Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Logic and First Principles, 9: Can we be “certain” of any of our views or conclusions?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

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.

Comments
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. KFkairosfocus
January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
January 28, 2019
January
01
Jan
28
28
2019
01:30 AM
1
01
30
AM
PDT
Ed George
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.
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.StephenB
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Ed
'confronting others and declaring that you are absolutely and unambiguously certain about something will do little to convince those who hold a different view
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.Barry Arrington
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
SB: Do you think we can be certain about the morality of abortion?
Not in all circumstances. But I’ve already mentioned this.
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?StephenB
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
07:35 PM
7
07
35
PM
PDT
ET
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.
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.Ed George
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
KF
EG, When demonstrative warrant (especially from first principles of reason and the like) is on the table, the issue is not trying to persuade.
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.Ed George
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
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.ET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
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?ET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
SB
Do you think we can be certain about the morality of abortion?
Not in all circumstances. But I’ve already mentioned this.Ed George
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Ed George ...
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.
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."
Rancor and emotion may remain, but the possibility of changing the other person’s mind has ended.
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.StephenB
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT
Ed George
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.
(Here you seem to be saying that we *cannot* be certain about the moral law).
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.
(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.StephenB
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
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
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
10:55 AM
10
10
55
AM
PDT
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.ET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
????????Does this work? How about these? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Nope, they didn't. 8-) Cool: I found a list of ones that work. Link That's all for this digression.hazel
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
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.kairosfocus
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
Aha. Another emoji that works. ???? I wonder what the keystrokes for that are?hazel
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
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. :razz: :razz: :razz:ET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Oops. Never mind: They are just :-) . What I wonder is if there are other combinations this software recognizes as an emoji? Maybe :-0 ;-)hazel
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
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. :)Ed George
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT
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 childET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
Ed, how do you put those emojis in a post? I'm always pleased when I get a "four smiley's" response!hazel
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT
Hazel@53 :) :) :) :)Ed George
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
ET, pardon me for trying to have a conversation. I won't make that mistake again. :-)hazel
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
hazel, Clearly you have reading comprehension issues as I never asked what you posted. Pathetic, really.ET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
09:12 AM
9
09
12
AM
PDT
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.Ed George
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Telling to explain, in response to your questions, what I am interested in and what I'm not? What does that tell you? :-)hazel
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
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 tellingET
January 27, 2019
January
01
Jan
27
27
2019
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply