Currently, one of the objections on the table to a demonstration on how certain structural and quantitative entities are implicit in there being a distinct possible world is the rejection, dismissal or doubting of certainty of conclusions. This again reflects one of the many problems with thought in our day.
Let’s add a quip, for those who doubt that warranted (as opposed to ill-advised) certainty is possible: are you CERTAIN that we cannot be justifiably certain?
Accordingly, I took the opportunity to comment in the fallacies discussion thread:
[KF, FDT 304:] One of the themes that keeps surfacing is “certainty,” which sets up the issues: warrant, knowledge, reliability, credibility, and responsibility.
Given that we ever so often use knowledge in a sense that is less than absolute, irrefutable certainty, as in science, I have put on the table that knowledge speaks of warranted, credibly true (so, reliable) belief. Obviously, this is normally provisional, but it leaves open cases where the degree of warrant and credibility are such that these claims are utterly certainly true and beyond doubt, save by the irresponsible. That is where self-evident truths and inescapable first principles of right reason live. Such includes mathematical truths of the order||| + || –> |||||.
Thus, we see that warrant comes in degrees and must attain to some degree of reliability that lends the credibility that leads to responsible belief. This may be less than certain, e.g. by and large scientific theories and models are not certain, they are open to correction on many grounds. Yes, Science is at a relatively low rung on the warrant ladder. Observations of science are another matter, they carry with them the credibility of witness, which can be morally certain.
So, certainty is now on the table, and just like warrant (from which it derives) it comes in degrees depending on cases, context and subject matter.
Moral certainty is a case where the grounds of warrant are sufficiently strong that one would be derelict of duty if one were to willfully treat something of that degree of credibility as though it were false, when something of great moment or value is on the table. For example, in a criminal case under Common Law jurisdictions, one must prove beyond reasonable doubt — this is a criterion of responsibility in the context of duty to justice. In commercial or civil matters, preponderance of evidence is a lower standard.
Beyond that everyday sense of certainty, lie the cases where in effect there is reason to believe that the judgement that x is the case has passed beyond room for reasonable, responsible doubt and is utterly unlikely to be reversed; something is true and is so grounded that there is no real room for doubt, but is not a necessary truth — one that must be so in this and all other possible worlds. Then, there is self-evidence, where x is so, is seen to be so by one with enough experience to understand the claim properly, and is such that the denial is immediately, patently absurd. That error exists, is a case in point, the attempt to deny instantly exemplifies that error exists. Likewise, one cannot be deluded that s/he is conscious, as to doubt is an act of consciousness.
Regrettably, we are so situated that it is impossible to build a whole worldview up from matters that are at least self-evidently so.
However, this degree of warranted certainty (and what lies beyond) serves to provide yardsticks and plumblines to test our worldview cores. For example, that error exists is undeniably true and warranted to self-evident certainty. This confirms that truth beyond opinion exists.Likewise, that some truths are intelligible, accessible by reason. As we observe and experience that error exists means that observation and experience can access truth. Similarly, we have warrant to undeniable certainty, so certain knowledge exists. If certain knowledge exists, knowledge (embracing weaker senses) exists also.
Further to this, beliefs, opinions, ideologies and worldviews that assume, argue, opine and assert that truth, or knowledge, or warrant or certain knowledge do not exist or that claims to such only serve “intolerance” and oppressor-classes — their name is Legion, are swept away wholesale as error. And yes, for cause I have the fell work of cultural marxism squarely in my sights, along with radical relativism and radical subjectivism.
Moreover, having warranted this point to certainty, I freely hold there is demonstrative warrant and that for cause opinion and rhetorical objection to the contrary avail nothing. Though in a politically correct era, many will take the vapours and will be frightened that I have announced a policy of right wing, Christofascist totalitarianism dressed up in Torquemada’s robes. That is how far ever so many in our civilisation have been misled.
That agit prop induced and/or mal-education induced reaction is unwarranted, the issue is to act responsibly and rationally in light of duty to truth, right reason, prudence, justice, etc.
However, there are higher yet degrees of warrant and certainty of knowledge.
Some truths are necessary, certain, intelligible and knowable to utter, incorrigible certainty and even absolute: the truth, the whole truth on a material matter, nothing but the truth on the material matter. Where, a necessary truth will be so in this or any other possible world. And what is more, many such truths are intelligible and warranted to similarly necessary certainty. Many core principles of reason and mathematics are of this order.
For relevant example, for a distinct world to be possible of existence, it must have in it at least one feature [A] such that it is different from all other possible worlds. We may then freely dichotomise W: W = {A|~A}. This already indicates that rationally intelligible structure and quantity are present in the fabric for such a world, we may readily identify here duality, unity (and complex unity in the case ~A), also nullity. The von Neumann construction then gives muscle to Peano’s succession from unity, and we have the natural counting numbers. From this, we may further recognise Z, Q, R, C and more.
Widening scope, and using reality in the widest sense, in reality (to include the case where there may be plural worlds as domains in reality) there will be some A, thus too ~A and a similar dichotomy obtains, R = {A|~A}. Instantly, A is itself i/l/o its core characteristics, perhaps a bright red ball on a table. This is the Law of Identity, LOI. Similarly, by the contrast and dichotomy, no x in R will be in A and in ~A, law of non contradiction, LNC. Thirdly (notice how counting numbers are implicit) any x in R will be in A or else in ~A, not in both or neither. Law of the excluded middle, LEM.
These three are inescapably true. We cannot prove them by appealing to something deeper, as to try to prove cannot but assume and implicitly use them. Likewise a claimed disproof or possible world in which they do not hold will on inspection be found to be implicitly using them. Such are the start-points for reasoning.
In short, we can see that the claim that we cannot be certain about anything is itself a claim to certainty, so it is advisable to instead explore the degrees of warrant we may obtain, for various types of cases. Once we do so, it becomes clear that there are degrees of warrant thus of certainty. Where, moral certainty is the first such degree, with self-evidence and necessary, undeniable or inescapable truths progressing upwards on the ladder. Such then allow us to have yardsticks and plumb-lines to test our reasoning and knowledge claims.
The common notion that associates certainty with oppression, intolerance etc and reacts by applying a hermeneutic of suspicion fails to properly address warrant and knowledge. END
PS: It is likewise worth pausing to point out the relevant demonstration on how considerable, rationally intelligible substance of structure and quantity are implicit in there being a distinct possible world on the table. Here, 257 in the same thread:
1: Consider reality, and within it some distinct entity, say a bright red ball on a table, B. Thus the rest of reality is the complement to B, ~B. Reality, R = {B|~B}
2: Immediately, B is itself (distinctly identifiable i/l/o its core, distinguishing characteristics), this is the fundamental law of thought, Law of Identity, which sets up the dichotomy and its corollaries.
3: Clearly, no x in R can be B AND ~B. Law of non-contradiction, a corollary.
4: Likewise, any x in R must be in B or in ~B, not between them or separate from them: B X-OR ~B, law of the excluded middle. The second corollary.
5: Now, ponder a possible world, W, a sufficiently complete description of a possible [coherent!] state of affairs in reality, i.e. in this or any other world that could be or is.
6: So far, we have set up a framework for discussion, including pointing out the key first principles of right reason that we must use so soon as we type out a message using distinct characters, etc. These are not provable, they are inevitable, inescapable and thus have a right to be presumed first truths of right reason.
7: Now, W, holds distinct identity, it is a particular possible world, different from all others. That is, if claimed entities W1 and W2 are not discernibly different in any respect, they are just different labels for the same thing W.
8: Notice, all along we are trafficking in statements that imply or assert that certain things are so or are not so, i.e. propositions and that relationship of accurate description of reality that we term truth.
9: All of these are not merely concrete particulars or mere labels, they are abstracta which are inevitable in reasoning. Indeed, the relationship of intentionality implicit in attaching a name is an abstractum, too.
10: Now, W is one of infinitely many possible states of affairs, and shares many attributes in common with others. So, we mark the in-common [genus] and the distinct [differentia].
11: So, we freely identify some unique aspect of W, A. W, then is: W = {A|~A}.
12: But already, we see rationally discernible abstract entities, principles and facts or relationship, quantity and structure; i.e. the SUBSTANCE of Mathematics. Namely,
13: first, that which is in W but external to A and ~A is empty, as is the partition: nullity.
14: Likewise, A is a distinct unit, as is ~A [which last is obviously a complex unity]. This gives us unity and duality.
15: So, simply on W being a distinct possible world, we must have in it nullity, unity and duality. These are abstract structural and quantitative properties embedded in the framework for W.
16: This is, strictly, already enough for the claim that there is an abstract substance of mathematical character that is necessarily embedded in any possible world, which is itself an abstract entity, being a collection of propositions. In at least one case such are actualised, i.e. it is possible to have an accurate summary of our world.
17: However, much more is necessarily present, once we see the force of the von Neumann succession of ordinals (which substantiates Peano’s succession), actually presenting the natural counting numbers starting from the set that collects nothing, which is itself an undeniable abstract entity:
{} –> 0
{0} –> 1
{0,1) –> 2
{0,1,2} –> 3
. . .
{0,1,2,3 . . . } –> w [first transfinite ordinal]
etc, without limit
18: We here have N. Define for some n in N, that -n is such that n + (-n) = 0, and we equally necessarily have Z. Again, rooted in the distinct identity of a world, we are studying, exploring, discovering, warranting (as opposed to proving), not creating through our culturally influenced symbolism and discussion.
19: Similarly, identify the ratio n:m, and we attain the rationals, Q.
20: Use power series expansions to capture whole part + endless sum of reducing fractions converging on any given value such as pi or e or phi etc, and we have the reals, R, thus also the continuum. Where, from Z on, we have has entities with magnitude and direction, vectors.
21: Now, propose an operation i*, rotation pivoting on 0 through a right angle. This gives us i*R, an orthogonal axis with continuum, and where for any r in R+, i*r is on the new [y] axis.
22: Now too, go i*i*r, and we find -r. That is we have that i = sqrt(-1), which here has a natural sense as a vector rotation. Any coordinate in the xy plane as described is now seen as a position vector relative to the origin.
23: We have abstract planar space, thus room for algebraic and geometrical contemplation of abstract, mathematically perfect figures. For instance consider the circle r^2 = x^2 + y^2, centred on o.
24: In its upper half let us ponder a triangle standing at -r [A] and r [B] with third vertex at C on the upper arc. This is a right angle triangle with all associated spatial properties, starting with angle sum triangle and Pythagorean relationships, trig identities etc. Between these two figures and extensions, the world of planar figures opens up.
25: Extend rotations to ijk unit vectors and we are at 3-d abstract “flat” space. All of this, tracing to distinct identity.
26: We may bring in Quaternions and Octonions, the latter now being explored as a context for particle physics.
27: The Wigner Math-Physics gap is bridged, at world-root level.
28: Similarly, we have established a large body of intelligible, rational entities and principles of structure and quantity implicit in distinct identity. Such are the substance we discover by exploration (which is culturally influenced) rather than invent.
29: Where it is an obvious characteristic of invention, that it is temporally bound past-wards, Until some time t, entity e did not exist. Then, after t, having been created, it now exists.
30: The above abstracta are implicit in the distinct identity of a world and so have existed so long as reality has. That is, without past bound. (It can readily be shown that if a world now is, some reality always was.)
I again point out that once a demonstration is on the table, only a counter-demonstration suffices to answer it. Unsubstantiated opinions to the contrary avail nothing. Perhaps, it is helpful to note Aristotle on pathos, ethos, logos:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . . [Aristotle, The Rhetoric, Book I, Ch. 2. Cf. summary with scholarly observations at http://plato.stanford.edu/entr…..-rhetoric/ and http://www.public.iastate.edu/…..index.html for a hypertext version of the book]
For, appeals to our passions, perceptions and felt reactions are of no more weight than the soundness of underlying judgements. Those to the credibility of an authority or presenter hold no more weight than the merits of the underlying case. It is therefore to the merits of fact and logic that we must always go. This should not be controversial, but that is where we now have reached.
Logic and First Principles, 9: Can we be “certain” of any of our views or conclusions?
–> Let me sharpen this a bit: can we be CERTAIN that we cannot be certain?
Hi KF, as to:
As Descartes pointed out, ‘certainty’ can only be based in an immaterial mind, i.e. “I think therefore I am”. For ‘certainty to even exist in the first place, then immaterial mind is a requirement! Yet Atheistic Materialism/Naturalism denies the reality of the immaterial mind. This denial of the primacy of the immaterial mind by Atheists leads to the self-refuting contention by many leading atheistic philosophers that ‘consciousness is an illusion’, i.e. to the claim that they really don’t exist as real people,,,
Besides the insane claim from leading atheistic philosophers that their own personal subjective conscious experience is an illusion, and that they really don’t exist as real people, many other things become illusory in the atheist’s worldview. Things that normal people resolutely hold to be concrete and real.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, (and to “certainty” itself), than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Moreover, since the most ‘certain’ thing about reality that we can be absolutely ‘certain’ of is the fact that we really do exist as real people, “I think therefore I am”, and since we can also be absolutely certain that is not our own finite, contingent, immaterial mind that is upholding reality, then we also can be absolutely ‘certain’ that it must necessarily be the infinite Mind of God that is upholding reality. As Plantinga humorously noted in his critique of solipsism, “We take good care of the professor because when he goes we all go.”
Supplemental quotes from leaders of quantum mechanics, (and from Eben Alexander who had a Near Death Experience), on the ‘necessary’ premise of the primacy of immaterial mind:
Thus in conclusion, we find that ‘certainty’ itself can only be based within the Theistic framework where immaterial mind is held to be primary, and we also find that, besides the entire atheistic worldview becoming ‘illusory’ (and therefore “uncertain’), the Atheist himself becomes illusory is his ‘uncertain’ atheistic worldview. ,,, Poe would be proud of the ‘Dream within a Dream’ that the atheist forces himself to live in with his chosen illusory worldview where he has forsaken God from having any place in his life.,,,
Verse:
Quote:
BA77, evolutionary materialistic scientism is self-refuting, indeed. KF
Added to the OP:
Let’s add a quip, for those who doubt that warranted (as opposed to ill-advised) certainty is possible: are you CERTAIN that we cannot be justifiably certain?
KF
Obviously there are things we can be justifiably certain about. I am justifiably certain that I can’t live without food water and air. But I suspect that you are talking about issues that are often discussed here (eg, objective morality, ID, the origin of human rights, homosexuality, abortion, etc., etc.). For most of these, no we can’t be justifiably certain. And the reason for this is once we claim justifiable certainty, we end the discussion. And it becomes majority rules.and, at present, the majority is winning. To the detriment of all of us.
EG, the issue on the table is warrant, in a context that spoke to a logical demonstration. You will get no further warnings about trying to drag in sewer topics, as you have tried to drag into thread after thread. KF
PS: If you had actually read the discussion in the OP, you would have seen: “by and large scientific theories and models are not certain, they are open to correction on many grounds. Yes, Science is at a relatively low rung on the warrant ladder. Observations of science are another matter, they carry with them the credibility of witness, which can be morally certain.” (Moral certainty is defined in the OP, as too often this term is not well understood today.) The design inference on tested reliable sign is well warranted as a scientific claim, but is one that is always open to test; the resort to selective hyperskepticism, false accusations of smuggling “religion” into science and to ideological lockouts by imposition of self-refuting, question-begging evolutionary materialistic scientism are what have no proper warrant in that context. The challenge being answered — as you full well know — is about actual demonstration on first principles and their corollaries and implications. As is explicitly laid out. In that context, certainty was challenged in a way that suggests that it is unwarranted and questionable, fully meriting a reply as is in the OP.
“Drag in sewer topics”? I do believe the OP says, “Moral certainty is a case where the grounds of warrant are sufficiently strong that one would be derelict of duty if one were to willfully treat something of that degree of credibility as though it were false, when something of great moment or value is on the table.” Ed mentioned some moral issues “of great moment or value” (not sewer issues), and said he thought you might have some of the following in mind: not an unreasonable thing to do given the sentence of yours I quoted.
Hazel, assuming for the sake of argument that you really exist as a real person, and are not a neuronal illusion generated by the molecules of your brain, just how does someone of the atheistic persuasion judge whether anything is morally superior or not? Morality, like value, meaning, purpose, is illusory in the atheist’s worldview. Subject to the subjective whims of whomever is making a moral judgement. Moreover, given that free will is also illusory in the atheist’s worldview, then even the supposed subjective moral choices we make are also not subject to our control. i.e. No one is ever really guilty of murder for no one ever has control over whether they murder or not.
In short, Atheism is an insane worldview. Even atheists themselves are unable to live as if their insane worldview were actually true.
Richard Dawkins himself admitted that it would be quote unquote ‘intolerable’ for him to live his life as if atheistic materialism were actually true
And in the following article subtitled “When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails”, Nancy Pearcey quotes many more leading atheists who honestly admit that it would be impossible for them to live their life as if atheistic materialism were actually true.
This impossibility for Atheists to live consistently within their stated worldview directly undermines their claim that Atheism is true
Specifically, as the following article points out, if it is impossible for you to live your life consistently as if atheistic materialism were actually true, then atheistic materialism cannot possibly reflect reality as it really is but atheistic materialism must instead be based on a delusion.
My question to you Hazel, why do you personally choose, (again assuming you really are a real person who really can choose between viable options), to pretend as if the insanity of atheism is true rather than choosing the sanity that can be ground solely in Christian Theism as your foundational wordview?
If you, like Nagel, “just don’t want the universe to be like that” then at least have enough honesty within yourself and with others to honestly admit that rather than pretend the insanity that you and other atheists are championing on UD is in any way coherently rational. It simply disingenuous of you to want us to play along with your insane charade.
Verse:
ba writes, “January 25, 2019 at 8:56 pm
Hazel, assuming for the sake of argument that you really exist as a real person, and are not a neuronal illusion generated by the molecules of your brain, just how does someone of the atheistic persuasion judge whether anything is morally superior or not?”
Why are you even asking me that question? It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with anything I said??????
Morality and atheism have nothing to do with your question or with you?
Okie Dokie, I can see honesty will not be forthcoming.
FYI, I don’t play word games with atheists and will just as soon see you banned rather than play stupid word games with you.
Weird response, but obviously not much point in trying to understand.
Hazel
Thank you Hazel. I was confused by KF’s response as well. C’est la vie.
sheesh, double denial. ,,, but alas, that is the main modus operandi of Darwinian Atheism. Deny, deny, deny.,,,.
i.e. deny morality exists but insist that your subjective and amoral atheistic morality is just as valid as objective Christian morality.
i.e. deny free will exists but demand the right for women to ‘choose’ to kill their unborn babies.
deny etc..exists but live as if it is real.
i.e. Atheism is insane!
H & EG,
I first highlight the point on certainty from the fallacies thread that is being answered:
All of this, is in reply to a logical demonstration on the principle of identity that draws out that the requisites of a distinct possible world lead to a partition of some distinctive aspect A with its complement being the rest of the world, ~A. Thus, on inspection of the partition, we see duality, unity, nullity, thence can follow succession to the Naturals, from which Z, Q, R, C follow as abstracta embedded in the distinct identity for any specific possible world. Which means, such entities are necessary.
I suggest, looking at a specific red ball on a table in this actual (so, possible) world, and noticing that that concrete case is a familiar example of said dichotomy. The triple first principles of right reason follow, LOI, LNC, LEM, not as speculations locked away in some logic game WJM or I may play and others may elect not to play, but as inescapable truths manifest in our common world. In fact, to object in this thread you have had to rely on the distinct identity of alphanumeric characters and associated glyphs.
I also beg to remind one and all that I invited you both, H and EG, to get out paper scissors and glue or tape then explore paper loops with and without twists that make Mobius strips. I invited concrete experimentation to see the divergent results on cutting three strips around the loop. An ordinary loop cut along its centre separates into two narrower loops. An M-strip cut along the centre will on cut 1 go to a longer loop (a second cut of this loop results in interlocked loops). The second M-strip, cut along the 1/3 point will separate into interlocked twisted loops, one longer than the other.
These concrete exercises with paper are clearly independent of our inner notions and games of thought. Had they been undertaken, they would have exhibited the consequences of embedded structures and quantities manifest in our common world independent of our particular ideas. And indeed, the Mobius strip, I understand, was a significant case of mathematical discovery that helped launch a field of study, Topology. A case of discovery rather than invention in some logic game. A discovery that demonstrates empirically how properties of space are embedded in our world.
Unsurprisingly, neither of you reported on such an exercise. H, you said you understand such strips. EG, I believe went silent on the topic.
Moreover, appeal to experience as validating — here, get out paper, glue and scissors — is of course another appeal to warrant that may provide a degree of certainty.
Empirical observation may in many cases rise to moral certainty, but as was pointed out in the OP, explanatory constructs on such (models and theories used in science, engineering, finance and management) cannot rise beyond provisional warrant on tested empirical reliability so far.
When we turn to conscious reflection, we find things that are indubitably experience, and which can and do rise to much higher certainty of warrant. For instance, that one is self aware and conscious is undeniably true and self evident to a given subject. Likewise, that such a subject is appeared to redly on seeing a bright red ball on a table is a fact of experience that is undeniably so. One, that can be shared with others by pointing and inviting, pointing to our shared world. (I add: where, if someone cannot perceive red under appropriate conditions, we identify that person as colour blind. Indeed, recently there was a triumph of making glasses that by filtering certain bands achieved a breakthrough that has become somewhat of an Internet sensation.)
Likewise, through language and rational study we can and do have shared experiences of warrant that can rise to demonstrative certainty, rooted in first principles. Where, such principles can often be seen in the same way as self evident, undeniable or necessary through being inescapable. These are not proofs, they form the basis on which we may test or prove.
In context, I have highlighted the inescapable nature of distinct identity and its corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle. Kindly cf. OP. The attempt to suggest such are inaccessible fails and once experience includes shared rational reflection, they are accessible to others in a community of rational contemplation.
Next, I repeat:from the OP; moral certainty is a degree of certainty — that where
The subject on the table — again — is warrant and certainty, not tangential topics, especially such as go down in the sewer as I have had occasion to specifically gavel in another thread recently, as EG full well knows.
The name for the fallacy involved in side tracking — a favourite tactic of concern trolls BTW — is the red herring. This is normally the first stage of a trifecta: red herrings –> strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems — > set alight rhetorically to cloud, poison, polarise. That can be done blatantly or it can be done subtly but the effect is much the same.
In a future thread, I will take time to (again) show that there are self-evident moral truths that are instructive on ordering our interior and common lives. For example, it is self-evident that reasoned discussion appeals to the known duty to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness etc. Without acknowledged moral truth that has force of known law, the possibility of a community of rational discourse collapses in absurdity, deceit and cynical manipulativeness. And more.
But this thread’s issue is prior.
The question is warrant to an appropriate degree of certainty.
Where, I again ask those who have been conditioned to see claims to certainty as always unjustified and likely oppressive: are you CERTAIN that one cannot ever be justifiably certain? If so, why?
If not, of course, the objection collapses.
In short, the objection is self-referentially incoherent and demonstrably an error. Where, that error exists is undeniably certain.
KF
PS: Let me take up further, a pivotal claim by H: “you’ve invented your own set of philosophical abstractions and a logic that holds them all together.”
Not at all.
Let me use a classical reference that exposes crucial errors in the claim:
Here, we see an apt illustration of how the principle of distinct identity is pivotal to rational communication and thought. This is literally undeniable truth as the attempt to deny, belittle or dismiss it — simply to communicate a message — must rely on distinct identity. The principle of distinct identity is not an arbitrary invention by dubious individuals setting up THEIR idiosyncratic scheme of logic, it is a first prior of rational, propositional thought and communication. It is a terrible sign of where our civilisation has reached that this has become a debated point, that an educated person could imagine it is a plausible claim to target an inescapable truth such as this.
The matter goes further, as a facet of the principle is the common identity of indiscenibles. That is if W1 and W2 are identical in every material respect we are justified to conclude that we are simply seeing different labels for the same entity, say W. A classic case is the morning vs evening star, long recognised to be the same object, Venus. Likewise, one and the same thing will have the same core properties even when it appears in different guises or contexts: a wandering star at evening or morning, in succession in the case of Venus.
It is in this context, for example that we can point out that there is just one null set, which we discover manifested in various contexts.
By contrast, identical twins are not truly ontologically identical: they are two closely resembling individuals whose bodies came from one common zygote which split into two separate bodies; and this becomes clear in cases of conjoined twins, even where the incomplete separation is such that there is considerable bodily overlap.
All of this points to the force of the principle: that any entity A is itself, in light of its core characteristics which mark it out as distinguishable from all others. Thus with a given distinct world W there will be some A that marks it out as separate from all other possible worlds. Then, we may freely partition W = {A|~A}, dichotomising W. Thus instantly as corollaries no x in W will be both A and ~A and any x in W will be in A or in ~A but not both or neither. LNC and LEM, respectively, as was pointed out in the OP.
These are not arbitrary choices (i.e. “inventions”) that may be freely rejected. As seen, the very attempt to express that rejection inescapably implicitly uses the LOI just to communicate a message. They are recognised, verbalised, discovered, understood as true, necessarily true, so true on pain of instant, patent absurdity on the attempted dismissal. Where, their central role in propositional thought and communication implies that they are implicitly present even in contexts that set out to create other “logics” that deny them.
The objection and associated implied appeals to relativism and/or subjectivism (as well as, likely, the narrative of oppressive imposition) fails.
Again and again, it seems the issue at stake is first principles of reason and refusal to acknowledge just how inescapable they are.
Hazel said
The argument is not about any particular issue; the argument is about the logically supportable basis by which we make any moral claim whatsoever. There’s no use arguing IF something is moral or immoral unless there is a common basis by which to pursue a rational argument in the first place. KF has outlined his basis repeatedly. What is your (or Ed George’s) basis or model by which you make moral decisions?
I was just wondering why kf thought it inappropriate for Ed to mention some moral issues, and specifically why he called them “sewer topics”. He didn’t appear to answer that question. That’s all my post was about.
H,
Pardon, but I did not invent the term, moral certainty; which is not primarily about “moral issues” beyond the duties of prudence, justice and right reason, indeed it is the context for the criminal law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has to do with warrant sufficient to ground duty to act on x as though it were true on matters of high importance. Indeed, that is pretty much what I already said in the OP:
I could not have been more explicit and specific in a brief compass on the point.
Consequently this feels, rhetorically very much like a side-tracking that distracts from a pivotal matter to mire the discussion in frankly sewage — given one of the topics listed which EG has raised repeatedly and was warned about in another thread just a few days ago. (Maybe that word will help to convey the revulsion that some forms of behaviour justifiably raise, because that is exactly what is involved. Such topics simply should not come up routinely in normal discussion.) Then, up it pops again in this thread. I can and will deal with that and similar topics in due course but they are not the topic for this thread nor are they relevant to it.
There is a prior issue on the table, that certainty that one cannot justifiably be certain is not only self referentially incoherent but also clearly ill founded by way of examining degrees of warrant.
Likewise, the notion that all is subjective or culturally based opinion in rhetorical games anyway, is equally self referentially incoherent.
Where, the injection or suggestion of cultural marxist narratives that to stand up for objectivity and objective certainty on adequate warrant is oppressive, is a destructive subversion of reason and prudence.
Correcting such becomes doubly important when we have to turn to scientific inferences or matters of moral truth or prudence.
KF
PS: Here is Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of the modern anglophone school of thought on evidence, on warrant to moral certainty:
BA77
I know several atheists and I don’t detect any insanity. This sort of childish taunt does not promote fruitful discussion. Might I suggest a less polarizing and confrontational tone?
PPS: Likewise, here is the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, on being challenged regarding the credibility of logic:
EG,
Evolutionary materialistic scientism is demonstrably and inescapably self-referentially incoherent, thus inherently irrational.
Worse, the incoherence is not particularly hard to spot, e.g. here is J B S Haldane’s longstanding corrective:
This can be elaborated, e.g. here is Reppert:
Much more can be said, but here is the horse’s mouth, Alex Rosenberg:
Going on, here is Cothran:
So, “insane” in the colloquial sense — AmHD: 4. Very foolish; absurd: took insane risks behind the wheel — is relevant, though I would prefer to use the more specifically descriptive terms: evolutionary materialistic scientism is demonstrably irrational by way of being inescapably self-referentially incoherent (thus self-falsifying), in ways that should be readily accessible to a reasonably informed person, and thus is indefensible.
KF
Ed George @ 20 quote mines bornagain77 and then has the gall to call it a “childish taunt”.
Unbelievable.
FYI: Atheism is not equivalent to “evolutionary materialistic scientism.”
hazel:
FYI: Yes, it is. Wow, it’s easy “arguing” like hazel, brother brian and Ed George.
H, I am very aware of other varieties of atheism; I very specifically spoke to the relevant variety. I can address these in general, e.g. starting from that our rational life is morally governed through a known duty under truth, right reason, prudence, justice etc, thus implying that the IS-OUGHT GAP must be bridged at the only level of reality that such is possible, the root. Whence, we see that there is but one serious candidate: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being; one worthy of our loyalty and of the responsible, rational service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Where, as this is phil, I can challenge to put up an alternative if one rejects such: _____. However, a prior issue lies on the table — warrant and rational responsibility, including the possibility of rational certainty and the self-evident, inescapable nature of first principles of right reason. Indeed, foundations of mathematics also. At this stage, I am increasingly concerned that our civilisation is on a march of utterly irrational folly, never mind the pretence of erudition and brilliance among the educated and chattering classes. KF
ET, actually, there are idealistic forms and various other varieties. Some types of Buddhism count, for example. There are versions on Daoism that have been seen that are effectively atheistical. Other things are “non-theistic” but not atheistic. Some are anti-theistic or even theo-phobic. In many cases, there will be no coherent view sufficient to be termed a worldview, just an ad hoc world-picture that locks out God. We must not allow the common rhetorical subterfuge that atheism is mere lack of belief in God, explicitly or implicitly atheism rejects the reality of God. Where, as an essential part of what it means to be God, God would be a necessary being; atheism implies that God is impossible of being, that there is no possible world in which God exists would be true were such an actual world. Thus, atheism carries the –unmet — intellectual burden of showing that the God of ethical theism is impossible of being. KF
Yes, kairosfocus. I was being facetious.
I fully understand that an atheist can be an IDist. That is because ID does not require God.
re 26: Got it, kf. I wasn’t clear since your “evolutionary materialistic scientism” post immediately followed a remark about atheism being insane, so I mistakenly thought you were seeing those as equivalent. I see now that you don’t. All is well.
H, for cause, I hold that any variety of evolutionary materialistic scientism (the predominant form of current atheism) is caught up in inherently and inescapably self referentially incoherent, necessarily false views where adequate reason to recognise the falsity is readily accessible. Secondly, other forms of atheism that do not reduce to such in one way or another are utterly unable to account for us adequately as responsibly, rationally free, morally governed, enconscienced creatures. Further, this cluster of evidence strongly points to the inherently good, maximally great, necessary being creator God as root of reality. Accordingly, while it is often intellectually and ideologically fashionable, atheism in its various forms is ill-founded and ill advised. KF
PS: I suggest a reading of this book, as a first corrective.
ET, indeed, the design inference on tested, reliable signs is an inference to credible causal process, not to the identity or ontological nature of candidate designers. KF
I haven’t said anything that needs a corrective, kf, as I haven’t made any claims whatsoever about atheism, other than it’s not equivalent to “evolutionary materialistic scientism”, which is a point you agreed on.
as to
to which,
How so very scientific, a personal subjective opinion on his own ability, i.e. “I know”, to detect insanity.
First off, if atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism were true, (which just so happens to be, by far, the prevailing ‘scientific’ worldview taught in leading American universities), then there is no “I” to know anything. In fact, if atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism were actually true, then EG did not actually write his post in protest to me calling Atheism insane, but the laws of physics wrote it and informed the illusion of EG of the event after the fact,,, per Paul Nelson..
No matter how you cut it, that is completely insane.
Thus, the prevailing atheistic worldview taught in American Universities today, i.e. methodological naturalism, is an insane worldview. There simply are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
If “you” want to protest that believing “you’ don’t actually exist as a causal agent is actually a sane position to hold, well then by all means have at it! 🙂 Who am I to deny you the right to deny that you exist?
Einstein himself was prone to the insanity of denying his own agent causality. As Ellis stated, “if Einstein did not have free will in some meaningful sense, then he could not have been responsible for the theory of relativity – it would have been a product of lower level processes but not of an intelligent mind choosing between possible options.”
As Dr. Egnor pointed out, “The denial of free will is a psychiatric, not philosophical, issue.”
And as I pointed out in post 2, besides the insanity in denying your own agent causality, the insanity gets much worse for those who toe the line of methodological naturalism.
Thus, EG may not like me calling atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism insane, but alas, under atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism there is no EG to really object to anything. Only a mindless meat zombie making whistling gurgling and popping noises forced upon him by the lower level laws of physics.,, And again that is, pardon the language, just plain bat-{SNIP] crazy insane no matter how you slice it.
Moreover, this insanity, i.e. methodological naturalism, is taught in leading American universities in spite of the fact that we now have robust scientific evidence from neuroscience and quantum mechanics strongly supporting the ‘common sense’ contention that free-will, i.e. agent causality, actually exists.
Moreover, if EG would have bothered to look up the facts, he would have found that numerous studies have now all shown that faith in God has a tremendous beneficial effect on both our mental and physical health:
As Professor Andrew Sims, former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, states, “The advantageous effect of religious belief and spirituality on mental and physical health is one of the best-kept secrets in psychiatry and medicine generally.”,,, “In the majority of studies, religious involvement is correlated with well-being, happiness and life satisfaction; hope and optimism; purpose and meaning in life;,,”
In fact, in the following study it was found that, “those middle-aged adults who go to church, synagogues, mosques or other houses of worship reduce their mortality risk by 55%.”
Thus, it is readily apparent that the Atheist’s attempt to create illusory meaning and purposes for his life, minus belief in God and a afterlife, falls short in a rather dramatic fashion on both the mental and physical level.
In short, the insanity inherent within the atheist’s worldview does indeed have a rather dramatic negative effect on both the atheist’s mental and physical life that is very much scientifically detectable.
Of related note: The mental illness of ‘denialism’ is also rampant within evolutionary thinking, especially among supposed ‘professionals’
And indeed, the denial of design, especially in biology, is nothing short of sheer madness,
Thus, EG may take exception to the bluntness of me calling atheism, particularly methodological naturalism, insane, but in all fairness I was not being blunt enough in proclaiming the sheer madness that results from holding methodological naturalism as being true. When examined in detail, Alice in Wonderland looks sane in comparison to the leading worldview taught in American Universities, i.e. methodological naturalism.
BA77, language, please refrain from vulgarities. Also, while “insanity” as a one time reference in context is at least understandable, regular resort becomes inappropriate and invites a reaction rather than a response. Please use different language going forward. KF
You can forget about me commenting on your threads going forward.
BA77, that is your privilege. KF
BA77
That is much better than a “read more” button. 🙂
Ed George
So if I insist that the truth about the morality of abortion can be known, my certainly is a detriment to society because it ends discussion and promotes majority rule, but if you insist that the truth about the morality of abortion cannot be known, your certainly is not a detriment to society because it does not end discussion and does not promote majority rule. Do I understand you correctly?
SB, the claim that one cannot know truth concerning moral claims is a moral truth claim; in effect that moral claims cannot be warranted, so by implication are subjective or relative and possibly imposed (note the shade of claimed injustice there). It is thus self-referential, incoherent and consequently certainly false. By reductio ad absurdum, one therefore can freely, properly conclude that on the contrary one can know to relevant certainty some moral truths. A good start-point is, to observe that in our reasoning and arguing even those who object are appealing to our known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, fairness & justice, etc. Pondering the suggestion that such duties are not in fact known instantly lands mindedness, reason and discussion in the morass of grand delusion. We therefore cannot escape the conclusion that we are indeed under moral law of such duties, starting with our thought life, conscience being a witness. From this, we then find that contrary to a common belief, is and ought are inextricably intertwined and the IS-OUGHT gap must be bridged at the only possible level (on pain of ungrounded ought), the root of reality. This then points us to the only serious candidate on the table — if you doubt, just put up a successful alternative: _______ . This brings us face to face with him whom theo-phobes get the vapours over: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being. One, who is worthy of loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good which accords with our evident nature. In that light, classically, woe to those who put darkness for light and light for darkness, good for evil and evil for good, who are wise in their own eyes, etc. Particularly, as setting up a crooked yardstick as a false standard for straightness and uprightness means that what is genuinely straight (“true”) and upright (“plumb”) cannot match what falsity demands. The resulting delusion then systematically locks out truth and right. Which is exactly what we are seeing across our civilisation. KF
PS: We can then apply a highly instructive moral yardstick that brings out a considerable body of moral knowledge: it is self-evidently wrong, evil, wicked to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child for one’s pleasure. This slice of the cake has in it a great many ingredients that then allow us to draw out a better way than the might and/or manipulation make ‘truth’/ ‘right’/ ‘knowledge’/ ‘justice’ etc we too often see all around us today. Of course, such an approach cuts directly across the fashionable opinions, the ongoing abortion holocaust and other marches of evil that are leading our civilisation over the cliff.
F/N: Given the way radical relativism and subjectivism are pushed ever so hard nowadays, it is very interesting to see the lack of objectors ever so eager to show that the general point made in the OP is false. But of course, that’s weirdly consistently inconsistent: if one asserts that s/he is CERTAIN that one cannot be certain that there is justifiable certainty, that is obviously self-defeating. Even in the case (not originally on the table) of moral truth, to assert or imply that there is no knowable moral truth (or no moral truth to be known) then that is also a moral truth claim implicitly taken as certain. Going back to core structure and quantity embedded in the fabric of this or any other possible world, we have a demonstration on self-evident principles (law of identity) on the table. KF
H, I gave a first corrective to atheism (by linking); much more can be brought to bear as necessary or indicated. KF
KF, since 30 was addressed to me, I guess I took the last line about a corrective as also addressed to me. I see that perhaps you were just explaining your thoughts in general but not actually addressing anything I had said, so the “corrective” was not actually a suggestion to me in particular.
H, the book addresses especially the new atheists. KF
I see. They don’t interest me much, and I agreed with PZ Myer’s assessment, although I don’t know very much about the whole situation.
Hazel- are you an atheist? Are you an evolutionist who thinks life’s diversity arose via blind and mindless processes such as natural selection and drift?
Hi ET. I only discuss my religious beliefs with people who I know personally, who I know care about me, and who are genuinely interested in a positive way. I wouldn’t discuss my personal religious beliefs with strangers in a public forum like this one.
Atheism is a religion? Really? And no one asked you to discuss anything, hazel. A yes or no would have sufficed.
What about the science part- Are you an evolutionist who thinks life’s diversity arose via blind and mindless processes such as natural selection and drift? Or do you consider that to be an unscientific position?
I originally started posting here because of the discussion about math, which branched out to discussions about consciousness and the mind, and about the general nature of the physical world. I don’t pay any attention to all the discussion about evolution that goes on here.
Actually, for what it’s worth, I do find some of the articles News posts interesting, even though I often don’t find her commentary very interesting. That’s one of the reasons I keep paying attention to this site.
Wow- way to avoid the questions. I never asked why you are posting here and yet you felt compelled to answer that unasked question.
Very telling
Telling to explain, in response to your questions, what I am interested in and what I’m not? What does that tell you? 🙂
SB@38, my point, although possibly not well worded, is that when one party enters a discussion (eg abortion) declaring that he or she is absolutely certain of their position, the “discussion” has ended. Rancor and emotion may remain, but the possibility of changing the other person’s mind has ended.
hazel, Clearly you have reading comprehension issues as I never asked what you posted.
Pathetic, really.
ET, pardon me for trying to have a conversation. I won’t make that mistake again. 🙂
Hazel@53 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Ed, how do you put those emojis in a post? I’m always pleased when I get a “four smiley’s” response!
LoL! @ hazel and he puppet Ed.
I asked hazel two questions which she refused to answer. I don’t care about her feelings for Denyse. I don’t care why she is here. I never inquired about either of those subjects.
So again, hazel’s responses are indeed, very telling.
And it is still very, very telling that Ed George and acartia post on different forums at the same time. Usually attacking me with the same old immaturity of an lost and whining child
Hazel, four out of five is a very high score. 🙂
Have you noticed that ET appears to have an unhealthy obsession with someone named acartia? I have no idea who he/she is, but I think I might like him/her. 🙂
Oops. Never mind: They are just 🙂 . What I wonder is if there are other combinations this software recognizes as an emoji?
Maybe :-0 😉
Wow. Only an acartia sock puppet would say I have an obsession. I think it is the lowest of the low for a known ID hater and science basher to come here and pretend otherwise. That person is on record it just chooses to provoke and not engage.
You are acartia/ William spearshake and no amount of denial will change that. 😛 😛 😛
Aha. Another emoji that works. ???? I wonder what the keystrokes for that are?
EG, why do you again project closed-mindedness by rhetorical suggestion and shift context from a demonstrative argument regarding things that are corollaries of a world being possible, to a debate on morals through a position that begs the question of warrant sufficient to ground knowledge? Do you not see that if you are unwilling to accept a demonstrative argument on the principle of identity, that certain types of structure and quantity are embedded in the fabric of any world, this raises serious doubts that any other type of warrant will ever suffice for you to acknowledge it? Further, do you not see the implication of being unwilling to take up the force of a demonstration by cutting Mobius strips, that structures and quantities are by direct observation embedded in our experienced world, that this raises serious doubts about responsiveness even to direct experience? In that context, as fair comment (I regret the pain but think it is necessary) it seems the issue is that you have projected to others. KF
PS: In a future thread, I will take up moral truth and knowledge, but at this stage it may be more for the sake of record as to what is driving the way the broad discussions, debates, agendas etc in our civilisation are playing out. For sure, I am now convinced that the issue with say the design inference is not warrant but instead the increasingly manifest breakdown of the intellectual heart of our civilisation which leads too many to make a crooked yardstick our standard of straightness, uprightness, accuracy — utter, indefensible folly. The consequences of which are liable to be ruinous. On abortion the issue is simple: our unborn posterity living in the womb (who now are as we once were) are fully human and have a proper claim to the first of all rights, life. To rob them of life to the tune of 800+ millions in 40+ years under false colour of law, mounting at about a million more per week is utterly monstrous and corrosive. That corrosion is debasing not only our morals on many issues (sexual ones are only the most obvious) but as our minds are inescapably morally governed, it is debasing our minds. Which is suicidal for our civilisation.
????????Does this work? How about these? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Nope, they didn’t.
😎 Cool: I found a list of ones that work. Link
That’s all for this digression.
ET, there is no need to allow EG to pull you into a polarisation spiral. Such atmosphere-poisoning distraction only serves the agenda of diverting focus from truly substantial matters. KF
When we have people poisoning the well on those substantial matters, something must be said. I have said it.
For the record I am not asking for anyone to be banned. I just want people to understand who they are really dealing with here. Because that matters- as does their intentions.
KF@61, did you intend this comment for this thread? It seems a little off topic.
To follow from my comment at 51, I am not saying that we can’t know things with absolute certainty, just that claiming this absolute certainty when trying to change someone’s view on something is counterproductive. For example, if you start a discussion with someone who is pro-choice with the claim that you are absolutely certain that abortion under all circumstances is evil, do you really think that you will change that person’s mind?
However, if you approach the issue (whatever issue is involved) as a true discussion, finding common ground where it exists, you are more likely to be successful in changing minds. Blunt hammers may be effective at changing laws but they are usually ineffective at changing hearts. If you will permit me another example, the soviets used a blunt hammer to ban religion in the USSR, but they certainly had little affect on changing the religious beliefs of their citizens.
Ed George
(Here you seem to be saying that we *cannot* be certain about the moral law).
(Here you seem to be saying that we *can* be certain about the moral law but we should not tell others that we are certain for some reason). Which is it?
Do you think we can be certain about the morality of abortion? An abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent unborn child for reasons other that saving the life or physical health of the mother, which is almost always unnecessary.
Ed George
…
That statement makes no sense. It is on the basis of reason and evidence that I am certain that abortion is wrong. Without that knowledge, I would not try to convince anyone to be pro-life because I would have no reason to pursue the matter. No one says, “I am really not sure if killing innocent human beings in the womb is wrong, but please don’t do it anyway.”
If you refuse to acknowledge that abortion is wrong even when science has proven the humanity of the fetus, and even when the natural law has confirmed that all humans, regardless of their stage of development, have inherent dignity, then it is your unreasonableness, not my certainty, that brings the discussion to an end.
SB
Not in all circumstances. But I’ve already mentioned this.
EG, When demonstrative warrant (especially from first principles of reason and the like) is on the table, the issue is not trying to persuade. The issue becomes, taking due notice of warrant on known duties to truth, right reason, prudence, etc. . If you think something is wrong with the demonstration, that requires counter-demonstration. In absence of such, demonstration is decisive. On the issue of abortion, it is not hard to see that the unborn child is a living human being with a right to life as the first right; that is the obvious point of common moral knowledge. The problem, then, is willful dehumanising of the unborn and corruption of institutions that should be protecting the most vulnerable, thus the enabling of holocaust; and that is very similar to the issue from the 1780’s on, on the slave trade and slavery system: a central, civilisation-tainting evil to be exposed, recognised and removed. KF
Imagine 54 Las Vegas massacres a day. That is the level of carnage wrought by the abortion industry each day. And yet the same people who rail against guns are OK with abortions. What’s up with that?
In a poisoned well scenario all demonstrative warrant on substantive matters are rendered impotent. It is the nature of the poison. And it is the intent of the poisoner.
KF
When the majority disagree with what you consider to be demonstrative warrant, then trying to persuade is definitely the issue. You have failed to persuade others of this demonstrative warrant. Might I suggest that the reason that you and others have failed to persuade others of this demonstrative warrant is because of the way you and others present it.
As I mentioned, confronting others and declaring that you are absolutely and unambiguously certain about something will do little to convince those who hold a different view.
ET
You are certainly correct, at least in part. However, have you never considered the possibility that some of the well poisoning is being unwittingly being carried out by those opposing abortion? Referring to abortion doctors and women having abortions as murderers only hardens their views against yours.
SB: Do you think we can be certain about the morality of abortion?
You have not been at all clear. Remember the definition of an abortion: It is the purposeful and deliberate killing of an unborn child that is not wanted. It is not the incidental killing of a wanted child that is sometimes, though rarely, necessary to save the life or physical health of the mother.
As indicated, you have said that we cannot be certain about the morality “in all circumstances.” so I am asking you to clarify: [a] Under which circumstances can you be certain about the morality of abortion and [b] under which circumstances can you not be certain?
Ed
There is something to what you say Ed, but probably not what you think. Suppose “John” says killing innocent little babies is wrong and he is absolutely and unambiguously certain about that. Suppose Bob says, nope, I am in favor of slaughtering them by the millions. I suspect Bob is not going to be persuaded by John. That is not because John is wrong. He isn’t. And that is not because John “confronted” Bob with his error. After all, when someone is a moral monster, it is necessary to confront them.
The reason Bob is not open to persuasion has nothing to do with John, his message, or how he presents his message. The reason Bob is not open to persuasion is because his conscience is seared. He is in favor of killing innocent babies after all.
Now there might be some in the mushy middle. And it is true that John should not be offensive as he presents the truth. But nothing it to be gained by pretending that he is less than certain that killing innocent babies is monstrous.
Ed George
We haven’t failed to persuade others. More and more people are recognizing the evil of abortion and the polls/surveys show it. I can provide plenty of evidence to support that assertion. The more that the facts about abortion are known, the more people are rejecting it.
This would have happened much earlier, but the abortionists and the media have suppressed this information for decades. None of the major networks will show the picture of an aborted fetus, nor will they describe one of the two major “procedures” by which the fetus is killed.
So your argument that people like us do not persuade others by being certain about our position is refuted by the facts.
EG,
First, the main issue of demonstrative warrant that has been on the table for weeks (as can readily be seen) is concerning the Wigner Math-Physics gap.
Where, let me add: this is manifest, despite your hermeneutics of suspicion and associated projections. It is in this context that it was suggested that it is certain that we cannot be justifiably certain. Accordingly, in the OP for this thread, I have taken time to headline the ladder of degrees of certainty. Which includes that theoretical, explanatory, inferential constructs in science are inherently provisional and are subject to observational tests, which may be of much higher warrant, moral certainty. Which has been defined so side tracking on hot button topics by exploiting the term “moral” is at best distractive.
Where also, after weeks, it is clear from the balance on merits that there is no reasonable alternative to the principle of distinct identity. Indeed, to continue to object, you have had to implicitly use it at every stage just to compose objections. For, you have relied on distinct glyphs and underlying ASCII code strings which depend on distinction. The principle is not in doubt, proper responsiveness to it is.
The PS to the OP clips the latest outline of the consequences of this principle, that pivots on the point that any distinct possible world must be unique, having in it some core characteristic, A, which marks it as different from neighbouring possible worlds. Once that is so, world partition follows, W = {A|~A}. Which, immediately manifests the successive properties, nullity, unity, duality, thus also reflecting the succession 0,1,2; thus too we recognise already embedded structures and quantities that are necessary aspects of the logic of being involved in a possible world. Possible, of course, as it is possible of being (even if not actual).
Consequently, we see that we may freely draw out the von Neumann succession, thence the natural counting numbers N. Thereafter, the relationships we may develop among members of N allow us to see the further implicit presence of Z [thus, vectors], Q, R [thus, abstract continuum and space], C. All of this follows on logical consequences and structural relationships that are a commonplace.
Nor is this embedding merely a matter of an abstract logical model. From gear trains to right angle triangles with Pythagorean properties to the concrete exercise of making and cutting a Mobius strip that demonstrates world-embedded topological effects that are usually surprising, to many other phenomena, we have every good reason to see and recognise that considerable, rationally intelligible structure and quantity is intrinsic to our common world and to any possible one. For telling instance, you and others have been invited to set up a Mobius strip and demonstrate its peculiar properties to yourself, which have independence from what you or I may wish or expect or understand. The unresponsiveness to date to such a challenge speaks for itself.
In short, the issue is not failure of the warrant provided or flaws in reasoning or observation.
The resistance and unresponsiveness which led to appeals to contrary opinion in absence of a counter-demonstration and the demand, persuade “us,” speak of contrary controlling ideas, an ideological challenge thus a worldview issue. Obviously, what has been tagged Mathematical Platonism — but really should be pondered on terms of the evidence that structure and quantity pervade our world from its roots and the demonstration that some such properties are intrinsic to any possible world — cuts across major worldview commitments of our time. Suspect no 1 being evolutionary materialistic scientism and its fellow travellers. Linked, being nominalism, radical relativism and subjectivism. Where, we know separately, that each of these is fatally self-referentially incoherent.
Of course, there has been appeal to “majority” perceptions, i.e. to ideological dominance. Actually, on Mathematics, the dominant view is some form of Mathematical Platonism (in the sense that certain mathematical entities hold objective albeit abstract reality), whether that has been fully articulated or not. In Physics, the centrality of momentum, energy and angular momentum is not in doubt, and yet each of these is in itself an intangible, abstract quantity tracing to cumulative effects of forces acting in space and time; bringing to bear the even more abstract relationships between rates and accumulations.
Any entity or configuration that is capable of initiating or sustaining forced ordered motion is or contains energy. That sort of operational definition is a key tell.
So, clearly the issue on the merits has a decisive balance. A core collection of of structure and quantity manifestly, observably and demonstrably is embedded in our world and is intrinsic to the logic of being of a distinct possible world. The challenge we face onward is to live with it.
Living with such implies our duties to truth, right reason, prudence and much more.
Which in turn manifests how even our thought-life is pervaded by the inextricable entanglement of is and ought. In turn, such requires that we regulate our response to pathos, ethos and logos so that we form and reform our opinions on the merits of fact and logic, rather than strength of feelings, blind adherence to authorities, presenters or groups we identify with, etc.
Now, various issues have been raised that threaten to divert the thread. Having already pointed out the core premise that the right to life is a first right for us all, the only real “question” is whether the unborn child in the womb is a member of our race. To ask such is already to imply its answer as the child in the womb is as we all once were. Willful dehumanisation, manipulation and power have been used to suppress truth and the manifest law of our nature. This has led to enabling holocaust, a central evil of our times. There have credibly been 800+ million victims in 40+ years, currently mounting at about a million more per week.
This indicts us.
It is high time for us to stop, recognise and turn from great evil.
Coming back, the problem is, that if ideological commitment is resistant to demonstration and easily carried out experiments, it will resist almost anything else until it is overwhelmed by something like taking our civilisation over a cliff.
That, is sobering.
KF
SB,
Yes, once they see the facts and are exposed to evident reason, many will be — have been — persuaded.
That is a sign of hope and it manifests how we intuitively know that we have duties to truth, right reason, prudence, justice and right behaviour. Though, as you pointed out, consciences can be seared, hot-ironed so to speak. Where, given the inextricable intertwining of reason, responsibility and moral government in our inner lives, searing one’s conscience inevitably debases one’s mind. Carried far enough, we are dealing with the reprobate. Where, it is manifestly unsound to cede intellectual, moral and cultural leadership to the conscience-seared.
We have to turn back from the cliff’s edge.
Before, it is too late.
Where, too, the deliberate suppression of unwelcome truth regarding the unborn speaks volumes and is a warning.
Perhaps, the current case of a media-fed lynch mob pouncing on high school boys who attended the 46th March for Life, leading to the emerging prosecutions for threats and lawsuits for defamation may just may help tip the balance.
But if mathematics and first principles as well as experiments with paper, glue and scissors will not move some people, nothing will.
That’s why I now conclude that we must begin to see that the dogs will bark but the caravan should not be distracted by that fact if there is no warrant apart from barking at the caravan. If the barking were to be warning of a real danger, a different response would be indicated.
The evidence is, our civilisation is heedlessly playing with the crumbling edge of a cliff.
We don’t even know how much time we have to act to get ourselves on sounder ground.
KF