onion one minute later, so A = A over that short amount of time. However, the onion has lost molecules during that minute (the smell of the onion), so at a more precise molecular level A now does not equal A a minute ago. Would we then say, "Aha, here is an example where A does not equal A"? No, we would say that the second onion is a new object B. We would adjust our model - we would not abandon the rule of logic because it is a part of our reasoning apparatus. So, in summary, A = A is an inviolable rule of reasoning, but as soon as we want to apply it to learning about the world we have to deal with questions about the model we are setting up: what does A actually represent in this particular case.Aleta
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
Sean writes,
When logic is “all we got” then we have nothing because logic is just a set of rules and a process for evaluating information. Logic in an information vacuum goes nowhere.
Yep. I'll repeat my main point of several posts. Logic, and math, are self-consistent, axiomatic formal systems that in and of themselves tell us nothing about the physical (or metaphysical) world. To apply content to such a system you have to set up a model where the abstract entities of the system (such as A or 2) correspond to to some aspect of the world that can be experienced. Then as you work out the logical consequences of the model you have to continually test your results against the model to see if they are correct. You may find at some point that the model doesn't work any more. Assuming you haven't made actual logical or mathematical mistakes, that means that there is something wrong about your model, so you start revising and then retesting. That is how we use logic and math as a tool to understand the world. That is also why we can't apply logic to purely metaphysical speculations (such as that God exists, and that there must be a first cause) - we have no way to gather the information to test the model. So I like Sean's line: "Logic in an information vacuum goes nowhere"Aleta
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT
OK, a little bit OT. I apologize, but it does relate to how we can know anything. It has to do with mathematics and the unity found in it that demands an explanation. For those interested in a bit heavy reading, here is a free on line book entitled: [Truth and the Transcendent] by Larry L. Zimmerman. The Origin, Nature, & Purpose of Mathematics" This thoroughly documented book is the result of Larry Zimmerman’s years of personal study on the question: “How do you know that God created mathematics?” This is what Zimmerman argues for in the book - giving God the credit for mathematics. He shows this is the only logical way to explain what we find in mathematics. It is listed as a semi-technical book, so not everyone will be interested or even able to keep up, but for those who are interested, go for it! https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/truth-transcendent/tjguy
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Box @50:
Sometimes logic is all we got.
When logic is “all we got” then we have nothing because logic is just a set of rules and a process for evaluating information. Logic in an information vacuum goes nowhere. No logic ever demands that we cannot can focus on what is in front of us until we know what is beneath it. Logic does not forbid the practical limits of what we can do. Like Aleta said @51:
It is not relevant to “demand understanding” if in fact we don’t have the tools to achieve it – that is, among other things, what leads to making up answers that really aren’t supportable.
sean s.sean samis
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
kairosfocus: @37
PPS: Is your onion of...
It’s a metaphor. You shouldn’t get hung up on it. @40
I have given a strictly logical analysis of chains of warrant and cause.
Even the most rigorous logic in explanation of an irrelevance is irrelevant. Your chains of warrant don’t matter much to scientists because they are divorced from the reality of what scientists are supposed to be doing. Your chains of warrant might be important to philosophers, but most of us are not philosophers, and most philosophers are not working scientific investigators. @41
...indeed the [fractal] images are based on truncations etc.
True enough, and yet even if truncated, these sets are useful. As Aleta is saying (I think) in comment #44. That is what scientific activity is about: usefulness. You are on about philosophy which is not relevant to what most humans do on a day-to-day basis. @45:
...you are now agreeing with one of my core points on regress of warrant, that we are finite and must stop and yet try to cast it against a distinct point on causal chains.
And if that’s where you stopped (as you should have) then we’d be in agreement. But you didn’t, so we’re not.
Finitely remote causal root is what we face, and that is enormously challenging.
This all may be very challenging—to philosophers. The rest of humanity can pretty much ignore this in their daily work; which includes practicing scientists. @60:
The issue of infinity has to be faced first, crawl before run.
For philosophers, perhaps. For the rest of us, the issue of infinity is just an inconsequential bauble. sean s.sean samis
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
If you were a policeman you would want a witness to know that the word "fact" means to make a copy. With that understanding the witness can focus to make an accurate 1 to 1 representation of what happened. That's simple and practical, and that's all science is essentially, just mindless copying from nature, and with mathematics exhaustive models can be made. The chains of warrant, it's some kind of more sophisticated idea, that is certainly not fundamental. It's also a good idea for the witness to understand that opinions are arrived at by choosing, which means you create the information yourself. So facts you copy the information, opinion you create the information yourself. And a policeman would mostly want the facts only, or at least he would want the facts neatly separated from the opinions as much as possible. Choosing is the mechanism of creation (he explained to the creationists)mohammadnursyamsu
September 9, 2015
September
09
Sep
9
09
2015
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply