WJM vs Popper and his supporters on error and progress

CR, kindly ponder the saying that to the man whose only tool is a hammer, everything looks like the head of a nail. KF kairosfocus

Unless there is a differentiation in our instincts, we won’t survive long.

That's a criticism of the idea that the LoI is false. it takes the form that if X wasn't true, we couldn't do Y. Or are you suggesting it's not? If so, what did you just do? I could probably come up with a really bad explanation about how the LoI could be false, just as Deutsch came up with a bad explanation for why 2+2=4 might be false. The LoI is hard to vary without significantly reducing it's ability to explain what it purports to explain. So is 2+2=4. Both are just ideas that we currently lack good criticism of. critical rationalist

@Barry

You are missing the point. It is irrelevant whether criticism is instinctual. To criticize one must employ reason. One cannot employ reason to get to reason. That is WJM’s point. It is obviously correct. One wonders why you push back at it so hard.

To intentionally criticize, one must employ reason. This is yet another assuming that the knowledge was always there from the start in the form of some infallible source. This is UB's argument that the knowledge of how to build a replicator was there, at the outset, yet not present in the laws of physics.

Criticism in Popper’s theory of knowledge unifies ideas from natural selection, to instincts, to useful rules of thumb to subconsciously criticism to conscious and intentional debate in informal and formal settings.

Slamming into reality, as you pointed out, doesn't require reason. Organisms don't need to comprehend problems, in the sense that we do, to have problems to solve. It's a form of criticism none the less. Knowledge can fail to solve a problem or fail to solve it as well as some other knowledge, and be replaced. IOW, what I'm referring to is a unification of knowledge and criticism across multiple fields, without the need for knowing subjects and conscious evaluation. critical rationalist

CR said:

Criticism is instinctual. Just as walking is instinctual for horse and nursing in human beings.

Unless there is a differentiation in our instincts, we won't survive long. Which means the LoI precedes instincts. The LoI must precede all differentiated experience, CR. Wrap your head around that, if you can. William J Murray

jdk

It’s good to see that a couple of us agree about a few things.

Christmas is the season of miracles. :) JSmith

Thanks, JSmith @ 50. It's good to see that a couple of us agree about a few things. jdk

CR, Again, there are so many things that have been twisted into pretzels it is hard to see where to begin and to go point by point would be a waste of time. First, there are specific self-evident truths, nothing has been claimed that most or all truths are self-evident or necessary. Second, if one is delusional to the extent of being a brain electro-stimulated in a vat (if that were possible) such would still be incorrigibly aware of the bare fact of consciousness. This is a necessary truth that is synthetic a posteriori, but that is better seen as self-evident. This is not an analytic truth. The diagram in the previous OP shows the situation: a rock has no dreams and cannot be deluded it is conscious. Once self aware then self aware, period. Next, You have managed to confuse the utterly simple. Take E, error exists. That is a claim about reality. Take the denial, ~E, which is that it is an error to claim or hold that error exists -- not just falsity it is assertion that implies claim to truth. This immediately entails an error exists. Oops. The original claim is undeniable. You can wrench away all you want but all you will do is convince us that for some reason you are utterly committed to there being no self-evident truths and will clutch at straws to deny that. I notice, you skip over 2 + 3 = 5, as that is utterly resistant to twisting as it is hard to twist: || + ||| --> ||||| Going on, any distinct thing has its own identity that marks it off from the rest of reality in some way. Once that partition occurs, the triple principles of right reason instantly apply. Your clever attempt to duck the challenge of the IS-OUGHT gap and the logic of being, simply shows that you have determined that you will not touch the matter. And, you intend to do so by imposing your will, i.e. ou have appealed to the soft nihilism of might and manipulation make right. Yet another form of clinging to absurdity. And so forth. I suggest, you need to do a serious rethink. KF kairosfocus

CR

Criticism is instinctual.

You are missing the point. It is irrelevant whether criticism is instinctual. To criticize one must employ reason. One cannot employ reason to get to reason. That is WJM's point. It is obviously correct. One wonders why you push back at it so hard. Your objection is as if WJM had said "One needs words to get to language" and you had responded "Words are instinctual." Even if the response is true, it does not refute WJM's assertion. BTW, have you managed to find that real world example to support your claim that descriptions of semiotic systems do not scale to quantum storage mediums? UB and I have been waiting these many weeks. Barry Arrington

jdk at 18

But I have also come to believe that the big philosophical debates are actually disguising, in a non-productive way, the issues we should be discussing: more down-to-earth issues about how to come to some common understandings with people who do take different ideological positions.

I agree. Whether or not their are objective truths, it is obviously that we are not terribly good at discerning what they are. As such, it is important to put aside the origin of what is and concentrate on developing agreement on the best way to live together.

The kind of arguments that take place here at UD are far too dichotomous, polarizing, and ungenerous to actually be productive in a way that is good for the participants.

I couldn't agree more. But, I must admit that I do get a perverse joy out of watching people get all worked up about such a silly difference of opinion. We should all just stop taking ourselves so seriously. No discussion here is going to make one iota of difference in how the world and its societies function. JSmith

CR @47 // comment on issue 1

CR (to KF): What do we do when faced with a concrete problem? How can some source infallibly tell us what the right choice is to make when we actually need it, in practice? To say something is trivially true is to say that it is trivial in respect to solving problems.

[sentence by sentence:]

CR: What do we do when faced with a concrete problem?

In order to have a scenario in which one is faced with a concrete problem, one must make a distinction between “I” & “the external world” and also a distinction between “a concrete problem” and a “non-concrete problem”. These fundamental distinctions are in line with LOI. Think about it.

CR: How can some source infallibly tell us what the right choice is to make when we actually need it, in practice?

A remarkable naive question. How in the world can you expect KF to name one single source for all occasions? For instance, the laws of logic can often guide us to make the right decisions, but only a fool would hold that they always suffice.

CR: To say something is trivially true is to say that it is trivial in respect to solving problems.

Your behavior on this forum does not indicate it, nevertheless, I do hope that you do not hold the laws of logic to be “trivially true.”

KF: 1] To one who is conscious, the bare fact of consciousness is self-evident and such a one cannot be deluded on that bare fact, though there may be errors about contents of consciousness.

CR: One example has already been given. if you mistakenly think you are a deceased historical figure, the person you think exists because you think doesn’t actually exist. You’re mistaken. I’m referring to what we could supposedly know infallibly in practice. You are experiencing something could easily just as well be that it wasn’t you who experienced it. How does that help me solve a problem?

[point by point:]

CR: CR: if you mistakenly think you are a deceased historical figure, the person you think exists because you think doesn’t actually exist. You’re mistaken.

CR succeeds (again) in misunderstanding an argument. Again, KF: “To one who is conscious, the bare fact of consciousness is self-evident …”. Contrary to what CR seems to think, the ‘bare fact of consciousness’ has little if anything to do with social identity. One may think that one is Napoleon, and/or a good looking well-liked person and be completely mistaken about all of that, but one cannot be mistaken about the fact that one is conscious. It is a different matter entirely.

CR: I’m referring to what we could supposedly know infallibly in practice.

No, you are not. You refer to the possibility of being mistaken about (social) identity. No one has ever claimed that we cannot err on social identity. You are not referring to the fact that one is conscious.

CR: You are experiencing something could easily just as well be that it wasn’t you who experienced it.

This is very confused. These are the kind of texts that are pretty scary; to say the least. For clarity, under no circumstance, can it be the case that I experience that I am conscious, but that it is, in fact, the experience of someone else. Origenes

@WJM

You cannot reason your way to a principle of reason to use in your reasoning process. Reason cannot create itself. Criticism cannot form itself out of nothing. Or is that what you are attempting to claim? That you can build the first hammer using a hammer?

Criticism is instinctual. Just as walking is instinctual for horse and nursing in human beings. Example? Regardless of how clear you try to write or say, it can always be misunderstood. This is one of the reasons why most people misunderstand Popper. Yet, for the most part, people end up with fairly accurate interpretations of what people actually meant. How? By quickly and subconsciously considering a number of possible interpretations and criticizing them based on background knowledge we already have, such as who wrote it, what they wrote in the previous sentence, context of a conversion, etc. We do this thousands of times a day and have done so for thousands of years without understanding it formally as criticism in the traditional sense. Criticism in Popper's theory of knowledge unifies ideas from natural selection, to instincts, to useful rules of thumb to subconsciously criticism to conscious and intentional debate in informal and formal settings. So, when I say knowledge is information that plays a causal role when embedded in a storage medium, I mean it survives criticism. As Barry said, our ideas slam into reality, which is yet another example of criticism. critical rationalist

@KF You're missing a key point. Popper's position is that all life is problem solving. What do we do when faced with a concrete problem? How can some source infallibly tell us what the right choice is to make when we actually need it, in practice? To say something is trivially true is to say that it is trivial in respect to solving problems.

1] To one who is conscious, the bare fact of consciousness is self-evident and such a one cannot be deluded on that bare fact, though there may be errors about contents of consciousness.

One example has already been given. if you mistakenly think you are a deceased historical figure, the person you think exists because you think doesn't actually exist. You're mistaken. I'm referring to what we could supposedly know infallibly in practice. You are experiencing something could easily just as well be that it wasn't you who experienced it. How does that help me solve a problem? If you mean self-evident in the sense of something that doesn't refer to experience, as opposed to nothing that is based on evidence, then it seems this would be better described as a priori knowledge. But that means experience of being conscious isn't part of the equation. Even then, from Wikipedia..."Philosophers also may use "apriority" and "aprioricity" as nouns to refer (approximately) to the quality of being "a priori"" This means they are still subject to criticism to the degree in which they fit that description.

2] Error exists, let’s call this E. Thus also we have ~E, the claim that it is so that it is an error to affirm E. Oops, instant absurdity, E is undeniably and self-evidently true. This BTW is one reason why we need warrant to have confidence that certain claims are credibly true and reliable.

Opps. Strawman. Whether a proposition is true or false is not the same question as to whether one can know a proposition infallibly. Error exists is based on the reasoning that something cannot be true and false at the same time... To quote Xenophanes... “....But as for certain truth, no man has known it, Nor shall he know it,neither of the gods Nor yet of all the things of which I speak. For even if by chance he were to utter The final truth, he would himself not know it: For all is but a woven web of guesses” Objective knowege is possible, but not in the sense that you think.

While we may come to know that LoI is fundamental to criticism because we depend on it for every cogent thought, letter, word, argument, criticism and idea, doesn’t mean criticism came first; it just means that we were unaware that the LoI necessarily comes first and that we were using (and necessarily using it) it all along as the fundamental building block – the very starting point – of all thought.

First, I would again point out that to depend on identity of something requires knowing a specific identity is, and we can be mistaken about that. How does it help me solve a problem? If you said idea X both solves a problem Z and also doesn't solve a problem Z, then what does it mean to say that X solves problem Z? Does to solve it part of the time? if so, when? if not, how does it help me, a fallible human being, solve concrete problems? For example, see Goodmans new riddle of induction, in which whether a emerald is green or grue cannot be distinguished because grue is green until some future point in time it becomes blue. The expectation of what color it will be in the future is based on our explanations of optics, geology, photos, etc, which can be mistaken. Not it having been green in the past. Or because it is defined as being green, etc. Second, pointing out if X were false then we couldn't do Y, and we seem to be able to do Y is criticism of the idea that X is false. Third, do you have an explanation as to how reason doesn't have its say first? Why did you pick the law of identity as a shining example to make your point, among others you considered? Did you not attempt to think of ways or explanations for how it could be false? Like, if it was false, then we couldn't read blog posts? Are you claiming to possess every possibly means by which to criticize that idea right now? Can no better criticism of any idea be had in the future, which might better illustrate why we think other ideas are false and discard errors in the ideas we hold? Equality should be observed to women and all members of the human races and that's it? It seems to me there could be an error in that statement in that it is incomplete. We don't even know what possible entities we're not aware of that exist now, or could exist in the future that could be added to that list. What if someone managed to clone a neanderthal? Do they count too? Etc. Are you suggesting no new entities could be created in the future that we cannot conceive of today, that should be on that list? If so, on what basis did you reach that conclusion?

PS: Note, in discussing the significance of the logic of being and that of moral government, I have put on the table a serious candidate world-root being. I invited and invite proposal of a credible and coherent alternative: _______ That is a very different circumstance, worldview-level inference to best explanation.

Why would I present candidates for a job I do not think the need to be filled or that doesn't actually exist? critical rationalist

PS: You keep on erecting a strawman target, of us looking for some infallible authority for the domain of knowledge to be blindly adhered to. We have shown, long since, that it is more than sufficient for us that we can have self-evident first principles, that help guide and guard our reasoning. Further, such reasoning is i/l/o one of these first principles, that error exists, so warrant is necessary for knowledge. I suggest you ponder a comment I made to WJM at 34:

as our rational thought-life is pervaded by and is inextricably entangled with duties of care to truth, sound logic, fairness etc etc, to hold such as only subjective — i.e. a euphemism for delusional — is to let grand delusion loose all across the domain of mindedness. Including, in an infinitely regressive self-referential absurdity. This corrupts rationality into deceitful, manipulative rhetoric in pursuit of power — reduction to (usually implicit) nihilism thus absurdity. Indeed, if we ponder the arguments of objectors for some weeks now we see the consistent complaint that by putting up self evident truths and especially moral ones, we are in effect trying to impose some suspect oppressive fascist power agenda under the name of an imaginary entity, God. Those locked into soft, implicit nihilism will project that nihilism to others and will perceive a challenge to their crooked yardsticks as a threat to the power agenda they identify with and hope to benefit from. It requires an incommensurate paradigm-shift to acknowledge what truth is, then to acknowledge that conscious enconscienced existence and mindedness entail certain self-evident truths. Such truths command our respect not because of arbitrary imposition but because they are accurate maps of reality. So, in the end, as we know the truth, the truth shall make us free. But what happens if all one has known are shadow shows and chains in some modern version of Plato’s Cave?

kairosfocus

CR, you have simply gone off on speculation, without accepting that there is something highly significant to breathing and to the body's liquid tissue that would make these of particular note and a point of reference for a discussion on life and its spiritual aspect. You also seem unwilling to deal with the Incarnation on its own terms. In short, you are doing little more than the village atheist of old: trying to put a dismissive construction on what you do not seem to have seriously pondered. For matters theological, I suggest you go where such is a main subject, if you genuinely wish to understand what is being discussed. Beyond that, I should note to you that the offer of proof for the Christian faith today is the same as it was in AD 50, the resurrection of Jesus with 500 witnesses. KF kairosfocus

CR, I have little time just now so just for a note: stifling someone or bleeding them out will very rapidly show the special significance of breath and blood.

And, as I indicated, it's likely we can create a blood substitute to transfer oxygen to cells. Research is already underway to create artificial red blood cells that could significantly out perform natural red blood cells. The only thing that stands is our way is knowing how. And introducing a toxin into a system will rapidly show the significance of neurological control over vital functions. Blood can be present, but if the nervous system is compromised it isn't circulated though the lungs to pick up oxygen and expel CO2, etc.

You want to go from there to ridicule Christian theology of atonement, knowing full well that this for good reason is not a proper focus for this blog.

Ridicule? I'm pointing out that the specific doctrine of Christian atonement can seem arbitrary and even heretical to other believers. Let's not play the victim here to avoid the point being made.

I simply note that a great many competent people, including scientists, physicians, mathematicians, philosophers, legal minds and educators — not just theologians, find Christian theology a highly satisfactory view for cause, not the sort of thing that can be crudely set up and knocked over like a strawman target using Internet Atheist-style talking points.

And a great many people find Christian theology a heroical based on the assumption that men could kill anyone who was divine. Or that God is somehow not one substance and person. Are these people not competent, scientists, physicians, mathematicians, philosophers, legal minds and educators? Again, I'm pointing out that which supposedly infallible source one defers to, when to defer to it and how to defer to it is based on reason. And, when you take that seriously, that's equivalent to what someone would do if they do not subscribe to the infallibility of the source. critical rationalist

William J Murray, I was just saying it as I saw it, and still do. Axel

I agree that if we define words to describe/reflect reality, and the definitions of the words are such that something can't be both A and B, then yes indeed it will be impossible for something to exist that is both A and B according to our descriptions of them. But "bachelor" and "married man" only exist because we have named certain people who meet certain conditions as such. The impossibility flows from our language out to the world. In a different society, this distinction might not even exist. jdk

JDK, I'd suggest that a square circle is impossible of being because no entity can be such that it is circular in reality AND square in reality in the same sense and circumstances. The same actually obtains for worlds in which bachelors and married men can and do exist. No man may be married and a bachelor in the relevant senses and circumstances. In both cases we use words to reflect realities. KF PS: I want to put it to you that you continue to manifest a sense of mutual obligation towards truth, soundness of logic etc. It is possible to be one sided about that, but at the price of clinging to an absurdity which in the end is self-defeating. kairosfocus

to kf at 37:

JDK, who has raised the idea of ideal forms?

Rod W, at 11. Also, a square circle is impossible because of the definitions of those terms. No world can exist with married bachelors either, but I don't consider that a fundamental property that any possible world must meet. jdk

JDK, you just confessed to soft nihilism, an absurdity. The implications of ruling the moral government of duties to truth etc delusional are stark. I suggest you reconsider. KF kairosfocus

kf says, "Now, kindly tell us which of the above is not self-evident, why." 6 is not self-evident, but I have no interest in discussing this with you and others here again: been there, done that. jdk

JDK, who has raised the idea of ideal forms? What has been on the table is that no possible world can be such that distinct identity does not obtain, so LOI, LNC, LEM are framework elements of any world existing. Linked, the set of naturals, too. Abstract, but constraining what can be -- and what cannot be such as a square circle in the plane. How exactly, we know not. And BTW, not just linguistic phenomena, something that is a candidate being that would have core characteristics that stand in mutual contradiction, cannot be in any world. A law of realities and non-realities, not just of thought. KF kairosfocus

PPS: In saying A is itself, A, I am pointing out that any distinct entity has its own identity, core characteristics, properties etc as appropriate, and that it is simple truth to acknowledge A to be so. Though, it is often dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. kairosfocus

JDK, Let's list:

1] To one who is conscious, the bare fact of consciousness is self-evident and such a one cannot be deluded on that bare fact, though there may be errors about contents of consciousness. 2] Error exists, let's call this E. Thus also we have ~E, the claim that it is so that it is an error to affirm E. Oops, instant absurdity, E is undeniably and self-evidently true. This BTW is one reason why we need warrant to have confidence that certain claims are credibly true and reliable. 3] For a world we have distinct identity, say of A. Thus W = {A|~A}, thence instantly we see -- this is not a proof -- LOI, LNC, LEM. 4] Also, on the same we see two-ness in W, thus we wxtend to the naturals. 5] In that context, 2 + 3 = 5, self evident to one who understands and the denial is instantly patently absurd: || + ||| --> ||||| 6] Going back, apart from the defective, in our consciousness we are aware of duties to truth, sound logic, fairness etc etc, and these are so entangled in reasoning and arguing that their denial instantly lands in grand delusion and nihilism. In this thread you have built on them implicitly, expecting us to intuitively know such. 7] Going on, an instructive and sadly real-world test case. Namely that it is wicked and even demonically evil to kidnap, bind, gag, sexually assault and murder a young child, and that were we to see such in progress we would be duty bound to try to rescue or at least to bawl for help.

Now, I hold that a SET will be true, will be seen as necessarily true i/l/o sufficient experience and understanding to clearly see what is claimed, and that the attempted denial will instantly land one in patent absurdity. As such SET's are not subjects of proof from other more plausible claims, they are first points of maximal plausibility from which proofs may proceed. However, we can be led through experiences that educate us so that we can come to understanding and insight. For instance any attempt to prove LOI, LNC and LEM will invariably be circular. However, axiomatic systems can be constructed that will lead to SET's, as with mathematical systems. I suggest, these axioms will be in aggregate less plausible than 2 + 3 = 5 or the like. Now, kindly tell us which of the above is not self-evident, why. In the case of the final one, consider yourself to be sitting in the presence of the bereft father and the surviving, now adult sons who grew up with a hole ripped in their lives by a demonic monster who has never been caught and brought to justice. (In Jamaica, in principle, at the end of a rope at St Catherine District Prison. Back then, often twice per week.) Let's hear your response. KF PS: Note, in discussing the significance of the logic of being and that of moral government, I have put on the table a serious candidate world-root being. I invited and invite proposal of a credible and coherent alternative: _______ That is a very different circumstance, worldview-level inference to best explanation. kairosfocus

WJM, actually, it gets worse. For, as our rational thought-life is pervaded by and is inextricably entangled with duties of care to truth, sound logic, fairness etc etc, to hold such as only subjective -- i.e. a euphemism for delusional -- is to let grand delusion loose all across the domain of mindedness. Including, in an infinitely regressive self-referential absurdity. This corrupts rationality into deceitful, manipulative rhetoric in pursuit of power -- reduction to (usually implicit) nihilism thus absurdity. Indeed, if we ponder the arguments of objectors for some weeks now we see the consistent complaint that by putting up self evident truths and especially moral ones, we are in effect trying to impose some suspect oppressive fascist power agenda under the name of an imaginary entity, God. Those locked into soft, implicit nihilism will project that nihilism to others and will perceive a challenge to their crooked yardsticks as a threat to the power agenda they identify with and hope to benefit from. It requires an incommensurate paradigm-shift to acknowledge what truth is, then to acknowledge that conscious enconscienced existence and mindedness entail certain self-evident truths. Such truths command our respect not because of arbitrary imposition but because they are accurate maps of reality. So, in the end, as we know the truth, the truth shall make us free. But what happens if all one has known are shadow shows and chains in some modern version of Plato's Cave? KF kairosfocus

No, kf, I don't mean to imply that you ever said ascertaining truth would be easy. Although you do sometimes speak with a great deal of seeming certainty about things you think are true that I think reasonable people might disagree about, especially about things you think are "self-evidently" true. Also, as I explained above, I accept the definition of truth as that which accurately describes reality. However saying something like "A is itself, A;" doesn't really clarify anything, or make the definition any clearer. But these types of disagreements are to be expected in serious discourse among knowledgeable, rational people. jdk

JDK, did I ever suggest that it would be easy to put things into the set that collects truths, especially in an age of cynical suspicion and hyperskepticism? No. I simply slightly adapted the words of Aristotle in Metaphysics, 1011b to identify what truth is. That is an important step, even a bold one in today's day and age: A is itself, A; namely and specifically xyzabc. It is no empty tautology, as you instantly dismissed above. You should recall, that I have also recently -- some weeks ago -- addressed a soft-form common sense of knowledge: warranted, credibly true (and reliable) belief. Where, obviously, warrant and degree of credibility come in degrees of plausibility, up to and including relatively rare things that are self-evident and so are undeniably or incorrigibly known to be true. KF kairosfocus

wjm says,

The issue is not whether or not not one accepts them as necessary; the issue is whether or not one accepts them as self-evidently true. IOW, do you recognize they cannot be rationally “proven” true because, in order to even make such an attempt, you must utterly rely on them?

I agree with the second sentence, assuming that "they"" refers to the laws of logic which I mentioned in my post. I think the laws of logic, as formalized descriptions of rules inherent in our use of language to describe the world, are "self-evident" to rational human beings (although human beings uneducated about their formal existence might not be able to articulate that.) As stated in an early post, I don't believe we can settle the question of whether those laws arise from, and/or exist in, some Platonic world of ideals: I have come to consider that a fruitless debate. So, to me, the issue is do we all accept the laws of logic as necessary elements of our rational attempts to describe the world. If so, we can carry on with the task of actually describing reality in ways that we can commonly accept as true: that's where the real work begins. jdk

jdk @29: The issue is not whether or not not one accepts them as necessary; the issue is whether or not one accepts them as self-evidently true. IOW, do you recognize they cannot be rationally "proven" true because, in order to even make such an attempt, you must utterly rely on them? What "self-evident" means is that without the proposition in question, there is no means by which any rational progress ensues. It doesn't mean that everyone recognizes it. People can deny their own existence. Does that mean they may not actually exist? Does a willfully blind man cast doubt on what others plainly see? Of course not. Error exists - self evidently true. 1+1=2 - self-evidently true Now comes the rub; good and evil objectively exist. Self-evidently true or not? Some will claim that they only exist "subjectively". If true, no rational argument can ensue about morality. All we can do is state personal preferences and attempt to convince others via non-rational means to adopt our preference, because there is no self-evidently true moral statement to begin with. Many people say things like "we can reach a consensus", but that begs the question of why "consensus" is morally different from simply bludgeoning people into compliance. Some might begin with "facilitating maximum good for the most people", but there is no moral beginning point for what "good" means, or even a foundation for why we should begin with that maxim instead of "whatever serves the desire of the strongest". Indeed, without a self-evidently true moral starting point that is held as binding as the LoI, there is nothing available to set the starting point for rational moral deliberations to ensue from. Without self-evidently true mathematical or geometric statements, there is means by which to progress in those fields. Without objectively binding, self-evidently true moral statements represented as fundamental moral principles, all we have is the authority of might (in whatever form that takes) makes right, and all we can do is try to manipulate people or beat them into agreement, because there is no rational starting point that is self-evidently true. Therefore, the statement "Good and evil objectively exist" is self-evident because without that statement being true, no rational discourse can progress. If you (or anyone) wants to believe that morality is subjective, then have the intellectual courage to simply admit that your moral system is non-rational and entirely based upon subjective preferences, and that you will force it on others in whatever manner you personally feel comfortable with - law, peer pressure, fists or guns. William J Murray

to WJM: I accept the fundamental laws of logic. They are tools for working with propositions about the world. Being consistent with the laws of logic is a necessary, but not sufficient, criteria for us to consider a proposition true. jdk