Would it be better if more scientists studied philosophy?

_{News
November 15, 2021

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Philosophy
Science}

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

Instead of ridiculing it, as Stephen Hawking did?

From a practical standpoint, philosophy requires clear, logical thinking. A person who has a degree in philosophy has therefore shown an ability to think — a useful skill in a world that too often doesn’t seem to do much of it.
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Remarkably, Lehewych actually notices a key reason many are skeptical of science:

Consider public health messaging during the pandemic, which consisted of a pattern of revelation and back-peddling. Worse, this pattern wasn’t even cohesive among scientists and medical experts: different experts in the same fields were simultaneously saying things about the pandemic that were contradictory and inconsistent. This only served to confuse the public and aggravate hyperpartisanship.
Philosophy, as an activity, can potentially mitigate these deleterious effects. Earning a philosophy degree entails filtering convoluted ideas into plain language. This skill can and ought to be used to aid scientists in pursuing a more scientifically informed public
Daniel Lehewych, “Is philosophy just a bunch of nonsense?” at BigThink (November 9, 2021)

Lehewych interweaves these thoughts with discussion of the anti-philosophy views of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein. He suggests that scientists study philosophy so as to avoid sounding like “sanctimonious know-it-alls.”

Maybe. Of course, it would also help to be right more often, as that would at least lead to more consistent messaging.

You may also wish to read: At Evolution News: C. S. Lewis and the argument for theism from reason Jay Richards: Natural selection could conceivably select for survival-enhancing behavior. But it has no tool for selecting only the behaviors caused by true beliefs, and weeding out all the others. So if our reasoning faculties came about as most naturalists assume they have, then we have little reason to assume they are reliable in the sense of giving us true beliefs. And that applies to our belief that naturalism is true.

Comments

Origenes, necessary there was used by LCD and Jerry in the sense oughtness or normativeness. We all know that one may not do as one pleases, that is nihilism -- there are blatant duties of care to neighbour under the lawful civil peace of justice. Which rather makes the point that not only Scientists -- focus of OP -- but the general population are in serious need of moral and ethical education to restore moral sanity. The academics, educators, jurisprudential thinkers and others who have undermined recognition for the built in law coeval with our humanity and foundational to the civil peace of justice have a lot of accounting to do for what they have done. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PST}

JS, there you go again, with a baseless accusation by video of question-begging circularity; meanwhile, such is an appeal to duty to right reason, demonstrating the point that the first duties govern reason-based, responsible freedom. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PST}

JVL, kindly link a drawing of a square circle. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
10:53 PM
10
10
53
PM
PST}

Death is preferable for some people. And understandable with regard to terminally ill people in great pain. What if they want to be dead and take steps to acheive it? Are they violating a duty?
No.Joe Schooner_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PST}

Jerry: If you don’t do something because you don’t want to do it does not make it any less of a duty. But you will be dead. Death is preferable for some people. And understandable with regard to terminally ill people in great pain. What if they want to be dead and take steps to acheive it? Are they violating a duty? --Ramram_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PST}

My point is that doing what I want cannot be called a “duty
You are arguing over a definition. If doing what you want to do also is necessary for survival then it is still a duty. If you don't do something because you don't want to do it does not make it any less of a duty. But you will be dead. Since you are not dead, you are dutifully doing what is necessary to keep yourself alive. People value different things in life but survival it at the top of the list for everyone for most of their life. Nearly all want something more. then survival. As I pointed out above, the Greeks, long before Christianity, had a name for it and discussed it. Aside: The word duty has several definitions.jerry_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PST}

LCD
have to=used to say that something is required or necessary.
Read the next sentence also: "If you want to find truth, you have to use terms with care. Not(!) because it is your duty, but in order to get where you want."Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PST}

JVL Exactly why I support same-sex marriage. Thank you for supporting my view.
Looks like a suicidal view against life ,against your own family ,against God. Your choice. Your burden
How do you see that this is against life and family?Joe Schooner_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PST}

JS, do you realise that the accusation that I used a circular argument is an appeal to known duty to right reason?
https://youtu.be/SFEewD4EVwUJoe Schooner_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PST}

Origenes If you want to find truth, you have to
have to=used to say that something is required or necessary.
You may not want to have faith, but you have a “duty” to faith ….
Your worldview is not based on faith ?Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PST}

Then you die and so do your love ones. For most that is not meaningless.
My point is that doing what I want cannot be called a "duty" — in a similar way as a pitch black night cannot be called translucent.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PST}

Nobody(from materialists to theists ) can escape his duty to faith that consolidate the chosen ontological root.
You have a "duty" to faith. You may not want to have faith, but you have a "duty" to faith .... One suggestion, let's throw in the term 'objective' for effect, as in, "You have an objective duty to faith" If you want to find truth, you have to use terms with care. Not(!) because it is your duty, but in order to get where you want.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:33 PM
2
02
33
PM
PST}

then the term ‘duty’ becomes meaningless to me.
Then you die and so do your love ones. For most that is not meaningless.jerry_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

KF: Next up, sound conscience, conscience not warped or benumbed by untruthfulness, abuse of reason, failure to warrant, discern and direct aright. But conscience is active, it is a voice within, a faculty of mind calling us to duty, value, virtue, justice etc. Thus, we have a choice: is this a real, accurate voice or is it delusion? Exactly why I support same-sex marriage. Thank you for supporting my view.JVL_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PST}

KF the only issue is ontological root
..and the only way to access all available ontological "roots" is by faith. Nobody(from materialists to theists ) can escape his duty to faith that consolidate the chosen ontological root.
Origenes If doing what I want—acting in accord with my nature—is a duty, then the term ‘duty’ becomes meaningless to me.
..and you want something because you consider( your opinion based on your ontology) best for you/others =a duty to yourself/others. Why don't you just ignore what you want?
JVL Exactly why I support same-sex marriage. Thank you for supporting my view.
Looks like a suicidal view against life ,against your own family ,against God. Your choice. Your burden . :)Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PST}

Jerry
They [duties] are imposed on you by your nature.
For now I refuse to accept such a definition of 'duty'. For me, a duty comes from an external realm, without consideration of my will. If doing what I want—acting in accord with my nature—is a duty, then the term 'duty' becomes meaningless to me.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PST}

Jerry (attn Origenes): Yes, doing duty is acting responsibly, fulfilling oughts. We recognise responsible standards of behaviour for rational conduct, towards truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence etc. So far, abstract. Next up, sound conscience, conscience not warped or benumbed by untruthfulness, abuse of reason, failure to warrant, discern and direct aright. But conscience is active, it is a voice within, a faculty of mind calling us to duty, value, virtue, justice etc. Thus, we have a choice: is this a real, accurate voice or is it delusion? Once we recognise the voice, it directly testifies to moral government, the only issue is ontological root. If we try to obfuscate and dismiss as effectively delusional -- as ever so many do -- then we begin to see the chaos I spoke to. For, that is grand, widespread and self-referential delusion we are implying. Shattering the credibility of our own minds and the human project of responsible reason. Absurd and self-defeating. The issue is not going in circles but absurd, self-referential chaos on the part of objectors. However, it is always possible to irrationally cling to absurdities, with evolutionary materialistic scientism as exhibit A. And, one can always blandly deny the patent fact that we expect others to act in accord with first duties, even just as what we expect lends persuasive force to our repeated objections; but refusal to acknowledge evident truth and attempts to insist on narratives to the contrary in the end speak sad volumes. And, pointing back to the OP, that is part of why Scientists need to acknowledge moral government. The horrifically mismanaged pandemic, replete with gaslighting -- toxic horse worm medicine is exhibit B, is a further demonstration of the point. A civilisation turning its back on soundness has chosen a voyage of suicidal folly. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PST}

the things I ‘have to’ do in order to get what I want, are not ‘duties’ in my book.
They are imposed on you by your nature. Few will frustrate their nature. Those that do are mentally ill in some way.
I was thinking of duties as something that is imposed on me by an external entity (e.g. God)
That is a source of duties too. But this discussion was started several months ago on the relationship between human nature, natural law and human laws. There is no need to invoke God, and Cicero didn't and neither did Aristotle but they did look at human nature. Those thing that help us reach our objectives will be valuable to us. Certain things have value, others do not.jerry_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PST}

.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PST}

Jerry, I am not doing this to frustrate. If you are correct and I am fulfilling duties in my replies and reasoning, I am completely unaware of that fact. Jerry:
Leading a meaningful life is also an objective of nearly everyone. What are necessary to reach these objectives are duties.
Ok. I was thinking of duties as something which is imposed on me by an external entity (e.g. God). The things I 'have to' do in order to get what I want, are not 'duties' in my book.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PST}

No duties KF.
You have been dutifully using duties in your replies and reasoning. One interpretation of duties is responsible behavior. So if you believe you are using responsible behavior you are exhibiting the use of duties and using all the characteristics that Kf has listed.. As I said before this always goes in circles, sometimes honestly but often just to frustrate. The latter is not dutiful behavior. It often resembles the Abbott and Costello routine of "Who's on first?" A duty, there are many definitions, can be behavior required to meet objectives. Survival is an objective of all human beings for most of their lives. Leading a meaningful life is also an objective of nearly everyone. What are necessary to reach these objectives are duties. The Greeks had a word for the object of life called "eudaimonia" which can mean happiness or thriving. What is required to reach this state are duties and often they involve others because one will reach it more easily or certainly by treating others in certain ways. Thus, duty pops us not only to ourselves but to others. Based on our nature and our objectives flowing from that nature. Questioning Kf's reasoning has been a joke.jerry_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PST}

I am expecting you to respond because it is your duty to do so? Not at all. Maybe you want to find the truth, like I do, in which case you might consider the possibility that addressing my argument will get you closer to your goal. It is not your duty to respond KF.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PST}

Origines, your own argument just now expects me to know and respond to said first principles as duties. As by now you should know. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PST}

KF @46
Unsurprisingly, we specifically, can readily observe the same in arguments by those objecting to first duties. Which, is a clue that we are looking at pervasive, inescapable first principles, branch on which we must all sit territory.
You argue as if pointing out that inescapable first principles exist makes the case that they are ‘duties’— as if the necessity of logic directly proves that we are dealing with duties. I disagree. I do accept inescapable first principles, such as the fundamental principles of logic, however I fail to see as to why they are “duties.” For me they are tools to get to the truth. And I consider finding the truth as something that I want, as opposed to being my duty.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST}

Origenes, I am not claiming originality. First duties have been on public record for 2,000+ years. Hence, Cicero. Ditto, Paul of Tarsus. There is a slice of Epictetus. And more. Second, I am OBSERVING a fact: in gaining rhetorical leverage our arguments generally appeal to said duties as known. This can readily be observed, and the negative form I have given will help us see why:
there is a linked but not equivalent pattern: bounded, error-prone rationality often tied to ill will and stubbornness or even closed mindedness; that’s why the study of right reason has a sub-study on fallacies and errors. That we sometimes seek to evade duties or may make inadvertent errors does not overthrow such first duties of reason, which instead help us to detect and correct errors, as well as to expose our follies. Perhaps, a negative form will help to clarify, for cause we find to be at best hopelessly error-riddled, those who are habitually untruthful, fallacious and/or irrational, imprudent, fail to soundly warrant claims, show a benumbed or dead conscience [i.e. sociopathy and/or highly machiavellian tendencies], dehumanise and abuse others, are unfair and unjust. At worst, such are utterly dangerous, destructive,or even ruthlessly, demonically lawless. Such built-in . . . thus, universal . . . law, then, is not invented by parliaments, kings or courts, nor can these principles and duties be abolished by such; they are recognised, often implicitly as an indelible part of our evident nature. Hence, "natural law," coeval with our humanity, famously phrased in terms of "self-evident . . . rights . . . endowed by our Creator" in the US Declaration of Independence, 1776. (Cf. Cicero in De Legibus, c. 50 BC.) Indeed, it is on this framework that we can set out to soundly understand and duly balance rights, freedoms and duties; which is justice, the pivot of law.
As C S Lewis observed, we can see this most clearly in that heightened form of arguing we call quarrelling, trying to show the other party in the wrong. Unsurprisingly, we specifically, can readily observe the same in arguments by those objecting to first duties. Which, is a clue that we are looking at pervasive, inescapable first principles, branch on which we must all sit territory. My onward observation is simple and is directly parallel to Epictetus c 1900 years ago in arguing about first principles of right reason, which are of course on the list. Here is Epictetus:
DISCOURSES CHAPTER XXV How is logic necessary? When someone in [Epictetus'] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. Cf J. C. Wright]
That is, inescapable, so inescapably true and self-evident. That is, we can here see that we are dealing with first principles of responsible, rational freedom. Specifically, first duties antecedent to proofs, arguments and so forth. They cannot be proved as attempted proofs already use them. Nor, can they be dis-proved as attempts already use them. Self-evident by inescapability, on pain of reducing our reasoning to chaos. I suspect the root problem is,due to serious defects of modern education, we are now unfamiliar with self-evident first principles foundational to rationality. Indeed, it is known that some try to undermine distinct identity and its close corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle. If so, please ponder Epictetus on logic. And Paul on rational communication:
1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. [ESV]
The first duties are obviously built into our rational and communicative faculties and are familiar from the voice of sound conscience. They provide the moral government that directs our rational responsible freedom. Without which, we cannot reason, warrant, know, truly decide, be virtuous, genuinely love and more. A computational substrate by contrast is a dynamic-stochastic GIGO-driven, utterly non-rational machine. This BTW is one reason radical evolutionary materialism such as with Crick, Provine etc, is self-referentially incoherent and self-falsifying. However the ontological root of such moral government and associated built-in laws of our rational, responsible nature do not lie in us. The only place where IS and OUGHT can be successfully bridged is the root of reality, World-Zero from which all derivative possible and actual worlds come. For which, there is but one serious candidate after centuries of debate. (If you object, simply provide another that successfully bridges without being synonymous or reducing to absurdity: ___) The candidate: the inherently good, utterly wise 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. Hence, laws of our responsible, rational Nature expressed as first duties, first oughts that target the good, the right, the true, the honourable, the virtuous, the loving [neighbour-love sense] etc. In us but ultimately vastly antecedent to us. KF PS: Here is Cicero in De Legibus:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man [--> we are seeing the root vision of natural law, coeval with our humanity] . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for . “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary” . . . . They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law [--> a key remark] , whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones . . . . According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans [--> esp. Cicero, speaking as a leading statesman], an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
[--> this points to the wellsprings of reality, the only place where is and ought can be bridged; bridged, through the inherently good utterly wise, maximally great necessary being, the creator God, which adequately answers the Euthyphro dilemma and Hume's guillotine argument surprise on seeing reasoning is-is then suddenly a leap to ought-ought. IS and OUGHT are fused from the root]
This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
We can readily trace the seven I list:
>1st - to truth, 2nd - to right reason, 3rd - to prudence [including warrant], 4th - to sound conscience, 5th - to neighbour; so also, 6th - to fairness and 7th - to justice [ . . .] xth - etc.
And of course, it is reflection on this text that led me to so list. PPS: Notice, pivotal historic impact in Locke in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, which directly leads to the US DoI of 1776, pivoting on laws of our human nature and that nature's God:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5, citing "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker":] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
kairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PST}

W.J.Murray
Yeah, I spent many months engaged in discussion with KF trying to figure out what he meant.
I am also unclear about the relationship of first duties and the person in KF’s philosophy. Are they inherent aspects of the person or not? BTW, in the context of trying to understand reality, I don’t regard myself as governed by duties. I do not view myself as some recalcitrant error-prone child who must be forced to fulfill his duties to truth and reason. Instead I want to know the truth, and when I apply fundamental principles of logic I do it because I believe it is the way to get to the truth, not because it is a duty.
I know that MRT is extremely difficult to understand, so I know how difficult it can be to just communicate successfully about concepts, much less concepts that seem to be outside of the worldview framework of the person you’re talking to.
Can you perhaps point to a thread or article where the basics of MRT are explained? I would like to understand it.Origenes_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PST}

There is nothing wrong with Kf’s reasoning. It’s his rhetoric that is often indecipherable and extremely difficult to follow. He expresses himself in ways I have not seen in anyone else. But if deciphered which is difficult, the reasoning is usually correct. Whereas his objectors usually use specious arguments.jerry_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PST}

JS, do you realise that the accusation that I used a circular argument is an appeal to known duty to right reason? Which of course means that you again illustrate the point that even objectors cannot escape the force of first duties. More, later on DV. KFkairosfocus_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PST}

Ram & Origenes: Yeah, I spent many months engaged in discussion with KF trying to figure out what he meant. I know that MRT is extremely difficult to understand, so I know how difficult it can be to just communicate successfully about concepts, much less concepts that seem to be outside of the worldview framework of the person you're talking to. I came to the conclusion that KF either doesn't have the capacity or desire to suspend his own worldview arguendo for the sake of examining another worldview from its own premises. This is why virtually every single post and comment of his comes in the form of a "corrective" or lecture from his perspective. I must have asked him hundreds of questions trying to understand what he was saying from his perspective about "first duties." KF's argument about the near-universal recognition of and unavoidable reference to "first duties" depends entirely, as far as I can tell, on his assumption that his experience, and those who agree with him, are virtually universal among all humans. When he makes rational arguments, he is appealing to duties and his expectation of others to respond truthfully and rationally is an appeal to THEIR duty to respond in kind. He thinks everyone, then, is doing this whether they realize it or not, whether they agree or not. I tried several times to correct him that I have no such expectation. He argues that it is inherent in every-day life; we expect others to behave in a certain way and our daily, normal lives depend on it. That is entirely true; but his position is that I'm not just depending on the pattern of their behaviors; I'm depending on them obeying their "first duties." But, that is entirely NOT how my ontology/epistemology works. At all. As far as I'm concerned, when I type stuff in here, I'm typing stuff into a magic box, and the magic box spits out responses as well as a lot of other information. How I process that information is not reliant on any truth values or dependent on adherence to codes of duty I expect from the magic box or the theoretical other people involved. I assess the information on the merits of the information itself. It is interesting to me or not; it is useful to me or not; it is an enjoyable exchange or not. And yes, there are certain patterns from the information that begins with certain name tags. This fundamental ontological/epistemological difference between how KF and I function is made obvious by how he reacted when I said that I have no such duty to truth, and he started on this thing about how I have no more "credibility." What possible difference does it make if I'm "credible" or not? My arguments stand or fall on their own merit, not on any "credibility" I may or may not have. Another interesting thing to note is how KF says that when I say he is appealing to mind-reading, he reacts to that as if I'm employing rhetoric. He honestly doesn't see how stating what is "implicit" in my words, beyond what is an inescapable use of truth-assertions and the principles of logic, is attempting mind-reading. However, if we accept arguendo that the "magic box" perspective writ large is a basic analogy to how I live my life, it's easy to see how I can have no expectations that "other people" are operating out of any duties. Rather, they are functioning as reliable patterns in my experience. Thus, when KF asserts that my behavior here implicitly refers to "first duties," he is apparently projecting his own perspective onto me as if I'm necessarily operating from his own ontological/epistemological structure, and he assumes everyone is doing the same. This, IMO, is why KF doesn't see his behavior as an attempt at "mind-reading;" rather, he believes he is stating an inescapable fact of existence/reality for all sentient beings ... even though he has agreed, in the past, that "first duties" are not something that must exist in all possible worlds with sentient beings. That admission, coupled with his assertion that he is not "mind-reading" me, shows that KF, is saying things as necessary fact (such as my supposedly implicit reference to duties) from his own ontological perspective. IOW, his argument about First Duties, once again, depends entirely on his ontology. Otherwise, he could not claim that anything I say carries any implicit appeal to any "First Duties." He's just so deep into his ontology, IMO, that he cannot even recognize most of it as ontology. IMO, it seems he understands that his religious beliefs are ontological, which is why he wouldn't provide the answers to my duty questions. Those are obviously ontological. This goes back to something he said about how he developed his epistemology; he said that he developed it absent (or at least with suspended) ontological commitments.William J Murray_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PST}

:) When somebody post a comment "to explain" something s/he automatically acknowledges that he knows the truth and feels "responsible" to share the truth with others. This is the duty to truth . Posting a comment is admitting the duty to truth. Posting a comment in which somebody deny the duty to truth is a self refuting statement.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 17, 2021
November
11
Nov
17
17
2021
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next