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

_{Barry Arrington

February 14, 2012

Intelligent Design}

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

The law of non-contradiction (“LNC”) states that for any proposition “A,” A cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same formal relation.

The existence of the LNC is the very basis of all argumentation, and anyone who denies it also denies meaning, order, truth and logic. For obvious reasons, therefore, it is not only useless but also affirmatively harmful to the search for truth to argue with someone who refuses to admit unambiguously the LNC. Arguing with a person who denies the basis for argument is self-defeating and can lead only to confusion. Only a fool or a charlatan denies the LNC, and this site will not be a platform from which fools and charlatans will be allowed to spew their noxious inanities.

For that reason, I am today announcing a new moderation policy at UD. At any time the moderator reserves the right to ask the following question to any person who would comment or continue to comment on this site: “Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?” The answer to this question is either “yes” or “no.” If the person gives any answer other than the single word “no,” he or she will immediately be deemed not worth arguing with and therefore banned from this site.

We will start with Petrushka to demonstrate the application of the policy. Petrushka, can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?

Comments

--Bruce Parkington: "In doing a bit of browsing, I’ve noticed a few ID supporters, without naming names, who seem to struggle with the idea of logical constructs in general. As an ID supporter myself, it appears that perhaps there is a double standard in effect, and my original question regarding the relevance of the LNC litmus test came about due to this concern. I think it’s possible that a person who claims the moon doesn’t exist at all might still be capable of a acknowledging that his sister’s cat exists, or understand, quite logically,that rotation of the earth gives the appearance that the sun is moving." As an ID supporter, you already know that the methodology by which we detect the presence of design does not, in any way, help us to know the identify of the designer. Of course, that limitation is removed when the designer identifies himself. I, can, for example, recognize that you are a troll, but I could never have uncovered your identify without your courteous transparency.StephenB_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

markf reports that he is not permitted to post here any more. This has become beyond ridiculous. G'dayBydand_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

It is quite alarming to find out so many ID critics actually entertain the idea that something can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense.
I won't go as far as to call it brainwashing, but it seems to border on that. It's very strong indoctrination. We are taught over and over to accept as truth something that, as far as anyone knows, can't possibly be true. The resultant mental reflex is comparable to a wife who sees clear evidence that her husband is cheating or reverting to alcoholism but chooses for it to disappear. Actual brainwashing is whole different story. But one actual technique, employed after a subject has been made submissive, is to force them to first listen to bizarre nonsense talk without laughing or responding, and then to repeat it without questioning. It's a shortcut to the same thing - teaching a person to edit out questioning thoughts. I'm sure such educational indoctrination rarely has that deliberate intent. And I am not saying that darwinists are brainwashed zombies. They have just learned to submit their thoughts to a certain belief system, regardless of where it leads. And in response to what likely comes next, I have no doubt that many religious believers have a similar experience.ScottAndrews2_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
08:14 AM
8
08
14
AM
PDT}

Actually, mark, I apologize. 2b should read 2c. I want to get my labels exactly right.StephenB_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

markf
Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation? ..this is an ill-formed question demonstrating a lack of understanding of the interesting issue which is the nature of the “can”. “Can” is a modal word – it can be expanded into “Is it possible that” and all statements about possibility are relative to some set of conditions – which may be implicit or explicit. So it is possible to get from London to New York in 4 hours under some conditions but not others. What is interesting is what is the nature of those conditions in this case. I know that this will appear as sophistry and time-wasting to Barry and others but actually it is a subtle and important issue if, for example, you are using the LNC as an reason for believing in a deity. Barry’s rather hysterical edict stops any consideration of the question on UD.
This may be the first time in history that anyone ever claimed not to know what the word “can” and “cannot” mean in the context of the Law of Non-contradiction. The extent to which you studiously avoid obvious context while laboring pedantically over the importance of context is a wonder to behold.
PS I also have no idea what is meant by “in the same formal relation”.
So, you have never heard of the LNC as it is formally expressed? You really think that it matters whether the writer uses the words “in the same formal relation?” or “in the same sense?” or “under the same formal circumstances?” or “P is not P?” or a number of other ways to make the same point? This is all very interesting. You cannot accept Barry’s motives and I cannot accept your sincerity. Oh wait! I forgot to explain my use of the word “cannot” as a composite of the words “can” and “not.” While the context is evident to me, I don’t want to insult your intelligence with my gross and sloppy formulation. After all, what I find personally impossible is not synonymous with that which is logically possible. CAN 1. a. Used to indicate physical or mental ability: I can carry both suitcases. Can you remember the war? b. Used to indicate possession of a specified power, right, or privilege: The President can veto congressional bills. c. Used to indicate possession of a specified capability or skill: I can tune the harpsichord as well as play it. 2. a. Used to indicate possibility or probability: I wonder if my long lost neighbor can still be alive. Such things can and do happen. b. Used to indicate that which is permitted, as by conscience or feelings: One can hardly blame you for being upset. c. Used to indicate probability or possibility under the specified circumstances: They can hardly have intended to do that. 3. Usage Problem Used to request or grant permission: Can I be excused? Please notice that I am using the word “can” in the sense of 2b, that is, “used to indicate probability or possibility under the specified circumstances." However, I hasten to add that, for me, the word “possible” serves the purpose better than the word “probable” since I (personally) find it “impossible” to believe your claims of incredulity. This brings us to the meaning of the word “not.” not [n?t] adv 1. a. used to negate the sentence, phrase, or word that it modifies I will not stand for it b. (in combination) they cannot go not that (conjunction) Also (archaic) not but what which is not to say or suppose that I expect to lose the game — not that I mind sentence substitute used to indicate denial, negation, or refusal certainly not In this context, I mean to use the connotation expressed in !a, that is, to negate a “word,” namely the word “can.” So, I hope that you will be patient with my attempt to clarify. When I say that I cannot believe you, I mean that I (the individual I also refer to as me) cannot (as defined in the integration of the words “can” and “not) accept (in the context of belief) your claims to the effect that you do not understand the meaning of the word “can” in the context of the law of non-contradiction. I fully realize that I have not even begun to cover all the possible combinations and permutations implied in my statement, but I hope that you will accept my modest attempt to clarify my meaning. Meanwhile, I have come to appreciate more fully the wisdom of Barry’s new policy. By all means, let’s rid ourselves of this kind of madness, ban anyone who refuses to argue in good faith, and get back to real dialogue.StephenB_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

Thanks for that, kuartus. In doing a bit of browsing, I've noticed a few ID supporters, without naming names, who seem to struggle with the idea of logical constructs in general. As an ID supporter myself, it appears that perhaps there is a double standard in effect, and my original question regarding the relevance of the LNC litmus test came about due to this concern. I think it's possible that a person who claims the moon doesn't exist at all might still be capable of a acknowledging that his sister's cat exists, or understand, quite logically,that rotation of the earth gives the appearance that the sun is moving.Bruce Partington_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT}

Hey Bruce, Basically the issue is this. Recently is was discovered that many ID critics who post on this site think it is an intellectual virtue to assert that a thing can exist and not exist simultaneously. They say LNC is just a useful convention which can be reasonably questioned like anything else. Now perhaps this issue is not directly tied to ID or evolution, but you really have to question the mental capacity of those ID critics who are nonchalant about dispensing with one of the essential foundations on which logical discourse is based. That is the issue at hand here. Are the Id critics who question the very foundations of rationality truly mentally competent to have reasonable discussions?kuartus_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT}

Being a newcomer here, and very interested in the discussions in general, I'm wondering about the relevance of the discussion regarding non-contradiction. While I'm personally willing to admit the obvious--that a thing can't exist and not exist simultaneously--I don't know what that has to say in support of ID, or against evolution. I may have missed something, so if someone could help to bring me up to speed I'd appreciate it.Bruce Partington_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

It is quite alarming to find out so many ID critics actually entertain the idea that something can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. Its downright scary! Perhaps they have a vested interest in rejecting logic. I guess it gives them an excuse to be as illogical and anti reason as they want and whenever it suits them. ID proponent: Your being illogical! ID critic: Ba humbug! The laws of logic dont apply here!kuartus_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

The moon cannot exist and not exist at the same time. An Inuit and a Panamanian meet in Kansas in July. It is 85 degrees F. The proposition, "It is hot". When asked, Inuit - True, "It is hot." Panamanian - False, "It is not hot."ThatDarnCat_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

Any argument is only devastating to those who admit the foundation of argumentation and are susceptible to things like reason and evidence. Nobody matching that criteria made themselves known to me while I was there, Bydand (and you're still hiding behind an odd name even now). Now then, Mark, where have you got to? Bydand is enjoying discovering the true you too. You don't want to let him down do you?Chris Doyle_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT}

So it was deleted, then, from The Skeptical Zone. I should have thought, if the argument was so devastating, it would have been left for all to see. An object lesson, as it were. Never mind - it was another time, another place, and I do not want to derail any discussion you're having with markf. Do carry on, it's quite illuminating.Bydand_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

Hi Bydand, who were you over there then? I don't recognise this particular incarnation. Nothing was deleted, it was merely relocated to another location once the last remaining traces of reasonable discussion were lost forever.Chris Doyle_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT}

Chris Doyle- are you that Chris Doyle that suddenly deleted a whole threadful of his own posts at The Skeptical Zone? Sometime last year, maybe August-ish. Very odd behaviour. No reason was ever given. If you are not he, then forget I mentioned it.Bydand_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Sorry Mark, but if you can't even admit the foundation of argumentation, how can you expect anyone to believe that you're more interested in ID science than UD moderation policy? I must say, this thread has been really illuminating. I feel like we're getting to know the true Mark. Arrogance is okay... if you can back it up. Can you back it up, Mark? The clocks ticking, old fella ;-)Chris Doyle_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:15 AM
2
02
15
AM
PDT}

Chris - I am not prepared to answer that question with an unequivocal "no" because a) I don't believe that is the correct answer without further clarification of the question. In most contexts "no" would clearly be correct - but as I said earlier on it all hangs on what sense of "can" is implied by the context. b) The principle of banning people because you don't like an argument they use (as opposed to say offensive language) strikes me as a poor one which in another context could be rather sinister. By "not signing" I show my opposition to it. How are you getting on with explaining the different types of inference? Or do you perhaps have a even more learn about ID than I do? (In case you are wondering why I have time for this little tiff - my first lecture just got cancelled)markf_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT}

Okay Mark, if you can just admit the foundation of argumentation and answer the question: "Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?" with an unequivocal 'no', then I doubt you will be banned and we will have all the time we need for you to demonstrate that you really are more interested in ID science than UD moderation policy. I'm clearing my schedule in anticipation of an informative debate with you that, for the first time ever, won't end with you giving up :-)Chris Doyle_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

Chris it is absolutely true that it would do me good to be unable to write on UD. It is a bit like a drug - hard to resist but bad for you. I will happily refer you to my paper once you have shown you are remotely capable of understanding it. Just a sentence or two on the difference between the three inference methods will do (need to be quick though - before I am banned)markf_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

Mark, I thought you said: "It would do me good to be forced to be unable to write on UD as I can’t really afford the time." If you were wrong about that too, then please refer me to your take on "Dembski’s approach to design inference, Fisherian hypothesis testing and maximum likelihood inference according to his most recent work on the subject". If anybody wants to point out that they believe you are more interested in Intelligent Design than UD's Moderation Policy, I'm sure they will. I will disagree, of course. I can only judge from our own exchanges and the fact that you prematurely ended any discussions between us rather than admit you were wrong. Except on the subject of UD Moderation Policy where you seemed quite prepared to go on and on and on...Chris Doyle_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PDT}

Chris - please ask these ID proponents as to whether I am "more interested in moderation policy than you are in learning anything about Intelligent Design science" vjtorley gpuccio Upright Biped Scott Andrews As you are so keen on me learning about Intelligent Design science perhaps you can explain the similarities and differences between Dembski's approach to design inference, Fisherian hypothesis testing and maximum likelihood inference according to his most recent work on the subject (If you have trouble I can refer you to my take on it).markf_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT}

Funny how we've come full circle, Mark and ended up right back where we started. We first entered into discussion over on your blog (which, by its content and contributors was very much the predecessor to the Septical Zone). At the time you were fighting passionately for the right of people like The Whole Truth to debate on UD without getting banned. Now, you're willing to martyr yourself for the same cause (I'm sure the easy way out is just a happy coincidence). But, ultimately, you are still defending people who are just like The Whole Truth really. The only difference is, some of those recently banned here took a while for their true colours to show through (including your own true colours by the look of things). In the end, you're far more interested in moderation policy than you are in learning anything about Intelligent Design science. That's not "just a mismatch", that's a case of you wasting the time of people who are interested in very different things (like reason and evidence).Chris Doyle_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

On pure logical ground, I think that it is not possible to have at the same time the moon and it's non-existence at the same time. However, we can perfectly have a system where the moon pop in and out of existence at a very high rate which means that from a physical perspective, the moon is there and is not there. Personally, I'm UD enthousiast but I don't see the purpose of what looks like a witch hunt. For some of us it took quit some time before understanding and accepting that the human, the animals, the cells, the cosmos, etc.. are actually the technology of an alien being (call it God if you want). We need to be patient and to answer calmly to those that are still confused.Kyrilluk_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

Correction: I really hope this isn’t a path Uncommon Descent intends to walk down. Since I came across the site, UD has served as an invaluable source of information surrounding a wide variety of topics, not only by way of the main articles posted but the debates that followed.Stu7_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT}

As I will presumably be banned when Barry wakes up I will take the opportunity to get this final comment in. The chief motive behind these bannings seems to be that debating with some people is a waste of time because you can find no common ground. I have found this happens quite often with the likes of BA77 and KF. We disagree so fundamentally about what even counts as evidence that there is no point in continuing. I don’t blame them. It is just a mismatch. But that doesn’t mean I think they should be banned. All that is necessary is to stop debating and move on. No one is being forced to have a debate with anyone. Likewise, if Barry or anyone else, feels that a certain exchange or debater is a waste of time they can just ignore them. Someone else might find the exchange interesting (indeed we have evidence this is at least sometimes true) and by banning them you are depriving them of the opportunity.markf_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT}

My answer to the question is no. However I find this move entirely inappropriate and dictatorial in it's approach. Sure we all hope people will apply logic and common sense, but enforcing it in such an autocratic manner doesn't sit well with me; especially given the nature of debates that sometimes occur here on Uncommon Descent. I really hope this isn't a path Uncommon Descent intends to walk down. Since I came across the site, UD has served as an invaluable source of information surrounding a wide variety of topics, not by way of the main articles posted but the debates that followed. My 2 cents.Stu7_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

Chris - you are making a fool of yourself.
But getting himself banned rather than trying hard to offer rational and empirical objections to ID is one way to avoid admitting he has been wrong about everything.
Chris - I have been debating with ID folk for over five years. I am happy to continue to do so here (if allowed) or any other forum. I did not try to persuade you that subjective morality is the new objective morality. If it felt like that is was either because I explained it badly or you were unable to understand what I was saying. I leave the reader to guess which! Give me a single example of an unpleasant and untrue thing that Lizzie has said about an ID proponent.markf_{February 15, 2012
February
02
Feb
15
15
2012
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Deep down, Mark knows that is just sophistry and time wasting. He once tried to persuade me that subjective morality is the new objective morality. Ha! But getting himself banned rather than trying hard to offer rational and empirical objections to ID is one way to avoid admitting he has been wrong about everything. As for the Skeptical Zone, if you want to waste your time AND be insulted by a bunch of anti-theistic UD-haters, hurry over there quick. I posted there in good faith and soon learned that its host was just another time waster who posts unpleasant and untrue things about ID proponents (and wholeheartedly agrees with others who did so in less subtle ways).Chris Doyle_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
11:43 PM
11
11
43
PM
PDT}

First - all credit to those such as Scott and Tguy who state how uncomfortable they are with this and the spate of recent bannings. There are many other blogs - I particularly recommend Lizzie's sceptical zone - where there is polite and informed discussion of these issues with a very light moderation. I am sure you would be welcome. Barry - Scott answered "yes" above and even recognised that he would be banned as a result. You promptly and publically banned the ID opponents who refused to answer "no". Let us see you being consistent. It would do me good to be forced to be unable to write on UD as I can't really afford the time. So my answer to: Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation? is that this is an ill-formed question demonstrating a lack of understanding of the interesting issue which is the nature of the "can". "Can" is a modal word - it can be expanded into "Is it possible that" and all statements about possibility are relative to some set of conditions - which may be implicit or explicit. So it is possible to get from London to New York in 4 hours under some conditions but not others. What is interesting is what is the nature of those conditions in this case. I know that this will appear as sophistry and time-wasting to Barry and others but actually it is a subtle and important issue if, for example, you are using the LNC as an reason for believing in a deity. Barry's rather hysterical edict stops any consideration of the question on UD. The question of whether TH is the same HT is also deeper than it might appear and this relates more directly to ID. I recommend reading Keynes on applying the principle of indifference to discrete cases where he points out that from a probability point of view counting HT and TH as two different cases is an assumption which may or may not be true. But I guess you would ban Keynes as well! PS I also have no idea what is meant by "in the same formal relation".markf_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PDT}

MI, Even in most public parks you are required to clean up your dog's poop.CannuckianYankee_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT}

I find plenty to support in the OP. For the record, the answer is "no." The moon cannot both exist and also not exist at the same time, nor can any observable object. Cosmological bodies are not free to show up or not, depending on whether anyone's looking. They always have mass, regardless of the apparent strangeness of subatomic particles. The mass of a body exerts an effect on other bodies, and this effect is not subject to the whim of an observer -- it's part of the finely tuned universal constants. If one believes A = A only some of the time, and that A = !A is true for some circumstances, whether they're referring to logical propositions or a construct of physical reality, then that person is either deluded or devious. I recently wasted an entire evening trying to reason with someone that (analogously) two flips of a coin could yield a heads and a tails in two distinct ways (HT or TH) giving the combination a 50% chance of success over either HH or TT. This person had already decided that the two combinations were identical, and no amount of demonstration would convince her otherwise. Attempts to show proof yielded blank stares or more illogical protests. It became clear that this person had placed an irrational world view as the stake in a debating game against me. After the debate got started, our discussion had nothing to do with discovering truth, nor illuminating each other's views, rather a win-at-all-costs attitude emerged as the keystone of the discussion. She was playing a game, and one that she plays every day in life: truth is what you can make others believe, and not anything that can be determined by universal principles. I was subject to any objection that appeared to provide the slightest bit of wiggle room for the person's argument, and an utter lack of willingness to engage my points on their merits. For every advance I made in my arguments, she doubled down and protested all the more. Her arguments became more long-winded and rambling in an attempt to filibuster, seeking to derail the heart of the discussion by finding some small weakness in my peripheral knowledge, to try and gain the upper hand. After many revolutions of circular arguments and backwards reasoning on her part, when it became all the more clear that her protests would yield no fruit, she lost all interest in the matter and shifted to an unrelated argument. What I found was a person impervious to learning much of anything, but who was apparently pretty skilled at dishonest debating tactics. This is a person who's psyche is comprised almost entirely of its own ego, who desires no real learning or illumination, but merely an advantage. The word "shameless" comes to mind, and it's entirely apropos. This is a world view issue. This is what occurs in people who are either ignorant to their own biases and unable to determine objective reality from their own imaginings, or they have decided deliberately that truth is decided by belief -- that 'truth' is merely what one can make others believe. This was the worldview I was up against in the aforementioned argument, as far as I've been able to tell. And it wasn't the first time something like this had occurred. I've seen something similar here over the time I've been posting. It seems like a good idea to take a breather from having thoughtful commenters waste countless hours and words arguing against folks who need to win at all costs, to gain an advantage, who've already abandoned any form truth by defining it out of existence, who've already decided that zero concession is their policy. The goal of so many UD interlocutors, so it seems, has been to urinate on the walls here on practically any post, and to distract from arguments with all manner of objections, usually peripheral ones, or objections that intentionally distract from the nature of the argument being made. Of course this isn't always the case. I've seen reasonable arguments by ID opponents from time to time. But they're totally overshadowed by ill-willed attempts at obfuscation. It's pretty difficult to formulate a good argument for something. It's quite simple to merely object. Practically all I see from opponents, with few exceptions, is one objection after another, and never an attempt to build a positive case in such a way that it could actually be challenged. Yes, I'm speaking in generalities. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a guest in someone's house here. I've no "right" to be here. It's not a free speech issue. I've no right to act in any way that suits me, nor protest too much if I'm asked to leave due to ritual impertinence. Anyone who finds the atmosphere here less than amiable is free, even encouraged, to move along. This isn't a public park. For those who enjoy endlessly debating Darwinists, there are probably 10^6 or more places to have flame wars and troll hunts on the internet. For my part, I'm glad this site isn't just another one of those. At some point, good conversations depend on participants who can agree about foundational things, or who have a willingness to learn. It's then that differences in opinion or outlook become illuminating. I'll be interested to see if more pro-ID or agnostic lurkers who were otherwise intimidated from posting here show up over time. It'll also be entertaining to watch the slough of sock puppets come through over the next couple of weeks.material.infantacy_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply