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

I wholeheartedly applaud this new rule. ScottAndrews2 said:
It would be too awkward for me to continue a discussion with someone knowing that they’ve humbled them, and I have the upper hand because they’re always on the edge of being removed.
When one is so self-important that they cannot even force themselves to eat a little humble pie in the home of a gracious host, they are more than likely just gong to be an insufferable brat anyway. Noam gish says:
We need to be nice to our critics otherwise we will never win them over.
No, we need to teach them there is a limit to the foolishness adults will tolerate; if they will not learn, then at least we have rid ourselves of the foolishness. Take a lesson from history: appeasement doesn't work.William J Murray_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT}

On a different note, I wonder on what basis Darwinists do accept the laws of logic? Why does logic work in this universe? I guess this is close to Plantinga's challenge to naturalism that has recently been discussed. Copied from crev.info "For if truth and honesty are not illusions, but really exist, which must be true to carry on this discussion, they refer to things that are timeless and universal – things in the conceptual realm that, expressed in language with semantics or meaning (which, according to our uniform experience always have an intelligent cause), can be rationally inferred to have an intelligent cause that is likewise timeless and universal." Here is one more from crev.info: As we have pointed out numerous times, these scientists are plagiarizing Judeo-Christian presuppositions to engage in the act of explanation. Rationality refers to concepts that lie outside of naturalism. Naturalism is impossible. To explain something, you have to believe that your sensations correspond to external reality. You have to assume that your explanation contains the possibility it may be true. How can anyone believe anything, including one’s own brain, that is the product of an unguided process like evolution? To believe in truth, furthermore, you have to exercise morality – the assumption that truth is good. None of these things come with the evolutionists’ explanatory toolkit. If they are there, they were stolen. In fact, the whole toolkit was stolen. Using stolen implements, they construct impossible arts and humanities: tales of millions of years of monkey screeching and pounding morphing into Bach (10/17/2009), opera extolling a world without violent males, with moral leaders, with charity for all. (They forget that Milton wrote the libretto to Paradise Lost, not Darwin.) Here again we find that explanation is the domain of theology. The bigotry of modern science is to exclude the contractors who own the tools. .... In our day, imposters have usurped the role of theology. Evolutionary scientists presume to engage in explanation using tools they did not and could not manufacture. It’s not clear from any philosophy of science if scientists can, or should, try to explain anything, or how they would do so. Bas van Fraasen rejected explanation as a function of science. It should be noted that “folk psychology,” the common-sense version we all practice that attributes reasonings and feelings to our fellow human beings as causes of their actions, works just as well, if not better, than any advanced scientific explanation .... We all assume explanation is what scientists do because we were taught simplistic positivism in middle school. It’s time to graduate to the real world. Science does best trying to cure cancer, imitate design in nature, predict earthquakes and the weather, explore space, measure, observe, study, classify, organize, falsify, predict, learn, find relationships, derive equations, and inform technology. Anyone presuming to explain nature without a theological premise is engaging in self-refuting nonsense. .... If scientists really want to understand human nature, if they want to do something about war and brutality, and increase levels of charity, nothing can beat the record of transforming lives by the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ: Example 1: from gang banger to soulwinner; example 2: from proud evolutionary biologist to joyful Christian; example 3 from terrorist to liberator of souls; example 4: from genocide torturer to repentant follower of Christ. Don’t look to science for results like this. Open the Operations Manual and get people back on track, one life at a time." Question: In accepting the existence of logic, are Darwinists shooting their own feet given that their worldview cannot provide a foundation for logic or account for the laws of logic? At the risk of an untolerably long post, I will just give a link to another good writeup on this point - shoing the differences between man and beast entitled "Reducing Human Behavior to Natural Laws" http://crev.info/2008/10/reducing_human_behavior_to_natural_laws/ The commentary at the end of the article is worth reading!tjguy_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Gregory:
Ayn Rand’s ‘economic philosophy’ is pretty much one of the most depraved and dehumanizing ideas in the history of humanity! If you would wish to defend such a position, Barry, it is obvious that other aspects of your ‘philosophy’ should be openly called into question.
Guess who introduced the subject of Ayn Rand. That’s right--Gregory. Guess who, in response, argued that Ayn Rand/s bad ideas outweigh her good ideas. That’s right-Barry. Now guess who is equating Barry’s philosophy with Ayn Rand’s philosophy. That’s right--Gregory.
If you would ban me from UD for disagreeing with Randist ‘economic philosophy,’ I can assure you that DI leaders will personally hear about it. I do not submit to intellectual bullying!
If you are this indignant over an imaginary event, I can only imagine how righteous you would become if you had a righteous cause.
I agree with LNC – a moon is a moon – (& have defended as such and strenuously with many anti-Aristotelian proponents, including post-modern feminists). This gives you no right, neverthless, to attempt to bash people over the head for raising the ‘nuance’ that yes, A=A, but sometimes Aalso=B.
Does this mean that you retract your earlier comment in which you chided Barry for his “absolute acceptance” of the very same philosophy that you now claim to embrace? Do you even read what you write?
Rand’s ‘virtue of selfishness,’ ego-centric, pseudo-scientistic, “the god of ‘I’,” uncompassionate, hyper-capitalistic, USAmerican triumphalistic, achievementism, is nowadays fit to be countered, even as a theory of ‘intelligent design.’ Is Randist ‘economic philosophy’ intelligently designed? No, in my scholarly opinion, it is not.
Your passion for inventing and attacking strawmen is surpassed only by your capacity to conflate unrelated paradigms.
Can you honestly think Randist ‘economic philosophy’ is ‘intelligently designed,’ Barry?
I believe that you asked that incoherently framed question in the preceding paragraph.
Do I agree with LNC? Yes. Do I deny the ‘right’ of UD blog to pitch people into the ditch for not agreeing fully with Aristotle? No. Of course not.
Do you mean moral justification or legal right?StephenB_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Barry, I'm not comfortable with this either. I'm 100% behind ID as opposed to Darwinism, but I think some of these guys got unfairly banned. I don't think their "irrational" ideas have ever surfaced in their arguments in the sense that they argue for both A and non-A at the same time. Look at what rhampton said: “The moon can exist or not exist, but not both” since this conforms to the macro-human experience. However the moon’s existence at moment T0 can only be known at T1 due to great distance between. Thus when we say the moon exists, we do so in regards to T1 (about 1.3 seconds in our past) and not at T0 (this present moment). To say that the moons exists at T0 is an assumption – one that is likely to be true with a very high degree of probability – but not at all TRUE in the absolute terms of logic." He is not arguing that they can both exist and not exist at the same time. He is providing a scenario when at T0 it might not exist while at T1 it still does exist. That is different than saying that it simultaneously both exists and does not exist. OK, so he is being a bit stubborn there and trying to make a point which really is no point whatsoever. I doubt he would say the moon could both exist and not exist at T1. Why don't you ask him the question in that way if he is too stubborn to answer it the way you are asking it?tjguy_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT}

Unfortunately, most of our critics have been brainwashed in post-modern anti-intellectualism to the point where their mental health has been seriously compromised. By any objective standard, they are incapable of rational thought, a clumsy fact of life that presents us with a dilemma: Do we [a] humor them as we have been doing, [b] ban them, which will drastically reduce participation (we are talking about the vast majority), or [c] offer them probation while we introduce them to reason’s rules and explain how they inform evidence. While the last option appeals to me at some level, I acknowledge the drawbacks to offering formal seminars in remedial education: those who need it most are the ones least likely to accept it. There is little one can do with those who choose to remain uneducable. In large part, we are dealing with a deeply-entrenched cultural problem. Cynics and their tutored victims have been equivocating in the name of sophistication for so long, that they can no longer utter the phrase, “If A is true, then but B must be false.” For them, apodictic certainty, even in the form of an unassailable deduction, represents a form of intolerance and smacks of “fundamentalism.” According to that mind set, everything can be true or nothing can be true. Anyone who says otherwise is perceived as a dangerous tyrant. (Notice some of the reactions to this post). A mind so seriously corrupted and an ego so thoroughly pampered can scarcely grasp the importance of submitting the intellect and will to any worthwhile standard of measurement--God, morality, reason’s rules, legitimate authority, or anything else that threatens to provide a realistic assessment of their competencies. Complicating matters all the more, these young skulls full of mush have been told that they are brilliant if they indicate a willingness to pass along these vacuous and destructive ideas to successive generations. They are celebrated for taking up the idiotic notion that logic is a useful mental tool that has nothing to do with the real world. Misery loves company, and corruption seeks to reproduce itself. That is why we keep hearing these same insane arguments. Perhaps we can help some of these people find their way back by nudging them at strategically timed intervals, asking them to leave a given thread when they display their nonsense, reminding them of the objective rational standards that define the difference between a rational argument and a meaningless rant. If they are willing to cease and desist, perhaps they can be allowed to stay. Naturally, that would require a high level of wisdom, but I think our administrators and commentators are up to it. As Emerson said, “To lift someone, you must first be on higher ground.” Do I know for sure that reason’s rules constitute higher ground because it liberates? Yes, I do. Do I know for sure that postmodern subjectivism is lower ground because it enslaves? Yes, I do. Am I aware of the difficulty these poor souls will encounter as they try to find their way back to intellectual sanity? Yes, I am. But it’s definitely worth the journey.StephenB_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
05:22 PM
5
05
22
PM
PDT}

lastyearon asks "Isn't that the same thing?" No. As a matter of fact, I assume until it is demonstrated differently that someone who disagrees with me does so in good faith.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

It has everything to do with whether a person is a fool or a charlatan, not whether they criticize ID
Isn't that the same thing?lastyearon_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

I want to applaud any steps that are taken to remove time wasters from UD. Looking over this thread and others, I'm absolutely delighted to see so many time wasters have been removed recently. I'm sure I'm not the only one who will now take a renewed interest in the comments here. No doubt that quality is better than quantity in this respect. Even if that means we end up with no ID critics here because not one of them is capable of approaching the debate with any kind of serious rational or empirical basis to their contributions. That is, after all, the destiny of all universal truth. Keep up the great work, Barry and co!Chris Doyle_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

Noam, no one will be banned from this site for criticizing ID, and I have no idea where you got such a notion. Go back and read the OP. Only those who demonstrate beyond the slightest doubt that they do not intend to act in good faith (by denying the LNC) will be banned under the new policy. It has everything to do with whether a person is a fool or a charlatan, not whether they criticize ID.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT}

I want to protest this policy of kicking out critics of UD. I of course support ID but I've seen a lot of abuse at other websites where I am an opponent of the website's ideas. I would hate to see UD become like those other websites. We need to be nice to our critics otherwise we will never win them over. So long as they're not uttering profanity I say they should be allowed to stay.noam_ghish_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Gregory does not seem to have read my comment about Rand closely. I think I made it fairly clear that I am repelled by almost everything she says. It is hard to know why he thinks we disagree on that point.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

Ayn Rand's 'economic philosophy' is pretty much one of the most depraved and dehumanizing ideas in the history of humanity! If you would wish to defend such a position, Barry, it is obvious that other aspects of your 'philosophy' should be openly called into question. If you would ban me from UD for disagreeing with Randist 'economic philosophy,' I can assure you that DI leaders will personally hear about it. I do not submit to intellectual bullying! I agree with LNC - a moon is a moon - (& have defended as such and strenuously with many anti-Aristotelian proponents, including post-modern feminists). This gives you no right, neverthless, to attempt to bash people over the head for raising the 'nuance' that yes, A=A, but sometimes Aalso=B. Rand's 'virtue of selfishness,' ego-centric, pseudo-scientistic, "the god of 'I'," uncompassionate, hyper-capitalistic, USAmerican triumphalistic, achievementism, is nowadays fit to be countered, even as a theory of 'intelligent design.' Is Randist 'economic philosophy' intelligently designed? No, in my scholarly opinion, it is not. Can you honestly think Randist 'economic philosophy' is 'intelligently designed,' Barry? Do I agree with LNC? Yes. Do I deny the 'right' of UD blog to pitch people into the ditch for not agreeing fully with Aristotle? No. Of course not.Gregory_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

Scott, we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask someone whether they agree that meaning, truth and logic exists before we seek meaning, truth and logical conclusions. I am not trying to humiliate anyone. I'm simply trying to find out whether they will argue in good faith, and you can not argue in good faith if you deny the LNC.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Barry, No, I don't think that for a second. Again, I understand where you're coming from. It seems perfectly reasonable that one should agree to that foundation of logic. But however logical it is, I feel that many or most who provide that one-word answer will be humiliated. It's small, but it just feels like an act of submission. It would be too awkward for me to continue a discussion with someone knowing that they've humbled them, and I have the upper hand because they're always on the edge of being removed. And I don't like feeling like maybe the next day or the next some new line will be drawn and I'll be banned just for politely disagreeing.ScottAndrews2_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

To Barry's question, I answer "no."
rhampton7: Thus, we have Schrödinger’s celebrated imaginary cat, placed (within the context of a thought experiment) inside a sealed box along with radioactive material and a vial of poison gas that will be released if that material decays. Given quantum uncertainty, an atom inhabits both states—decayed and non-—simultaneously, rendering the cat (in the absence of an observer outside the system) both alive and dead. Where speculative consensus breaks down is on whether Schrödinger’s paradox arises only when the quantum system is isolated from the environment. Contradiction, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)."
Note that there is no "speculative consensus." I.e, no consensus with regards to the various interpretations of QM. Schrödinger invented his Cat as an argument against the Copenhagen interpretation if we assume a "common sense" reality. Quantum uncertainty exists with regard to observer and various events or properties. It is a statement about the observer's ignorance. It is not a statement about the actual state of the observed. I will repeat the bottom line here once again: absolutely nothing in the equations of any branch of QM is justification for denial of LNC. The interpretations of QM are not QM. And none of the interpretations has be empirically demonstrated to be superior to another.mike1962_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Gregory, you quote the law of identity, the first of the three classic laws of thought. The LNC is the second. I agree with much of Rand's economic philosophy but little else about her thought appeals to me and much of it repels.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Scott, do you really mean to say that the moon can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Barry sounds just like Ayn Rand, in her absolute acceptance of A=A.Gregory_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

It's been fun, but I'm not comfortable with this. While I agree that it's absurd to argue that the moon can exist and not exist, I'm not comfortable debating someone if they are required to humiliate themselves by repeating a one-word answer. I understand the reason, but it feels too much like submission, like staring a dog in the eyes until it looks down. But I'll keep reading all the excellent posts and comments.
Can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?
Yes.ScottAndrews2_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

To say that the moons exists at T0 is an assumption – one that is likely to be true with a very high degree of probability – but not at all TRUE in the absolute terms of logic. I don't think Barry is saying "if you say X, but ~X is true and you don't know it, you can't be argued with". In fact, he's clearly not saying that. Would you say that the moon both exists and does not exist at T1, in the same sense?nullasalus_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

For the onlookers, rhampton7 tried to dodge the question by saying that the moon we see was the moon that existed 1.3 seconds ago. That is true and irrelevant. The question anticipates that dodge by specifying “the same formal relation,” a phrase rhampton7 either ignored or does not understand.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

Guess what? I answer the same way as Petrushka. How about that ~~Horatio~~ Barry? UD Moderator: That’s not “no” ben h. Goodbye.ben h_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington, That really is more of an open question than you care like to admit, and only works with LNC if we allow for "differing viewpoints of evaluation (as foreseen by Aristotle) or to intervening modal and epistemic operators." [You really ought to read the entire entry on Contradiction, as it explains how your question is unnecessarily presented as a false choice, such as "Do you still beat your wife?"] In the most simplistic terms, I would answer "The moon can exist or not exist, but not both" since this conforms to the macro-human experience. However the moon's existence at moment T0 can only be known at T1 due to great distance between. Thus when we say the moon exists, we do so in regards to T1 (about 1.3 seconds in our past) and not at T0 (this present moment). To say that the moons exists at T0 is an assumption - one that is likely to be true with a very high degree of probability - but not at all TRUE in the absolute terms of logic. For the sake of argument, we know that there are millions of planets (and stars) that have been ejected from their home system, at present traveling interstellar space at considerable speeds. Although very unlikely, it is possible that a very small dark body is about to collide with the moon - destroying it. In short, Relativity makes existence itself a kind of Schrödinger's cat. UD Moderator: That’s not “no” rhampton7. Goodbye.rhampton7_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

ben h, “yes” or “no,” can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

How about this for a new policy. Why don't you just answer for them since you have no interest in what they actually have to say and will brook no nuance in the answer. You aren't interested in finding any truths, you are just interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points. For shamre. I am sure you will delete this comment. Have at it. I came here as an interested observer and since this is probably the last comment you will allow of mine (not that I was ever much of a participant), I will leave disallusioned. I will however pray that God grant you the wisdom to see how your behavior is viewed by others.ben h_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT}

This is a good time to explain how the new policy operated in relation to Petrushka’s answer. In the OP I made something very very clear so that even the most simple mind could grasp it. I quote: “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.” Petrushka’s answer demonstrates very nicely why I did this. In one sentence he seemed to admit the LNC, and in the very next sentence he added a comment intended to reserve his right to argue that the LNC does not operate at some levels. He is, of course, free to attempt to ignore the rules of this site. And we are free to respond accordingly.Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

rhampton7, "yes" or "no," can the moon exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation?Barry Arrington_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Given Aristotle's observation (Metaphysics1006a2) that “even some physicists” deny LNC and affirm that is indeed possible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect, he would not have been surprised to learn that quantum mechanics has made such challenges fashionable again. Thus, we have Schrödinger's celebrated imaginary cat, placed (within the context of a thought experiment) inside a sealed box along with radioactive material and a vial of poison gas that will be released if that material decays. Given quantum uncertainty, an atom inhabits both states—decayed and non-—simultaneously, rendering the cat (in the absence of an observer outside the system) both alive and dead. Where speculative consensus breaks down is on whether Schrödinger's paradox arises only when the quantum system is isolated from the environment. Contradiction, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP).
rhampton7_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

I accept the definitional foundation of logic. I also accept the findings of physics which make the concept of physical existence rather complicated. That just means that physical is not the same as the ideal, just as a physical circle is not an ideal circle. I thought this was something generally agreed upon. I thought it was the foundation of Plato's thought. But to answer the specific question, in formal logic, the moon cannot both exist and not exist. The question faced by physics is somewhat different. UD Moderator: That's not "no" Petrushka. Goodbye.Petrushka_{February 14, 2012
February
02
Feb
14
14
2012
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply