Only Those Who Admit the Foundation of Argumentation Will Be Allowed To Argue at UD

Folks: I just breathed a sigh of relief. I am heartened by the discussion overnight, and the attitude of reasonableness that so plainly drives it. That is of course by way of highly specific contrast with the hoggish fever swamp mentality elsewhere, that we need not list. {And that is a theological term from the Sermon on the Mount, from Jesus' own lips.] I want to build on Null's observation above:

I don’t think ‘rejecting the LNC’ is something properly answered with “refutation”, since the LNC rather plays a fundamental role in refuting. To paraphrase a philosopher (naturalist, even) on another topic: the proper way to handle someone who rejects the LNC is not refutation, but therapy.

Indeed. I have now come to the conclusion, in light of my experience of 20 - 25 years ago as a "cult" exposer and life crash-and-burn "walk-away" helper, that the New Atheism movement has the marks of an unrecognised mind-bending nihilistic cult in our midst. So, our fundamental stance has to be therapeutic for victims, while guarding against inroads of the wolf-packs of nihilistic victimisers. That diagnosis undoubtedly sounds harsh, so let me explain a bit: 1 --> I long ago came to favour a modded form of Edgar Schein's framework for explaining the sort of change process involved in legitimate thought/attitude reform and the sort of mind-bending deceitful manipulation and exploitation that marks a destructive group or movement, a "cult" in the negative sociological sense. 2 --> Let's outline:

a: Edgar Schein's model, sees us as frozen in a sociocultural matrix of roles, attitudes, expectations, views etc. b: We are who we are, and our environment and relationships reinforce this, in many ways. Change is normally slow and radical change will meet with all sort of barriers. We are frozen, or even imprisoned. b: This may however be destabilised through unfreezing that intensely isolates us socially, emotionally, attitudinally, intellectually and/or physically from the former context, often creating what others speak of as cognitive dissonance. c: That opens up change. There is a subtle or blatant crisis were we do not fit in, and we feel pressure to change. We may even feel an urge within to change, and may desire to change. c: Change comes in by responding to what seems to work better in the new environment and/or imitating those ahead of you in the new way. d: It may remain external in locus, reinforced by social support and rewards or it may be internalised which is more stable long term. e: This then stabilises in a new role- attitude- message-behaviour etc frame that for whatever reason "works" better in the new setting. Refreezing. f: The key to brainwashing, as it is popularly called [there is no consensus on good terms, coerced manipulative thought and behaviour change is as close as I can get to a description that is going to fit into a nutshell), is NOT in this four phase process; that is a matter of basic human socio-psychological dynamics. g: The key distinction and danger are, that manipulation is UNETHICAL. It pivots on power games, deceit, violation of confidence, rape of person in the metaphorical sense, and sometimes all too literally. the victim is a target, not a person in his or her own right to be treated with respect and fairness, etc. h: The image I often have is the banana: plucked from its hand, peeled, sucked out of what was wanted, the husk tossed away and forgotten. That works with the sexual exploiters who try to rack up notches on their bed posts of girls they have seduced and tossed. It works with those who want cannon fodder for cultural-political movements, it works at the extreme with those who are making suicide bombers. And so forth. i: The trick is, this is closely parallel in phases and processes to genuine repentance and renewal of life. j: But, again, the key difference is ethical: the integrity or otherwise of the change process. k: Manipulation, intimidation, ducking key issues and questions, shunning or demonising those who ask relevant questions in reasonable ways or point out serious problems in similarly reasonable ways etc are big red flag issues.

(And don't even dare to try the turnabout "he hit back first" trick; too often what is presented as a "civil" challenge here at UD turns out to be a front for the most nastily uncivil bully boy behaviour as my comment inbox has testified for month after month. The turnabout trick is yet another red flag sign. Observe by contrast that when I thought we could potentially go off the rails here, I started from our own potential problems, THEN have now turned to dealing with the other side of the story. Cf 66 above.)

l: A note on what it takes for the therapy: if someone is deeply entangled, and has walked away because s/he has crashed and burned, it can take months to years to pull ones self and life back together. And, you are going to need counsellors and friends; hopefully, you have not totally alienated your family. m: But, if you see through the tactics that have exploited you and come to rethink and reorganise yourself on a sounder basis, that is a lot less painful, and a lot quicker, with much better long term prognosis. n: And, sis K, if you are monitoring, I have you in mind: from victim to valedictorian! My heartfelt congratulations again.

3 --> The new atheists -- on abundant evidence all over the Internet with certain fever swamp sites as chief exemplars and Youtube's comment flame wars as a demonstration of what happens without due regulation -- seek to exploit the name of science and to isolate those it pulls in from a civilisaiton that is Judaeo-Christian. They do so to get cannon fodder for their sociocultural agenda, which we can easily see from say Aiden's songs: they are viscerally, hatefully anti-Christian, and have all sorts of things that they want to do openly that a culture dominated by the Judaeo-Christian value system will not tolerate or promote. 4 --> So, they demonise and denigrate, in order to alienate and isolate, allowing the propaganda talking points and examples to be internalised. The same holds for the fever swamp sites on the web, that are indoctrination centres. 5 --> And the clouds of angry, talking point tanked up mosquitoes we see here and elsewhere, are carrying the agenda. 6 --> A worrying sign, is the sustained bestseller status of the sort of sophomoric village atheist talking point type books that have been pushed in recent years by leading spokesmen for the new atheists. 7 --> In that context the recent smear rather than stand up to discuss and debate game we saw from a leading NAM spokesman, is not only an example being followed by the tanked up mosquitoes, but a plain example of how the leadership know or should know better than they are speaking. 8 --> They know that they would publicly crash and burn -- with the video being there forever on Youtube -- if they had to stand up toe to toe with someone who knows their onions and is not afraid or unwilling to go toe to toe, so they have resorted to smears and atmosphere poisoning rather than serious and sober engagement on the merits. 9 --> But, the mass support of what we may summarise as the obsessed, brainwashed, polarised, talking point tanked up fever swamp mosquitoes allows the agendas to move forward, regardless of the demonstrable want of soundness behind it. (I know, I know, that sounds harsh, but simply wander over by the fever swamps to see what I mean.)

(Do you think that Nazism was ever a sound intellectual force? How then did it prevail in Germany, a leading centre of the mind in our civilisation? Let us think on that! Especially in light of Plato's grim warning from 2350 years ago on the dangers of nihilism and its factions.)

10 --> But, regardless, the truth is that the unsound cannot stand up toe to toe with the sound, it has to exploit ignorance, gaps in knowledge and our disinclination to the serious intellectual labour required to build or evaluate a worldview. 11 --> Sadly, it is ever so much easier to hang on to a movement, which does your thinking for you and backs you up! Especially, when it gives you ready made demonised scapegoats -- Aiden's blood-mongering vampire clergy image is iconic -- to blame for your ills and rages. 12 --> So, take a moment to think:

a: is this movement trying to tickle my itching ears with what it thinks I want to hear? b: Is it pandering to my prejudices, stereotypes and scapegoats? c: Or is it calling me to the hard path of duty to the truth I know or should know and the right that I know or should know that I ought to do? d: Is it willing to go all the way back tot he foundations of worldviews, and address first principles of right reason and the way reason and belief are intertwined inextricably in the roots of all worldviews, so we must move forward on comparative difficulties? e: is it calling for reasonable, open minded, critically aware faith, or is it pretending to be the sole authority that we should adhere to, "the only begetter of truth" and demanding blind adherence while demonising or belittling all who would differ or even question? (Are you shunned and shamed if you ask serious questions?) f: is it subtly or blatantly inviting me to blind adherence to some new magisterium or other, to hew to a partyline and follow the up-front hero-worshipped messianistic leaders without due regard to the human challenge: we are finite, fallible, morally fallen/struggling and too often ill-willed? g: Does it cruelly ridicule, demonise, stereotype and scapegoat those who differ, using red herrings led out to strawman cariactures soaked in ad hominems that are then ignited through snidely or blatantly incendiary rhetoric, the better to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere? h: does it subtly or blatantly send the message that "we" have cornered the market on the truth [thanks for that phrase, AT], or does it have a broad minded view that receives and respects truth in light of the long history of ideas and the record of history seen as a test on the ground that reveals the challenges innate in ever so many glitteringly attractive ideas and movements? i: is it willing to acknowledge that we are under moral government of an objective principle that we can discern if we are willing and are open to look and think? in short, does it recognise the inherent right of the moral law of human nature? does it recognise the fundamental human moral hazard of finitude, fallibility, fallenness and ill will? Does it face specific moral hazards in its system of thought? does it try to govern itself in a way that uses checks, balances and mutual accountability that allows to detect and correct error? is loyalty two-way or is it only ever up? what about respect? j: is it then willing to address say Hume's guillotine, the legitimate part: that unless there is a foundational IS in the worldview that can ground OUGHT objectively, then ought cannot ever be grounded objectively, reducing to the moral hazard that might and manipulation makes 'right'? k: Is it willing to face the implications of the need for clarity and distinction in thought? l: That is, that at minimum, the following four classic first principles of right reason apply, not only when it is convenient but when it is most decidedly NOT convenient:

[i] A thing, A, is what it is (the law of identity) -- assuming its existence is of course possible; [ii] A thing, A, cannot at once be and not-be (the law of non-contradiction); [iii] A thing, A, is or it is not, but not both or neither (the law of the excluded middle). [iv] "to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true." (the Aristotle/Plato core definition of what truth is: accurate assertion as compared with reality) [v] "Of everything that is, it can be found why it is." (That is, Schopenhaour's from of the principle of sufficient reason) [vi] By direct application of v: "if something has a beginning or may cease from being -- i.e. it is contingent -- it has a cause." (the principle of causality, and by extension, the implication that there may be beings that are non-contingent and are uncaused, starting with say the truth in a proposition like 2 + 3 = 5, which always was, always will be, and cannot cease from being.)

++++++++++++++ The six first principles of right reason just laid out are self-evidently true, and are in fact mutually reinforcing. That is, in light of our experience of reality as minded intelligences, we can understand them, and relate them intelligibly to our world. When we do so, we see they are true, and MUST be true, on pain of immediate and patent absurdity. So, if we play fast and loose with them, we find ourselves in absurd inconsistencies. Like, the man who claims that quantum mechanics dismisses LNC, while laying out his case in a fashion that radically depends on the LNC, e.g. in how he uses the symbols and relationships in his mathematical expressions, and how he has to operate to set up, observe record and evaluate the empirical evidence he sees. Similarly, the man who would appeal to relativity to relativise knowledge runs into the postulate that in an inertial frame, the speed of light in vacuo will take the same well known value, c. But, we live in an era of mass confusion. So, many are in desperate need of help. (Sadly, as any helpers will tell you, many who most need help are the same who most stoutly resist it. their addictions are turned into their identities and that which helps is seen as a threat.) I therefore suggest that we must distinguish between the enmeshed, who need counsel and help if they are willing, and those who are simply tanked up fever swamp mosquitoes aiming to drown out and denigrate the message that would give help. So, I would caution that a rule like the proposed should only be used in dealing with the specifically and persistently disruptive and evasive who enable the disruptive and the side trackers. It should not be used as a litmus test, with the executioner standing by and testing the edge of his axe, but instead as one of a cluster of tests of being disruptive, uncivil and threadjacking. A three strikes and you are out test may be helpful on this. I also think that mandatory sentences are not very helpful, there may be a way to be reasonable, to caution and call back, to expose and only to remove the persistent repeat offenders. I hope I have been helpful. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus

February 16, 2012

February

02

Feb

16

16

2012

04:41 AM

4

04

41

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Lastyearon says: Why ask whether the moon can both exist and not exist. Why not just ask, “Are you on our side or their side.” Clearly, all critics of ID are: fools or charlatans / refuse to argue in good faith / brainwashed / mentally incompetent / a troll / they spew.. noxious inanities / arguing with them is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. And since, there’s no point in dialogue, they’ve all been banned." What is the purpose of the question about the moon then? I don’t understand. OK, with comments like this, I'm beginning to agree with Barry on this. If you intend to say that all Darwinists believe that the moon can both exist and not exist at the same time, well then yes, the us against them approach would work, but even I have more faith in most Darwinists than to think they all believe such an obvious falsehood. I don't think that even Rhampton who got banned believes this.tjguy

February 16, 2012

February

02

Feb

16

16

2012

02:57 AM

2

02

57

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Brent, I’m saying we should be willing and able to show where thinking leads to non-conformity to the LNC. Alright. I thought you were saying that people who flat out reject the LNC (whether knowingly in the course of an argument, or before any argument begins) should be reasoned with. Someone who accepts the LNC universally, but who holds a position that may (unknown to them at the time) violate it is a different matter.nullasalus

February 16, 2012

February

02

Feb

16

16

2012

02:30 AM

2

02

30

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

nullasalus, Well, as usual, Stephen says it better. I think we are talking past each other a little, however. I'm not saying that we should discuss any further with someone who outright denies the LNC. I'm saying we should be willing and able to show where thinking leads to non-conformity to the LNC. I guess it's my fault for letting us get to this point, but, no, I don't think there is any further need to discuss anything with someone who flat rejects the LNC once his/her position has been shown to lead to a denial of it. I'm speaking of showing how one's position leads to inescapable collision with the LNC and, as Stephen said, the rules of right reason.Brent

February 16, 2012

February

02

Feb

16

16

2012

12:50 AM

12

12

50

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I have found that, at the core, the vast majority of our critics’ errors stem from their failure to respect the rules of right reason, primarily the law of causality and secondarily, the law of non-contradiction. (I know, here we go again). The problem is always there for those who can penetrate what is being said. What appears to be a conflict about the evidence does, more often than not, turn out to be a fundamental disagreement about what is ultimately possible from a metaphysical standpoint. If we grant our adversaries’ assumption that effects can occur without causes, they win; if they grant our assumption that every effect requires a cause, we win. Either way, it is no contest. Usually, though not always, the evidence is just a plaything waiting to be shaped by the world view. Larry Krauss, for example, dares to argue for A Universe From Nothing because feels free to exempt himself from the law of causality; Robert Spitzer, on the other hand, can provide “New Evidence For The Existence Of God” because he is confident about the existence of that same law. In other words, Krauss projects his irrationality onto the evidence, and the evidence goes crazy; Spitzer projects his rationality onto the evidence, and the evidence illuminates our minds. In parallel fashion, I dared to argue last week that a contingent universe requires a first/causeless cause because that conclusion is the inevitable outcome of honoring the Laws of Non-Contradiction and causality. At the same time, my adversary argued against the first/causeless cause because he felt bound by neither principle. For my part, a physical law is a physical law and can be nothing else. For him, a physical law can be what it is and also be something else. Reasoning from his assumption, no first cause is needed—never mind that reason has already been abandoned. In biology, we find the same kind of conflict. One group recognizes causality (mind from mind, life from life) and the other denies causality (mind from matter, life from non-life). One group interprets evidence reasonably; the other doesn’t. Assumptions are everywhere. If we grant uniformitarianism, the universe is old and common descent is inescapable; if we abandon uniformitarianism, the earth may well be young and common descent becomes problematic. If we accept reason’s principles, we get a universe; if we deny reason’s principles, we get a multiverse. Just look at the conflicting roots in the word [multi (many) uni (one). And so it goes. My point is that our main challenge is anti-intellectualism and I think we need to enter the arena with that perspective.StephenB

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

11:55 PM

11

11

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CY, My concern is that we (or rather the moderators) keep the discussions lively and interesting (as Dr. Dembski would say, “not boring”), while maintaining some control as to where it leads, rather than allow the game players to dictate where it leads. Oh, absolutely. Luckily, I think we're actually good on that front. I'd say lively, interesting and respectful. Really, the nice thing about the LNC sweep is that it also caught up the 'pathetic and/or obsessed' nutters in the process. No surprise there - and it does make room for new conversations. There's such a thing as conversation dominance, where some people just determine how a thread will go because they talk s'damn much about the same old things. At least now, we won't have to deal with LNC denials. (And really, it's surprising how often I see them. I think StephenB and KF, for a long while, could more often than not be found pointing out the necessity of the LNC or ex nihilo, nihil fit.) Either way, we can wait and see. It's not like Barry couldn't reverse the policy if he disliked it in say.. a couple months. Who knows, maybe the critics will relent en masse. "We're sorry for rejecting the LNC. We were stupid and irrational. May we please comment on UD now? Sincerely, the cesspool denizens." Don't rule it out. Most of the guys swooped in the LNC ban actually need this place, psychologically. Brent, I’m not entirely against your position of letting the FAQ do the main, if not all of, the work on this front. But again, I still think there is some benefit for those who can sharpen there skills at refuting illogical positions, as well as to others who are not likely to peruse the FAQ. Man, were this any other topic, I'd say there's a point there. But I don't think 'rejecting the LNC' is something properly answered with "refutation", since the LNC rather plays a fundamental role in refuting. To paraphrase a philosopher (naturalist, even) on another topic: the proper way to handle someone who rejects the LNC is not refutation, but therapy.nullasalus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

11:43 PM

11

11

43

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

That said, I’m not as sure as you. “Every single highly respected naturalist, materialist, Darwinist author” rejects the LNC? I’m not a fan of naturalists or materialists – Darwinists, meh. Depends what we’re talking about. But I’ve got to say, denying the LNC isn’t exactly in vogue from what I’ve seen. Certainly not so expressly. Yes, you can find some academics denying the LNC. You can find some academic doing just about anything.

No, certainly not expressly do they deny the LNC. But, practically, to defend their positions, they have to at some point or other propose hypotheses, theories, models, or make arguments that rely on fundamentally irrational and contradictory propositions.

Really, I think if a sizable number of materialists thought materialism required denying the LNC, they’d ditch the materialism.

Right. They may not think it does, which is why it needs to be pointed out, which . . .

Anyway, if that’s really your view – if you think the LNC has to be defended – then I suggest that treating dissent as reasonable on the subject is a bad idea. Better to just confront them, expose their views, and be done with them. The first step in getting people to adhere to a standard is to make sure you actually have one and act accordingly.

. . . brings me to my final point. It's certainly not that I think the LNC needs to be defended. Heavens, no! It's that it needs, apparently, to be explained to some people, as you seem to imply by saying that materialists don't know that materialism leads to worldview contradictions. Some need it explained, and most need it pressed upon them very hard, so they can see how and where their position fails to be coherent. I'm not entirely against your position of letting the FAQ do the main, if not all of, the work on this front. But again, I still think there is some benefit for those who can sharpen there skills at refuting illogical positions, as well as to others who are not likely to peruse the FAQ.Brent

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

11:28 PM

11

11

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

“I was banned from Uncommon Descent! They said I was irrational!” ‘Those fools. What did you do?’ “I rejected the Law of Noncontradiction!” That IS funny!!!CannuckianYankee

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

11:19 PM

11

11

19

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Null, Good thoughts. Especially this: "criticisms are important. Individual critics? Not so much." I believe there's been a practice on certain anti-ID sites of actually selecting one particular person to be the official sock puppet here as a game of recon and eventual infiltration. Once that person is viewed as having some reasonable successes, the rest of them start pouring in. That's their game. So yeah, I can definitely see it from your perspective. My concern is that we (or rather the moderators) keep the discussions lively and interesting (as Dr. Dembski would say, "not boring"), while maintaining some control as to where it leads, rather than allow the game players to dictate where it leads. I think we're not the only ones here who tire of having to repeat the same rebuttals endlessly; and for others like me, just find ourselves in need of an extended break. There will of course be other critics coming here for the unforeseeable future.CannuckianYankee

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

11:10 PM

11

11

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Brent, What I think may also work is for there to be a self-policing system whereby another member may nudge someone who is arguing with a recurring irrational poster, letting him/her know that the “offender” has already had the basics explained to them ad nauseum. Hopefully, the perennial offender eventually starts to feel they are posting into a vacuum with no one responding to them. I'll say what I said with CY: show me any blog (that wasn't basically a dead site) where this kind of thing has worked. "Just ignore them" never does, in part because people take (or think others take) silence to imply defeat. It's a nice ideal, but it's absolutely not practical. Any plan that requires many people on the internet, especially ones discussing controversial topics they think are important, to shut up and behave of their own accord isn't a very good plan. If, however, this is where the battle really lies, what choice do we have but to fight on that ground? Really, is it any different in academia? I think we may have a false notion that this takes place on UD because of a, more or less, open member policy. But it is just not the case. These very same LNC denying ideas fill every single book from every single highly respected naturalist, materialist, Darwinist author. Like I've said, I have no problem with a permanent explanation being added to the FAQ - certainly not with mods posting on the subject now and then. But the sad fact is, when it comes to the LNC, there's not that much to talk about. It's not a matter of "okay, let the pro-LNC people go find evidence and arguments for the LNC, and let the anti-LNC people go and find evidence and arguments against it, and..." It underlies reasoning, period. To act otherwise is to encourage the problem by way of making it seem as if this is something people can "agree to disagree about". That said, I'm not as sure as you. "Every single highly respected naturalist, materialist, Darwinist author" rejects the LNC? I'm not a fan of naturalists or materialists - Darwinists, meh. Depends what we're talking about. But I've got to say, denying the LNC isn't exactly in vogue from what I've seen. Certainly not so expressly. Yes, you can find some academics denying the LNC. You can find some academic doing just about anything. Really, I think if a sizable number of materialists thought materialism required denying the LNC, they'd ditch the materialism. Anyway, if that's really your view - if you think the LNC has to be defended - then I suggest that treating dissent as reasonable on the subject is a bad idea. Better to just confront them, expose their views, and be done with them. The first step in getting people to adhere to a standard is to make sure you actually have one and act accordingly.nullasalus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

10:59 PM

10

10

59

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Isn’t it, clearly, because they are what really, actually, lie at the heart of the dispute?

Partially. One denies the Law of the Excluded Middle to impeach your opponents argument inappropriately because you see that it will lead to a refutation. One denies the Law of non-Contradiction to inappropriately impeach a refutation your opponent has already completed. So, in a sense, it is at the heart of every dispute since it is precisely those ways in which to claim you were never disputed. Some people do this automagically by default of being human. Others use it for studied purpose; lawyers particularly. Shakespeare had some advice about what to do with them and Barry seems to have taken the Bard up on that.Maus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

10:57 PM

10

10

57

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

CY, Allow them to post, but whenever they mention (as in insisting on steering away from the subject at hand) something that has been clearly addressed by the FAQ, a moderator simply places a bold rejoinder at the bottom of each offending post with a link to the corresponding FAQ. If we see a rejoinder, we simply do not respond. The issue has been adequately addressed. And then come the claims that what they said didn't technically violate the FAQ, or they disagree with the FAQ, and we're back where we were - discussing discussing it. Repeatedly. Not to mention, who's "we"? All the people who comment and disagree? It would be like herding cats, and time spent doing this is time not spent actually having reasonable conversations or writing up posts. You mention 'critics becoming accustomed to what is of interest and what is not'. I've never seen a blog where critics cared much about that anyway - or even, for that matter, non-critics - without this kind of moderator enforcement. And I'd love to see any site where "just ignore them" worked as a moderating method, and which wasn't basically a dead blog anyway. I think one thing's being overlooked here: criticisms are important. Individual critics? Not so much. It's not like there's some lack of ID criticisms out there - one day of googling around for various objections to ID would give the pro-ID sorts on this site a wealth of content. We can either ban them all, or decide to take back some control, while still allowing some alternative POVs. After all, they will find some way of coming back here, given their ever changing sock puppet history. That's a good point, but it's a point in favor of banning. The sock puppets will always come, but puppets have a habit of trying to avoid ban rules lest it become too much of a hassle. I recall people on UD being banned in the past for anti-semitic remarks. Granted, that means we're losing the input from anti-semite commenters, and maybe - apart from their anti-semitism - they have something valuable to say. Does that mean we should relax that rule for the Greater Good? It doesn't seem persuasive for that case. And it doesn't seem persuasive for the LNC situation. Another thing that might help is to have a free-for-all thread where they can spew what they want within reason – similar to what EL does on her blog. Objectionable posts are simply moved to the FFA thread. Why? I mean, what's the value? Making it so UD supplies a place for everyone to talk about whatever they want, for as long as they want, whenever they want? Because that makes some people happy? There's already a place for that: 'most of the internet.' People can, if they really want to, do that in the comments section of any youtube video for literally years. The critics believe the decision will be the death blow to UD. Somehow I doubt that. According to the same critics, UD has always eliminated critics immediately (and not just ones who deny basic laws of reasoning). Keep in mind the problem here isn't "critics", full stop. It would be silly to think that the critics of ID are somehow united in their disavowal of the Law of Non-Contradiction. What actually happened was, in this case, quite a lot of 'critics' were hailing from a singular cesspool on the internet, loaded up with people who take all this very personally and who generally have each other's backs. They tend to think in unison, so when one of them denied the LNC, they all did. Incidentally, don't you find it funny that the critics who detest ID - and UD - would insist this move will somehow kill UD, and that that's why they oppose it? I think the evidence points more towards "some critics spend an abnormal amount of time and energy on UD. Without it, their lives are a little more empty." Sad, but so it seems. Anyway, just a note that I don't set policy around here - I'm more in the 'tolerated' category. But personally, I love the rule. And there's something hilarious about it. Just think of how this would be explained by the critics complaining. "I was banned from Uncommon Descent! They said I was irrational!" 'Those fools. What did you do?' "I rejected the Law of Noncontradiction!"nullasalus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

10:44 PM

10

10

44

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

nullasalus, I understand your points. I have often gotten into the sorts of basic foundational arguments that stem from a practical, if not theoretical, rejection of reason and rationality. But, I've survived. I've let it go, again, and again, and again. But I think I have come to see others' points more clearly every time, and am more and more able to whittle them down to an obviously irrational position. But, it's my choice. I can, and do, do it sometimes. Other times I don't. I had engaged Elizabeth a couple of times over the past several weeks, and then just let it go, only to pick up the same theme on another of her posts. It's up to me, and others, whether we entertain them or not. But if we do, there are people who can learn. What I think may also work is for there to be a self-policing system whereby another member may nudge someone who is arguing with a recurring irrational poster, letting him/her know that the "offender" has already had the basics explained to them ad nauseum. Hopefully, the perennial offender eventually starts to feel they are posting into a vacuum with no one responding to them. Perhaps, even, the egregious offenders could be confronted, not unlike Barry has done recently with certain people, to take them to task in a way that they are exposed to all or most other commenters. If they then refuse to admit to fundamental logic, then either ban them, or suggest that the rest of the community, when the offender slips into his/her irrational argumentation, simply reply with a link back to the thread where they were exposed. I don't know. There certainly is such a thing as wasting time, but we should carefully evaluate what may constitute such. It's not that I feel sorry for egregious offenders being banned; they themselves probably deserve it. But there may yet be some benefit from a different, more liberal, approach. As the new policy stands, I think it may be a little short-sited and too heavy handed. I'm now starting to think, however, that perhaps we are fooling ourselves. Why, for example, do discussions so often devolve into such basic discussions such as the grounding of morals, or the LNC? Isn't it, clearly, because they are what really, actually, lie at the heart of the dispute? I think it is obviously the case, and when "cleverer" posters couch their illogic in peer reviewed studies and quantum physics and mind boggling (at least to me) equations, they need to be, and are, called out by those who can see through the fog. If, however, this is where the battle really lies, what choice do we have but to fight on that ground? Really, is it any different in academia? I think we may have a false notion that this takes place on UD because of a, more or less, open member policy. But it is just not the case. These very same LNC denying ideas fill every single book from every single highly respected naturalist, materialist, Darwinist author. We're not dealing with the exception here on UD, it's the rule.Brent

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

10:42 PM

10

10

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Null, How about another solution: Allow them to post, but whenever they mention (as in insisting on steering away from the subject at hand) something that has been clearly addressed by the FAQ, a moderator simply places a bold rejoinder at the bottom of each offending post with a link to the corresponding FAQ. If we see a rejoinder, we simply do not respond. The issue has been adequately addressed. It sounds time consuming for the moderator, but I think the practice will become rare as the critics become accustomed to what is of interest and what is not. I think we need to admit that much of the discussion on this blog has been driven and controlled by outside forces with particular agendas based not on a desire for understanding, but for entertainment and discussions elsewhere (TIOID, anti-evo, TSZ, etc.); which is part of the reason why I have been absent (from posting) for several months. It becomes rather tedious. We can either ban them all, or decide to take back some control, while still allowing some alternative POVs. After all, they will find some way of coming back here, given their ever changing sock puppet history. Another thing that might help is to have a free-for-all thread where they can spew what they want within reason - similar to what EL does on her blog. Objectionable posts are simply moved to the FFA thread. That way, if they continue to discuss what has already been met with a rejoinder, their posts are moved to FAA, and we can get on with the important discussion. Also, someone who doesn't mind addressing the FAA (let's call it "the pit of hell") can go there and address whatever nonsense shows up. Yeah, there's more than one way to skin a cat. I understand Barry's reasoning and intention though. The critics believe the decision will be the death blow to UD. Somehow I doubt that.CannuckianYankee

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

10:13 PM

10

10

13

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Even if they were, however, it may (in fact, I’m sure it would) be more beneficial to allow them to post, if for no other reason than to sharpen the skills of more rational minds in dealing with such. But how many times is it really necessary to have the argument? You seem to be saying that by allowing people who reject laws of basic logic and reason to post, that those arguing against them will enlighten yourselves and others. Alright - but that sounds less like a reason to allow such commenters, and more like a request to A) add a detailed, permanent post explaining why the rule is in place, and B) now and then revisit the issue as a reminder - say, calling out the example when it's seen in the news or otherwise. Both can be done while maintaining the ban. I don't comment here very much lately - my presence is on and off - but frankly, I've seen kf and StephenB and others have this same argument, over and over and over. People who reject fundamental axioms of reasoning gets old. It's a perpetual derail, and frankly, it serves as a sign that no further discussion can be had with some people. What's worse, by having to revisit this topic over and over again, other topics don't get addressed. Everyone here only has so much time in the day. (Some of the people banned, on the other hand, seem to have all the time in the world.) You can only discuss so many things in a given amount of time - there are better topics. Anyway, I agree with the heart of your point: while these critics may be irrational, the mistake they are making deserves to be addressed since it comes up often on these conversations. So even if these posters remained banned, the least we can do is have the reason made crystal clear. StephenB and company, have you considered adding this rule and an explanation to the FAQ?nullasalus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

08:21 PM

8

08

21

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Avicenna: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned." Sophist: "It is possible that I could be between strikes when you ask, or that the flame may not be yet lit, or could already be extinguished. Indeed, as should as a modal term that modifies the clause following it then it is possible that I am both beaten in one possible world and not beaten in another possible world as deontological consequence of the the governmental authority it that possible world. Therefore I am burned and not burned depending on which of the infinite multiverses we are in. But in speaking of all of them as a set it cannot be said that I am anything or not." Barry: "Then it is the case that you are banned and not banned at the same time and in the same respect." I applaud this move in general even if I think it's going to be a bit harsh absence a pattern of willful mendacity on the part of any given poster. It is an unfortunate affair that modern Philosophy serves to teach people to unthink rather than to discern, argue, and ask questions. And this is so pervasive in culture that you can see some people in this thread trying to sort it all out. Being completely oblivious to these questions having been answered nearly a half-millenia before the birth of the Christian religion. Some notes for the curious: 1. There is a difference between contradictories and contraries. Contradictories are mutually exclusive by definition, general contraries are not. 2. Different times, manners, means, causes, are all different aspects or respects and are not an argument against the LNC, they are a misunderstanding of it. 3. The Law of Identity is reciprocal with both of the Law of the Excluded Middle and the LNC. If either of the LEM or the LNC are violated with a thing in respect to itself then the LoI is violated. And if we countenance that everything is equal to everything accept itself then you countenance that I am Charles Darwin, the Creator god, and have constructed a reality in which the LoI holds. Have a nice day. 4. Counterintuitive notions are called Veridical Paradoxes. All other paradoxes, classic paradoxes, are a use of the violation of the LNC as a refutation. A paradox is simply a refutation that appears absent the argument behind the premises that leads to the contradiction. Denying the LNC denies refutation and by it denies learning, wisdom, knowledge. If you disagree then refute me by failing to refute me. 5. The Stanford page on Philosophy is a Sophist playground of Dialtheic notions. To the extent that Graham Pierce and the 'true falses' crew of dialetheism have a point, that point only exists as to the flaws of 'classical' logic. All of their examples of violations of the LNC that they use to support their point are all addressed by Aristotle as formal errors while they are similarly upheld by the modern 'classical' logic. Do not lose sight of this context if you choose to swim in Stanford's epistemic swamp. PS: For the formalism: No. Obviously the moon exists or does not, but not both or neither.Maus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

08:10 PM

8

08

10

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

kairosfocus @66, That is nearly a tear-jerking post. I had just logged on this noontime to post my opinion on this policy after thinking it over a little last night. I decided to catch up and found your post very relevant to my take. I can sympathize with Barry and the few others who would rather not be troubled with the posters who cannot assent to the LNC. Much time has been wasted in discussions with such. But, not all who struggle to accept the LNC in any meaningful and practical way are necessarily of the nefarious type. Even if they were, however, it may (in fact, I'm sure it would) be more beneficial to allow them to post, if for no other reason than to sharpen the skills of more rational minds in dealing with such. I, for instance, never would have heard of the arguments posted by ES and others, nor would I soon be able to, by my own research, understand with enough clarity to refute those arguments if not for those like you, KF, who have now been forced to take the time to do so, if this policy had been enforced earlier. So, this new policy will keep those like myself less enlightened, as well as keep those who are open minded enough from moving toward a more rational ground and worldview. And there are always those "lost souls" we forget about, the lurkers who are, perhaps, the most in need of the types of discussions that would follow from a more open policy toward those with, admittedly, wildly irrational worldviews. I hope we all can face it; without much of the "time-wasting" discussions with those with unreasonable foundational ideas, we would be less able to articulate to them or others where their flaws are, or how they can come to understand and have a true, solid foundation. This new policy may not be analogous to cutting off our own noses to spite our own faces, but it is cutting off our noses nonetheless, and still not for very good (or good enough) reasons.Brent

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

07:54 PM

7

07

54

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Thanks for spotting the typo DLHBarry Arrington

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

07:42 PM

7

07

42

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Barry Arrington Re: "I’m simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can argue in good faith if you deny the LNC." Am I reading you right or is this a typo? That sounds like you support that one can deny LNC and CAN argue in good faith.DLH

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

07:34 PM

7

07

34

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bruce, on rereading my comments and absorbing the wisdom of a colleague, I find that I have likely jumped to conclusions about your intentions. So, please accept my sincere apology. You deserved better and I will do better. As a penance, let me provide an example of the importance of the LNC that you asked about. Recently, in an extended discussion on the philosophy of religion (not ID science) I had argued that, ultimately, a contingent universe requires a first/causeless cause. In spite of atheistic illusions, a “law” cannot create a universe because a law, by definition, cannot do anything other than what it does. The law of gravity, for example, cannot put off its regularity hat and put on its flexibility hat in order to create something because gravity does not have a flexibility hat to put on. If it did, it wouldn’t be a law. A law either describes (or entails) regularity or it doesn’t. According to the law of non-contradiction, a law cannot entail regularity and not entail regularity. It matters not whether we are speaking about our descriptions of the regularity or the regularity itself. In response, a critic argued that my definitions are only my definitions-- the laws of thought, one gathers, are simply my “intuitions,”--nature doesn’t care a whit about the law of non-contradiction”—although the law is still valid--except that it has no “magical powers.” To add to the confusion, he substituted the word “nature” for the word “law,” insisting that I may not put “nature in a box” or declare what nature can or cannot do from my “dogmatic perspective.” In his judgment, there could be nothing to prevent a physical law of the universe from functioning as a non-law, and he didn’t mind investing over a thousand words of remarkably well-crafted, subjectively tinged prose, to make the [argument???]. As he continued his “I’m-personally-committed-to-LNC- BUT” gambit, coupled with his “the map is not the territory” tactic, I finally decided to pull him away from his postmodernist interpretation, asking him if, in fact, Jupiter can exist and not exist at the same time. One cannot take cover in the subjective realm of generalities while addressing that specific question about objective reality, especially one that calls for a “yes or no.” He refused to answer, confirming the fact that he did not accept any realistic application of the LNC. It was not an unusual event. I hope I have answered your question from my perspective and I would like to begin anew by offering you the right kind of welcome absent any of the previous sarcasm. I hope that you accept my overture and join in the discussion.StephenB

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

05:30 PM

5

05

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, Frankly I'm a little creeped out at your difficulty in recognizing simple observations for what they are. You have it in your head that I'm trying to foment some kind of unrest here, but if my few posts thus far are what did it, I think you need to take a pill.Bruce Partington

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

04:58 PM

4

04

58

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

--Bruce: "I said that *some* ID supporters here, and there are only a few that I’ve seen, struggle with logic and consistency, so the issue doesn’t seem to be exclusive to the anti-ID crowd. Just an observation, nothing more." Bruce, I think I've got it. You disdain double standards, yet you feel that we should compare [a] lapses in logic that come from members of the ID camp with [b] attacks on the foundations of logic that come from the anti-ID campStephenB

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

04:14 PM

4

04

14

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Judging from the posts, in addition to some training on what the LNC is and is not, it looks like we could use some training on the difference between a contradiction and a paradox.SteveGoss

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

03:55 PM

3

03

55

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Stephen: Pardon my breaking in, but I think I need to put something on record. A PLEA . . . As you know, I hold that -- even in the face of a quantum world, the law of non-contradiction is self-evident. In light of our experience of the world, once we understand what it claims, we see it is true and must be so on pain of patent absurdity. It is possible to reject or dismiss LNC, but it is not possible to operate in a sensible way in the world by ignoring it, and picking and choosing where to follow and where to ignore to one's convenience is its own refutation by self-referential incoherence. Try asking yourself whether the dosage and prescription for a serious drug can be handled in as fast and loose a fashion as some seem to desire at will when it is convenient. That is a far more relevant example than whether the moon can be and not be in the same sense at the same time, under the same formal circumstances, and BTW that is why the different perceptions of the Inuit and the Panamanian on an 85 degrees F day, are not a good counterexample. I can go one better with the physics demo of having an ice cold beaker of water, a lukewarm one and a hot one next to each other. Put one hand each in hot and cold for a few moments, then plunge into the middle one. One had will fell hot, the other cold. The senses of the words hot and cold in question are diverse, and once we see that the Inuit is comparing to a different base from the Panamanian, the seeming case for relativism evaporates. But, we have too often been taught that cases like that are good enough to put the LNC under question. All it shows is just how badly taught we have been, just how dumbed down for generations. In short I think here we see the terrible twins of selective hyperskepticism and hypercredulity, each applied in an inconsistent, ideologically driven fashion. Having said that, I must ask us to seriously consider how we are handling the problem. Yes, there are those who are playing evasive "dancing wrong but strong" rhetorical games. But there are a lot of people out there who have been led to believe that in a quantum world and in a world of relativity, the law of non contradiction is dead, all announced in the name of "Science." Y'know, what Lewontin et al would have us believe is "the only begetter of truth." Indeed, ES was quoting a Nature blog, from the publisher of the most prestigious science journal in the world. As those who have checked my background so assiduously, to try cyberstalking games will confirm, I am someone who has had to take a leadership role in exposing destructive, exploitative religious groups using the name of the gospel and trapping the unwary in mind-bending games. So, I know from having had to help people put their lives back together, how hard it can be to get out of the coils of a web of mind-bending talking points drummed into you by those you thought were credible and trustworthy, and who made the out-group and its representatives seem to be ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. It can take months, AFTER things have crashed so hard that you have had to walk away, wounded and bleeding. (It's a LOT easier for those who saw though the slick talking points and unfreezing, manipulated change, refreeze games warned against by Edgar Schein and others so long ago now.) So, first and foremost, I plead for understanding of what it is like to be bewitched in a rhetorical web, presented by the latest new high priesthood, in whatever garb; including the holy lab coat. (And, let us ask ourselves, how many know enough to figure their way around quantum mechanics, or relativity, or for that matter -- going back for a moment to technicalities tied to the main topics of the blog -- statistical mechanics, information theory, and sampling theory?) In that context, let us studiously avoid using a litmus test that we use in ways that build a wall instead of a bridge. So, yes, those who show themselves uncivil, or enablers of the uncivil, and show themselves incorrigible, have built the wall from their side, and should indeed not be allowed to waste our collective time and energy. As a victim of web abuse, cyberstalking, outing tactics, threats against my family and so forth, I definitely see with that. We need a safe zone. But, the safe zone in view here must be one for sober discussion where serious minds can meet in a serious way, to discuss serious things towards at least mutual understanding if not agreement. So, let us calm down, and reflect towards better terms of engagement. There needs to be room for mistakes, for questions and even exchanges, so long as we are not looking at willfully disruptive or abusive or uncivil behaviour or enabling thereof. So, pardon, again. G'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

03:28 PM

3

03

28

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

You should be ashamed of yourself, Barry, for admiring Ayn Rand's burblings. The creatire was an out-and-out psychopath.Axel

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

02:32 PM

2

02

32

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Indeed, Mark, the most basic assumptions of anti-IDers renders rational argument with IDers - actually by either party, as you intimated - impossible. However, your little whinge doesn't hold a lot of water from our viewpoint: "All that is necessary is to stop debating and move on. No one is being forced to have a debate with anyone." It's vacuous clutter and very tedious from our viewpoint, so why allow it?Axel

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

02:30 PM

2

02

30

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Why ask whether the moon can both exist and not exist. Why not just ask, "Are you on our side or their side." Clearly, all critics of ID are: fools or charlatans refuse to argue in good faith brainwashed mentally incompetent a troll they spew.. noxious inanities arguing with them is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. And since, there's no point in dialogue, they've all been banned. What is the purpose of the question about the moon then? I don't understand.lastyearon

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

12:20 PM

12

12

20

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, I said that *some* ID supporters here, and there are only a few that I've seen, struggle with logic and consistency, so the issue doesn't seem to be exclusive to the anti-ID crowd. Just an observation, nothing more.Bruce Partington

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

12:12 PM

12

12

12

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

Bruce, It is my pleasure. As a pro-ID, pro-reason supporter, your insights will be invaluable. If an "outsider" had suggested, as you do, that ID proponents struggle with logical constructs, establish frivolous rules for dialogue, and exempt themselves from their own standards, we would likely be offended. But because you have declared yourself to be one of us, we know that your real intent is to help us build and grow through critical self evaluation.StephenB

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

11:10 AM

11

11

10

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

StephenB, Thanks for the warm welcome.Bruce Partington

February 15, 2012

February

02

Feb

15

15

2012

09:45 AM

9

09

45

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link