The Blatant Confirmation Bias and Gullibility of Materialists

Lizzie went back to TSZ, where the measures are much less objective. Mung

Elizebeth Liddle: Yes, I do, but I have a methodology for arriving at that knowledge. I hold something to a be a reliable measuring instrument, if the instrument, used by many different measures on many different objects firstly, gives consistent results with a minimum of variation (internal consistency), and secondly, gives results consistent with a range of other measures, each of which also has internal consistency (that gives me the external consistency of the measure).

Really? You go thru all that to measure a gosh darn piece of wood? You don't go down to the hardware store, get a tape measure, and put it up against the wood and the trust the measurement? My god, how are all these houses getting built around here? I wonder if these butt-crack-displaying, clanky-tool-belt wearing, six-pack-waiting-in-the-truck construction workers go thru all these mental gyrations each time they take a measurement. You must live some kind of tortured existence.

Mine is that it is meaningless to talk about a statement being “objectively true” in the absence of anyone making the claim,

So if there were no humans (or similar) making the claim "2 + 2 = 5 is false", it wouldn't nevertheless be true? mike1962

SB @ 120

Truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality– if there is no mind, there is nothing for reality to correspond with. In that sense, there can be no truth without the possibility of error.

I find that irrefutable. In the materialist view, there can be no truth. Everything 'just is' -- everything is a physical/material thing. Only an immaterial mind can make the comparison between "what is" (reality) and "what isn't" (falsehood, non-truth). As you said, there can be no truth without the possibility of error and error cannot exist in a world where the only possibility is "what is" and where there is no mind to discern the difference. Silver Asiatic

It doesn't make sense. The idea that there is 'error' is teleological. It's goal oriented. Even the idea of 'trial' is the same. In the materialist model, there can be no trying something for success or error. Materialism is only about "what is". Error and falsehood is about "what isn't". Obviously, "what isn't" can't exist physically. So, if a materialist says "there is such a thing as error" -- then that refutes materialism, since error or 'false things' are necessarily immaterial. Silver Asiatic

We are told that evolution is a trial and error process. Does that even make sense if error does not exist? Mung

Mung, sadly familiar. And yet, right now some of the very same folks have spun on a dime to underscore the points in this thread in other threads. But, acknowledge the force of a point? Nah! Oh, well. KF kairosfocus

It's the zero concession policy. Examining the foundation might expose cracks we just don't want to see. So better we not look. IDiot: Error exists: Critic: No it doesn't. IDiot: Do you means to say I am in error? Critic: No, you're just offering your subjective opinion. IDiot: Is that wrong? Critic: No, it's just false. IDiot: Are you saying it's untrue? Critic: It might be true for you, but for me it is not true. IDiot: You don't approve of holding erroneous beliefs? Critic: It's not for me to say. IDiot: But you did say. Critic: Did not. IDiot: If you don't think I am in error, why are you here arguing with me? Critic: I just love to see you IDiots make fools of yourselves. IDiot: Because we are in error? Critic: No. You just don't know what you're talking about. IDiot: Is that bad? Critic: Morality is subjective. IDiot: Why do you believe that? Critic: Because it's true. IDiot: When you say it's true, you mean it's not false. Critic: More like it's like a fast flowing mountain stream that doesn't know where it's going but always seems to get there in the end. IDiot: Huh? Critic: Would you say the stream is in error? IDiot: If it's the stream have you been drinking from, yes. Mung

Mung, spot on. And the attempt to dismiss those of us who say that error exists is undeniably so would entail that , , , errors exist. KF kairosfocus

If A = B, and B = C, then A = C. This has been demonstrated empirically.

...empirical data is information that is derived from the trials and errors of experience. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Empirical_methods

IOW, it assumes error exists. Mung

SB, over and over again, despite careful, repeated correction. To the point where such blindness reveals a major point of failure on the part of systems and schemes of thought that cannot ever acknowledge the reality of self-evident truth. For, once such is acknowledged, whole systems of thought pivoting on little errors in the beginning (as Adler pointed out, citing the very same Angelic Doctor) will collapse. The only other point that is as momentous, is the note that the classical square of opposition is fully valid, once we accept the natural language force of the A form, All S is P -- that S is non-empty, and render the O form, as not every S is P (following Ackrill's rendering of Aristotle in De Interpretatione 6–7 and with reference to Prior Analytics I.2, 25a.1–25 also). But then, this last is highly technical and is not normally debated. Let's just say that it marks the divide between modern and classical understanding of logic to the point that this needs to be clear before all else. KF kairosfocus

Kairosfocus

And in particular, it is a strawman caricature to simplistically present self evidence as being effectively synonymous with obviousness.

Excellent point, KF. How often have we heard it said that firmly held convictions often held to be "obvious" truths were later overturned by disinterested science?--as if a self-evident truth could be overturned by anything--as if a self-evident truth is mere subjective opinion. StephenB

Elizabeth Liddle

Mine is that it is meaningless to talk about a statement being “objectively true” in the absence of anyone making the claim, and that no scientific claim ever is. Rather, we iteratively improve our models (make them closer approximations to truth, if you like) by a process of testing them against data.

Truth is the correspondence of the mind with reality-- if there is no mind, there is nothing for reality to correspond with. In that sense, there can be no truth without the possibility of error. The difficulty with your position, however, is in your assumption that the empirical method of testing hypotheses is the only way of arriving at truth. On the contrary, I can reason my way to many truths that have nothing to do with science, provided I begin with a true premise, which is not hard to establish. Indeed, the claim that empirical testing is the only way to establish truth is self-refuting; it cannot be proven by empirical testing. Accordingly, one can know an objective truth without knowing it fully; factual knowledge does not require completeness. There is a lot about you that I do not know, but I do know that you are a human being, not an animal and probably not an angel. I also know that all humans are predictably alike in their nature and gloriously different in their persons. My knowledge of these facts is objective; it corresponds with the real world. It is not mere subjective opinion.

Conclusions are only “true” in science in the sense that they are corroborated by independent observers, preferably by independent lines of enquiry. That is what is called “objective” evidence in science (as opposed to “subjective” evidence).

Scientific conclusions are true only insofar as they are in correspondence with reality. It is possible for scientists to corroborate and be wrong, especially when it is in their professional interests to be wrong. Indeed, it is usually the minority that rescues the majority from their folly, at which time the minority is vindicated and a new majority is established. So the key point is not if they corroborate but when they corroborate. Philosophical truths, however, are unchangeable. Error changes; truth doesn’t. What was true 2000 years ago was no less true then than it is today. Materialists do not understand the logical necessity of unchanging truths. That is why they are illogical. Among other things, they reject the unchanging standard of reasons rules, which is the only rational yardstick that we can depend on. When the principle of causality becomes inconvenient, they just throw it out. StephenB

EL, 101:

what is “obvious” is not necessarily true, or even right, as you can readily confirm by looking at what has been justified on the grounds of being “obvious” over human history.

But who in this thread or generally, seriously argues that the obvious is the true? Perhaps you have forgotten Solomon's warning that there is a way that seems right to a man but ends in death? As, it is deception? I do believe that over the years we have repeatedly argued that the SELF-EVIDENT is seen to be true by those who understand it based on experience of the world, and to be necessarily true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. But, that is a very different thing. First, one has to be in a place to say understand what error is, and to appreciate self reference, to see that Josiah Royce put his finger on something when he pointed to the proposition error exists as very special. One so special that the attempted denial at once entails the original proposition, so that it is undeniably true. Not merely a generally accepted fact . . . where even the skeptic is assuming its truth. But, as we have seen for years, many are inclined to cling to the absurd because such a self-evident truth has such powerful worldview consequences: truth exists as what accurately refers to reality, in some cases it can be known, even to undeniable certainty, so any scheme that tries to imagine that knowledge or truth are unattainable beyond opinion or perception or consensus etc must collapse as any and all such systems -- their name, nowadays, is Legion -- are in grand error, and more. And so, to the ones desperately clinging to absurdities it is by no means obviously true and for sure they will not admit it to be necessarily and undeniably true on pain of patent absurdity. So, error exists, becomes a veritable pons asinorum. The Angelic Doctor, as ever, is so wise:

Now a thing is said to be self-evident in two ways: first, in itself; secondly, in relation to us. Any proposition is said to be self-evident in itself, if its predicate is contained in the notion of the subject: although, to one who knows not the definition of the subject, it happens that such a proposition is not self-evident. For instance, this proposition, “Man is a rational being,” is, in its very nature, self-evident, since who says “man,” says “a rational being”: and yet to one who knows not what a man is, this proposition is not self-evident. Hence it is that, as Boethius says (De Hebdom.), certain axioms or propositions are universally self-evident to all; and such are those propositions whose terms are known to all, as, “Every whole is greater than its part,” and, “Things equal to one and the same are equal to one another.” But some propositions are self-evident only to the wise, who understand the meaning of the terms of such propositions . . . . Now a certain order is to be found in those things that are apprehended universally. For that which, before aught else, falls under apprehension, is “being,” the notion of which is included in all things whatsoever a man apprehends. Wherefore the first indemonstrable principle is that “the same thing cannot be affirmed and denied at the same time,” which is based on the notion of “being” and “not-being”: and on this principle all others are based, as is stated in Metaph. iv, text. 9.

As I noted in the just linked: "we have two facets here, First, standing by itself a SET has an objective character and is a first principle, a point of certain knowledge. But, that brings up the second aspect: we need to understand it, that we may grasp it. And, that may well fail, primarily by way of ignorance, secondarily by way of commitment to a contrary ideology that makes it difficult or even nearly impossible to acknowledge that which on the actual merits is self-evident." And in particular, it is a strawman caricature to simplistically present self evidence as being effectively synonymous with obviousness. As the same just linked summarised:

Where also of course, self-evident does not merely mean perceived as obvious to oneself, which could indeed be a manifestation of a delusion. Nay, a self evident truth [SET] is best summarised as one known to be so and to be necessarily so without further proof from other things. That is, a SET is: a: actually true — it accurately reports some relevant feature of reality (e.g.: error exists) b: immediately recognised as true once one actually understands what is being asserted, in light of our conscious experience of the world (as in, no reasonable person would but recognise the reality that error exists) c: further seen as something that must be true, on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial. (E.g. try denying “error exists” . . . the absurdity is rapidly, forcefully manifest)

KF kairosfocus

Your #67, kairosfocus You said it, KF: 'Stop the madness!' It makes you giddy if you try to follow their weird 'arguments' for long. Axel

Upright BiPed appears to be flummoxed. :) Mung

EL says, Which is why independent corroboration is so important in trying to figure out what is likely to be true. I say, Where can we find this "independent corroboration" you keep speaking of?? check it out. http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/no-man-is-an-island/ The fact is there is no way for you of your own power to climb beyond the web of connections that encompass your worldview. The only collaboration you will accept to be of value is one coming from someone that shares most of the core of what you already accept as true and looks at the world from a similar perspective. This is nothing personal it is the plight of all us finite humans The only way for collaboration to be truly independent is for it to come from a selfexistent being. {Read non-materieal) The only way we material creatures can receive such "independent collaboration" is if said being has the ability and desire to communicate with us in a way that is meaningful to us. There is only one worldview in town that holds this kind of communication as a realistic possibility AFAIK peace fifthmonarchyman

Elizabeth Liddle:

My method is the standard empirical method.

See your statement quoted @ 114. How did you arrive at the truth of that statement (quoted in @ 114) using "the standard empirical method"? I'd really like to know. I'm sure we all would like to know. Mung

In a nutshell. Elizabeth Liddle:

If you can’t establish the truth of the premises how can you know your conclusion is correct, however impeccable the logic?

Exactly! You do understand! Now why do you believe that? What methodology did you use? Bookmark this statement for future reference. Mung

kf: In short, not even skeptics can live by the standards they would push on us all. Then they get all pissy when I call them hypocrites. Mung

WJM: If that is the case, why are you picking up a ruler in the first place? Because I liked the pretty colors. Mung

Joe, you're wrong. Elizabeth does believe in objectivity (science demands it), she just can't explain what grounds her belief in objectivity. It's amazing really how attractive science is. But it cannot explain why. Mung

WJM

EL: If you are subconsciously sabotaging your view of the obvious, the only way possible, that I know of, to ascertain this is to embark on a path of deliberately and vigorously attempting to undermine and disprove your own view. Assume you’re wrong, and set out to prove it to yourself. Try to develop a sound argument against that which you currently hold as true.

Yes, I agree.

If we agree that minds are indeed capable of utterly fooling us even against the profoundly obvious, then you owe it to yourself to consider that you may be deceiving yourself about some very fundamental aspects of your existence.

Absolutely. See the strapline of my blog :) Elizabeth Liddle

EL: If you are subconsciously sabotaging your view of the obvious, the only way possible, that I know of, to ascertain this is to embark on a path of deliberately and vigorously attempting to undermine and disprove your own view. Assume you're wrong, and set out to prove it to yourself. Try to develop a sound argument against that which you currently hold as true. If we agree that minds are indeed capable of utterly fooling us even against the profoundly obvious, then you owe it to yourself to consider that you may be deceiving yourself about some very fundamental aspects of your existence. William J Murray

EL said:

A statement is neither “simply put” nor “straightforward” if you cannot give clear definitions of your terms.

My capacity to provide straightforward statements with clear definitions is not determined by your capacity to deny or confuse at your end. That is, after all, what what started this conversation; the capacity of the mind to generate profound self-deception to the point one cannot even see the obvious. It is apparent to me upon reading the rest your post that this is exactly what is going on; if you are going to challenge the statement that "the Earth orbits the sun" on a precision technicality to perpetuate the obfuscation of simple philosophical arguments, then argument is useless. You are committed to not understanding the point (subconsciously, I would presume) via semantics and sophistry which, in your mind (again, I presume) are very important distinctions. But, they are not. Charitably, they are trivial misdirections subconsciously generated and masquerading as substantive objections to avoid sight of the obvious, which would be devastating to your worldview identity narrative if accepted. William J Murray

Lizzie @98 Do you mind if I quote you? Also, do you have the encryption code to unlock it? phoodoo

Barry:

EL @ 91: The statement “the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed” is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion. Barry crushes that assertion with a reduction ad absurdum at 100. EL @ 102: all scientific conclusions are provisional, not “objectively true” A scientific conclusion is objectively true under certain circumstances at 91. No scientific conclusion is ever true at 102. Madness; sheer madness.

Only in the specific sense I gave, Barry, immediately after using the phrase, in scare quotes. It is not a term that I think has much usefulness, but if it was used in the sense I defined in 91, it would not be at odds with the 101. Conclusions are only "true" in science in the sense that they are corroborated by independent observers, preferably by independent lines of enquiry. That is what is called "objective" evidence in science (as opposed to "subjective" evidence). If you want to call a claim supported by objective evidence "objectively true", then fine - but in that case "objectively true" conclusions remain provisional. Which is why I don't use the term. Elizabeth Liddle

I am not "having you believe" that the paragraph is "objectively true", in the sense that WJM argues for. I think the sense that WJM argues for is incoherent. And it is perfectly possible that my paragraph is false, or, at least, inaccurate. It is, nonetheless, what strikes me as making sense. Elizabeth Liddle

EL @ 91:

The statement “the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed” is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion.

Barry crushes that assertion with a reductio ad absurdum at 100. EL @ 102:

all scientific conclusions are provisional, not “objectively true”

A scientific conclusion is objectively true under certain circumstances at 91. No scientific conclusion is ever true at 102. Madness; sheer madness. Barry Arrington

Liddle:

Both statements are “true” in that they are good predictive models. But both statements are “false” in that they are incomplete. Neither are “objectively true” in the sense you mean, because they are statements made by human observers and modelers. However both are “objectively true” in the way that “the moon is made of green cheese” is not, in that they are corroborated, as reliable approximations, by many lines of independent enquiry pursued by independent obervers.

We can know that our opponent’s position is incoherent when they implicitly insist on an exception for themselves to their own otherwise universally applicable proposition. Here, EL would have us believe that the paragraph I quoted is objectively true in the sense WJM argues for even as she rejects that it is possible for a proposition to be objectively true in the sense WJM argues for. Madness. Sheer madness. Barry Arrington

Barry:

Hmmm. For 1,500 year independent investigators looked at the evidence, indeed they looked at independent sets of evidence, and concluded that Ptolemaic cosmology was correct. Under EL’s formulation of the phrase, during that 1,500 year period it was “objectively true” that the sun orbited the earth.

No. That is the corollary of William's position. Mine is that it is meaningless to talk about a statement being "objectively true" in the absence of anyone making the claim, and that no scientific claim ever is. Rather, we iteratively improve our models (make them closer approximations to truth, if you like) by a process of testing them against data. Which is how we got from Ptolemy to Copernicus to Kepler to Einstein and beyond. All models are false, but we can iteratively make them less so. Which is why all scientific conclusions are provisional, not "objectively true". But we can evaluate them, nonetheless, by objective methodology. Elizabeth Liddle

Barry: what is "obvious" is not necessarily true, or even right, as you can readily confirm by looking at what has been justified on the grounds of being "obvious" over human history. This applies both to science and to ethics. And one person's "it's obvious" is another person's "unsupported assertion". Which is why independent corroboration is so important in trying to figure out what is likely to be true. Elizabeth Liddle

EL:

It [i.e., that the earth orbits the sun] is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion.

Hmmm. For 1,500 year independent investigators looked at the evidence, indeed they looked at independent sets of evidence, and concluded that Ptolemaic cosmology was correct. Under EL's formulation of the phrase, during that 1,500 year period it was "objectively true" that the sun orbited the earth. Barry Arrington

WJM @ 95:

It’s obvious and inescapable that . . .

Oh dear WJM. You've committed one of the classic blunders of debating with materialists. Pointing out that an obvious thing is obvious leaves you open to their "arrogant bastard" counter, which runs like this:

So that's your argument; that you, WJM, have decreed that you are obviously right and therefore no one can disagree with you. Arrogant bastard.

;-) Barry Arrington

WJM:

Why is EL making such a trivial, nonsensical complaint? This scenario is often the case with people like EL; they question the definitions or attempts to undermine the most basic, trivial terms and statements as if they are trying to undermine or deflect her opponent’s rather simply put, straightforward statements.

A statement is neither "simply put" nor "straightforward" if you cannot give clear definitions of your terms. And I am bringing into question the concept you imply key term: "objectively true". If it refers to statement, there is a claimant who makes the statement. If there is no claimant, then it cannot refer to a statement. And so your own statement is not "simply put" - I suggest that it is fundamentally incoherent, and that if you were to unpack the concepts behind your terms, you would also find it to be so. Or not. Perhaps you can persuade me of the coherence of your position. But you won't do that unless you are willing to unpack your terms. In fact, you make a good job of describing my own position:

she described it as a sort of scientific-consensual confirmation towards objective accuracy

Yes, that's about it: that we don't have direct access to Reality (or "Objective Truth" if you prefer), but that we can iteratively propose, test, and hone predictive models that we can regard, always provisionally, as an approximation. I don't think we have access to anything more objective than that. I don't think it "trumps" logic - I think logic is one of the tools we use to propose and test our models. But we also need data for testing. This kind of statement makes little sense to me:

If the mind is not sound, and if the mind has no presumed objective capacity, it cannot be rational to make assertions of objective correctness about anything.

Whose mind? Who is doing the presuming? What do you even mean by "objective capacity"? That word "objective" keeps cropping up, applied to all kinds of nouns! As I said, and as you rightly paraphrased, for me "objective" denotes something that can be arrived at often by independently means, by independent observers, while "subjective" means something that is proper to the "subject" - a specific observer. So one "mind" - one person's independent view - is "subjective". That view becomes validated as "objective" if it can be corroborated by others independently. So if I see a ghost in the bedroom I do not know whether it is there or not (the same is not true of the rest of the objects in my bedroom, as I have independent corroboration of those, and of their general properties). If I tell someone I saw a ghost, and they also see it, that is suggestive, but now the observations are not independent. However, if I tell no-one, and someone else just happens to go into my bedroom, and say "hey, that's weird - there is some sort of ghost in there" - then the existence of a ghost starts to become a model worth testing further.

Does EL not realize that the proposition “the Earth orbits the sun” is either objectively true or not regardless of what scientific consensus agrees?

No because it is simply a simplified human model. It is an approximation. It's a good approximation, because it fits the data pretty well, and we know that because it is corroborated by many independent lines of enquiry from many independent researchers. The corroboration does not make it true - what makes it true-ish is that it makes good predictions. A better model will make better predictions, for example, model that unpacks the meaning of "orbit" in terms of gravitational forces. Now there may well be a Reality that we will ultimately model so well that our predictions are within extraordinarily tight tolerances. But that Reality, is not the True/False status of the statement: "The Earth orbits the sun". That statement is simply a useful model - a heuristic, even. A slightly more complex but more accurate model would be something like "the Earth follows an approximately circular trajectory around the common centre of gravity of sun and earth, which itself follows a more complex twisted path around the centre of our galaxy" Both statements are "true" in that they are good predictive models. But both statements are "false" in that they are incomplete. Neither are "objectively true" in the sense you mean, because they are statements made by human observers and modelers. However both are "objectively true" in the way that "the moon is made of green cheese" is not, in that they are corroborated, as reliable approximations, by many lines of independent enquiry pursued by independent obervers. And the only "assumption" we need is the assumption that I am not a brain-in-a-vat. Which I am happy to make. You seem unable to decide whether what I am saying is "trivial" or false. I'm happy to plead "trivial". But you are mistaken, I think, in thinking that what you are saying is "simple". Take even the statement "the Earth orbits the sun" - it sounds "simple" but its accuracy turns out to be only as good as the definition of the word "orbit" and "sun" and "round". Even ignoring galactic dynamics, it is not even as "objectively true" as "the Earth and the sun orbit around their common centre of gravity". Definitions matter. Which means that this:

A proposition is either objectively true or not regardless of what anyone or any group says or concludes.

is, I suggest, at best, misleading. A proposition is always made by a human being. So it doesn't exist in the absence of discourse. And very few worthwile propositions are cleanly true or false. The few that are can be settled very easily by appeal to independent observers (e.g. "did this coin fall heads or tails?".

If humans have no internal access to an objectively valid arbiter of incoming sensory data and correct thinking, we are lost,

Well, fortunately we aren't because we also have access to external corroboration. Both are important. And when we lose the capacity to distinguish between internal and external corroboration, then the result, sadly, is often psychosis. So, William, not only do I dispute your premises, and call your concepts into question, I don't even think your logic stands up to scrutiny! Elizabeth Liddle

For others: this is why it appears to me that some of our opponents are actually what they claim to be: bottom-up computations of physics. They seem to have an impenetrable self-reflective blind spot that simply cannot see "self" from within and intentionally consider a rational argument's meaning and implication. They just seem to react in defense of programming to key words and phrases and output a response that would ofthen fail the Turing test, utterly non-responsive to the meaning of the statements being processed. William J Murray

To sum up, EL: mind must be considered primary to the finding and discernment of objectively true statements simply because it is mind that identifies, organizes, evaluates and understands all incoming data; it is mind that sets up an evaluates experiments; it is mind that that proposes theories; it is mind that figures out how to test theories; it is mind that develops the means to "prove" or "disprove" those theories. ALL data is either received through the senses and goes to the mind for interpretation/processing or imagined/developed in the mind and then interpreted/processed. Your attempt to unseat the mind as necessarily primary by pointing to something entirely developed, organized, conducted, processed and evaluated by mind is utterly baffling. When you say the mind is "necessary" but not "sufficient", I suggest you rethink that propostion, because we do not actually have anything external to work with; all have is how our mind interprets sensations, and how our mind identifies, represents, categorizes and processes to conclusion that interpreted information. All we have that is even close to something "external" is the mental assumption/conclusion that our sensory data and representations are about something external. There is no way to avoid the necessary primacy of mind. William J Murray

As I said @36:

There’s no way, IMO, to penetrate self-deception from the outside. One must be willing to give up their self/world narrative – willing to admit their own foolishness – in order to even begin to evaluate their views honestly and objectively.

Early in the debate, EL asked me what I meant by "objective", and I replied:

A thing can be objectively true whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Was it not true that the Earth was orbiting the sun before anyone could discern that it was?

EL, in an attempt to defend her position that Empiricism (as she described it as a sort of scientific-consensual confirmation towards objective accuracy) somehow precedes or trumps logic (which is obviously untrue), attempts to undermine my description of what "objectively true" means:

... which seems to me to make the term “objectively true” meaningless. “True” is a quality of a claim. If there is no claimant, there are no claims to evaluate.

But ... where did I say there was no claimant? Where did I say there was no claim to be evaluated? Obviously, even if it's just EL and I talking about some thing that was true even before there were any sentient humans around to make claims about that thing, we are obviously talking about a claim or proposition (the Earth orbiting the sun) and whether or not that proposition is "objectively true" in the sense I defined "objectively true": whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Whether or not EL and I have the capacity for discerning a proposition as true or not, the proposition is still either true, or it is not (or it is improperly formed). Let's take the proposition that a virtually infinite number of concurrent, quantum-variant universes actually exist; whether or not EL and I have the capacity for discerning the truth of the proposition, it can still be true that such universes exist. As I said, the trueness of the proposition doesn't rely on our capacity to discern it as true, nor does it rely on consensual-scientific agreement. Why is EL making such a trivial, nonsensical complaint? This scenario is often the case with people like EL; they question the definitions or attempts to undermine the most basic, trivial terms and statements as if they are trying to undermine or deflect her opponent's rather simply put, straightforward statements. As if they are working to avoid the simpleness and straightforwardness of the argument by taking terms or phrases and figuring out some way to complicate them or turn them into straw men. It's obvious and inescapable that without an independent capacity to apply a mental arbiter assumed to be objectively valid (even if unrecognized at the time), no assessment of objective-world correctness or incorrectness can even get off the ground. All things about the world, whether scientific-empirical or not, is transformed into sensory data that must be identified, sorted and evaluated by the mind. There's simply no getting around this. If the mind is not sound, and if the mind has no presumed objective capacity, it cannot be rational to make assertions of objective correctness about anything. EL makes another trivial complaint after SB points out that "The law of non-contradiction is essential for establishing the truth of any premise". She says:

Essential but not sufficient.

But, the essential nature of logic as arbiter of all incoming sensory information is the whole ball game. If it is essential in determining whether or not a statement is objectively true, then logic, a mental commodity, must be considered objective in nature. If logic was subjective, then how anyone happened to evaluate incoming information, and whatever conclusion they happened to come to, would be logical as long as they subjectively considered it to be so. This is the nature of an argument; we are making the de facto assumption that logic is an objective arbiter of correct thinking. The materialist/physicalist must ask themselves here: how can this actually be the case? If thinking is subjective, and logic is subjectively created pattern of thoughts, how on Earth can we possibly consider logic an objective arbiter of correct thinking? Under materialism, that would be as absurd as thinking that there was an objectively valid arbiter of correct moral thinking. Look at what you say here, EL:

The statement “the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed” is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is “objectively true” in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion.

Does EL not realize that the proposition "the Earth orbits the sun" is either objectively true or not regardless of what scientific consensus agrees? A proposition is either objective true or not regardless of how any conclusion about it has come to pass. Again, this is trivial, and EL's objection seems to be a huge effort to contrive some sort of support for "consensus science" as arbiter of what is objectively true, as if "consensus science" is ultimately something categorically distinct from "logic and sensory input", which is what I said in principle was how I discern objectively true statements. IOW, EL is arguing that "scientific consensus" is a "better" way of discerning objectively true statements, as if "scientific consensus" as something other than a process entirely derived from 'logic and sensory input". Well - hopefully entirely derived; subjective emotions and personal biases are hopefully excluded from the process. These "objections" that EL raises don't rise beyond the trivial and are baffling in that she doesn't seem to be able to comprehend their triviality. I and others here are spending our time explaining the obvious and responding to the trivial simply because EL cannot, or will not allow herself, to comprehend very simple, very straightforward things. (1) A proposition is either objectively true or not regardless of what anyone or any group says or concludes. (2) If humans have no internal access to an objectively valid arbiter of incoming sensory data and correct thinking, we are lost, because if the only arbiter of objectively true statements is external, that information must still go through our senses and internal thinking process. IOW, we must be able to first internally, correctly discern that independent observation and verification increases the probability that a proposition is objectively true, and correctly discern the limitations of that process and the problems of taking such consensus at face value. (3) Therefore, the individual human must have internal access to an objectively valid arbiter of correct thinking and sensory interpretation, and they must be capable of imposing the results of that arbitration onto their biology even if their biology currently says otherwise. William J Murray

UB, care to elaborate? KF kairosfocus

man o man o man o man... wow Upright BiPed

EL, our concern is that you are putting the cart before the horse. And, for the purposes of this discussion, your remarks on what the writer of Genesis thought or did not think is ungrounded, tangential and irrelevant, save to cast rhetorical suggestions that are loaded. Further to this, there are two operative senses of truth and a linked sense of objectively true. Truth first may mean the reality out there on the ground. It also commonly means what Aristotle suggested in his Metaphysics 1011b, that which says of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not. And it is manifest that the earth orbited the sun before we were ever aware of it as a possibility or could say that such was a well warranted, empirically tested observation. However provisional and constrained that warrant will be on limits of inductive reasoning. Now, too, no one here -- and this includes specifically SB -- is suggesting or implying that pure logic is enough to ground an inductive conclusion in science or elsewhere. To suggest such, is to erect and knock over a strawman. And yes, just as Newton et al were fully aware, we know the provisionality of inductive findings and the linked issue of testing on empirical reliability. Here is Newton in Opticks, Query 31, which I have cited here many times and which is a part of my now longstanding IOSE discussion on methods etc:

As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For [--> merely speculative metaphysical] Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy. And although the arguing from Experiments and Observations by Induction be no Demonstration of general Conclusions; yet it is the best way of arguing which the Nature of Things admits of, and may be looked upon as so much the stronger, by how much the Induction is more general. And if no Exception occur from Phaenomena, the Conclusion may be pronounced generally. But if at any time afterwards any Exception shall occur from Experiments, it may then begin to be pronounced with such Exceptions as occur. By this way of Analysis we may proceed from Compounds to Ingredients, and from Motions to the Forces producing them; and in general, from Effects to their Causes, and from particular Causes to more general ones, till the Argument end in the most general. This is the Method of Analysis: And the Synthesis consists in assuming the Causes discover'd, and establish'd as Principles, and by them explaining the Phaenomena proceeding from them, and proving the Explanations.

Indeed, you may recognise in that the root of the somewhat simplistic summary "scientific method" as is commonly taught in schools. Objectivity in science hinges on empirical observation and testing per reasonable methods and skilled, knowledgeable practitioners. That is not in dispute, indeed it is precisely because of our concern for finding empirically confirmed adequate cause for FSCO/I etc that we have pointed to how reliably such signs point to intelligently directed configuration as cause. That is, attempted explanations of origin of life, body plans, mind, etc that pivot on the claimed powers of blind chance and mechanical necessity first forming reproducing life forms in Darwin's pond or the like prebiotic context, then going on to a process of cumulative chance variation and culling out on differential reproductive success from root to tips of the tree of life, fails to soundly address the vera causa principle. So, insofar as evidence may be held to be best explained on common descent, it may also be held to point to common design. But, we are also insistent that logic is part of the necessary foundation for all reasoning and that such logic requires a responsibly free thinker. Including, inductive work in science -- of course taking the modern broader view of induction as arguments based on empirical grounds that make conclusions more likely on premises that would embrace abduction etc. On the grounds, that we cannot but operate on that implicit premise, we are highlighting that any worldview that implies general delusion and/or undermines that sort of responsible freedom, is self-falsifying before we get to particular points of thought or action. That is, it fails the test of a necessary condition of rationality which is a foundational premise of any tenable system of thought. Where, as Reppert noted, evolutionary materialist views of mind run into serious trouble here, in trying to produce mind on brains as computational substrate with cause-effct bonds on signals and computing elements, rather than free rational contemplation, insight and judgement:

. . . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts . . . [[But] if naturalism is true, then the propositional content is irrelevant to the causal transaction that produces the conclusion, and [[so] we do not have a case of rational inference. In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.

Such an account of mind and rationality, fails to achieve responsible freedom and rational insight/judgement. So, we are warranted to observe that to reason and think responsibly and to have exchanges towards doing so more correctly requires that we acknowledge our responsible freedom. Therefore, any scheme of thought that fails this test must be grand error. Thus, we find J B S Haldane's stricture; which is ancestral to Reppert's remarks above:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]

Evolutionary materialism is self-referentially incoherent and implies general delusion thus must be deemed false so long as we see that before anything else, we have to accept and live by the premise that we are responsibly free rational beings. KF kairosfocus

StephenB wrote

The law of non-contradiction is essential for establishing the truth of any premise.

Essential but not sufficient. The point I am making, and which I do not consider William has addressed, is that it is not possible to evaluate whether "A is objectively true" without an objective investigation i.e. one in which independent investigators can independently come to the same conclusions. Even then it can only be regarded as provisionally true, which is why all scientific conclusions are provisional. Earlier William wrote:

A thing can be objectively true whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Was it not true that the Earth was orbiting the sun before anyone could discern that it was?

which seems to me to make the term "objectively true" meaningless. "True" is a quality of a claim. If there is no claimant, there are no claims to evaluate. And all claims, I propose, are models of reality, not reality itself. The statement "the Earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed" is a conclusion, made by human discerners, based on the available evidence. It is "objectively true" in the sense that independent researchers looking at the evidence, indeed looking at independent sets of evidence, can come to the same conclusion. On the other hand, a few people reject that model, and the writers of Genesis had a quite different one. We can say that our modern model has more evidence to support it than the Genesis model, but that is a quite different than saying that "the earth has been orbiting the Sun since before humans existed". For a start, what we mean by "orbit" has changed radically since we started investigating, and even Kepler's model has been refined. Was Kepler's model "objectively false" and is some other model that we have not yet established, the "objectively true" model? No, because all we have are models and the map is not the territory. We can, and I suggest do (and here I agree with William, that to do otherwise leads to solipsism) agree that there is a Reality "out there" that we can try to model with increasingly improved fit of model to data. And we could call that Reality "Truth" if we like. It's a good word. We could even call it "Objective truth", but it would not take the form of claims. And it might not exist. Evidence that it does is provided by the fact that independent observesr can make reliable predictions about the world, but quantum physics sometimes puts it in doubt: perhaps we create reality by the process of discovering it. But for practical purposes we can assume that our models can converge towards - if never reach - reality, and we test the "objective truth" of our models by their fit to wour data, valididated by independent observers pursuing independing lines of enquiry. Which is the method Randi proposes to his challengees. It is not bias. It is simply application of the only method, I submit, by which we can get closer to objectively well-fitting (I will not say "true") models of Reality. Elizabeth Liddle

EL, I should add, on what basis can you be confident that you yourself are there as a responsibly free, rational observer, thinker, conclud-er, know-er and reporter -- esp. i/l/o evolutionary materialist scientism which by wider context is your perspective. I ask such on Crick, Provine, Haldane and more. KF kairosfocus

Isn't it a little late the day for Dr Liddle to be making this kind of obvious failure in judgement. Upright BiPed

It seems that EL is unaware that she is necessarily applying logic and trusting mind to form any good premise; to form any methodology of testing and evaluation of the premise; to fit the tests within a framework of expectations and shoulds and to comprehend what it all means. It's as if she think "empiricism" sets itself up and processes itself into valid conclusions without even requiring a rational mind. Perhaps she thinks that if she doesn't know she is applying logic - if she is not deliberately, knowingly applying logic, then she is not using logic? Baffling. William J Murray

EL

What have you got apart from empricism by which I mean: establishing that a phenomenon can be reliably observed by independent observers to establish the truth of the premises to which you apply your logic?

What you have is the assurance that logic, both deductive and inductive, applies not only to the mental models of syllogism and inference, but also to the corresponding logic of the real world. That is why reasoning properly from a true premise will always produce a true conclusion. The law of non-contradiction is true, ontologically, logically, and psychologically. That is why I can say, "if it rains, the streets will get wet."

Non contradiction et al won’t help you establish those premises, and without them you ain’t got nuthin’!

The law of non-contradiction is essential for establishing the truth of any premise. (Premise: I am looking at Jupiter through my telescope or, again-- Premise: Jupiter exists--Law of Non-Contradiction: Jupiter cannot also be Saturn or Mars), Indeed, the principle of non-contradiction underlies all reasoning. In order to know the true premise, you must also know that any contradictory premise is false. Without that law, any if/then proposition would be impossible. It is by first principles that we know how to interpret empirical evidence in a rational way. Evidence does not inform reason’s rules; reason’s rules inform evidence.---Always.

If I claim, for instance, that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, no amount of logic will tell you whether or not that statement is “objectively true”.

It is only by way of the law of contradiction that the principle of causality can be established. It is only by way of the law of causality, that we can establish HIV as a cause of AIDS. If the law of causality is not true 100% of the time, then we cannot identify any cause at all.

What WILL give you confidence that the statement is objectively true is consistent data from studies carried out by independent observers.

It is only because the laws of non-contradiction, excluded middle, and causality are objectively true, that we can identify causes. Otherwise, it would be impossible to evaluate evidence in a rational way. According to the law of causality, a cause cannot give to an effect something that it does not have to give. Ignoring these laws, the researchers could say, “AIDs simply emerged from the air." If the cause does not have to be proportionate to the effect, there is no argument against it. StephenB

I thought Magic Johnson proved that money prevents HIV from becoming AIDS. :D Joe

EL said:

What have you got apart from empricism by which I mean: establishing that a phenomenon can be reliably observed by independent observers to establish the truth of the premises to which you apply your logic?

Empiricism doesn't exist without logic, and cannot validate anything without logic. Empiricism doesn't even mean anything without logic. Do you really not understand that without the principle of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction, the term "empiricism" doesn't mean anything in particular? Without the (often unspoken, often even unrecognized) principles of logic, there is no rational language. There is no rational method. There is no rational interpretation of facts. you and I cannot have a rational discussion without laying it out according to some basic, fundamental principles of logic. We wouldn't be able to understand anything the other person said without it. Your cart is before your horse, EL. Without primacy of mind, you have nothing. Your empiricism is nothing without an assumedly valid mental commodity (logic) to understand, and implement it and interpret the results. William J Murray

EL, what gives you confidence that you know that independent observers exist and are not figments of some Plato's cave world? KF kairosfocus

WJM

Establishing the truth of any statement is logic – principle of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. You seem to think empiricism establishes truth; what establishes empiricism as what establishes truth?

What have you got apart from empricism by which I mean: establishing that a phenomenon can be reliably observed by independent observers to establish the truth of the premises to which you apply your logic? Non contradiction et al won't help you establish those premises, and without them you ain't got nuthin'! If I claim, for instance, that AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, no amount of logic will tell you whether or not that statement is "objectively true". What WILL give you confidence that the statement is objectively true is consistent data from studies carried out by independent observers. Elizabeth Liddle

Let's look at your original question, EL:

If it is possible – and I agree it is – to be so certain one is right that counter arguments appear ludicrous, even though to others they might seem to have merit, then do you have an objective methodology by which one can figure out whether or not one is in that grip of such a state? In other words, if I find myself convinced of a position, and that the rebuttals offered to that position are fallacious, how do I set about finding out whether the position I am convinced by is indeed correct and the rebuttals are indeed fallacious, or, alternatively, that I am so self-delueded that I am simply unable to see the force of the counterargument?

The way you do this is the use of logic and sensory input built upon a foundation that identifies/founds logic and sensory input as the basis of making objectively true statements by which one can compare their views/beliefs and assess their coherence along with the expectation that one can modify their views according to a proper realization that their current views are erroneous. Regardless of how one verifies the accuracy of their measuring device/system, one must assume they can verify, and that there is a way to objectively verify it. If your worldview contains no foundation for such an expectation, and in fact insists that no such expectation is logically warranted from your worldview beliefs, then the first order of business is to get your worldview beliefs changed to accommodate the existence of a capacity to deliberately arbit objectively true statements and install them over erroneous views. If one's view is incompatible with the existence of objectively true statements and an available means to verify or disqualify statements as such, then one's view is incompatible with any argument that someone else's view or belief is "incorrect". Without logic postulated as an objectively valid means of arbiting true statments, no meaningful argument can even begin. Without postulating that we have the sensory capacity to feed relevant information about objectively existent things to our minds, then we have nothing reliable or available to work with and we get some form of solipsism. That is what I am talking about when I made the commment:

What is appalling is those that actually believe they are serving a good purpose while denying that any sort of objectively true “good purpose” exists; they cannot complete the rational connection that if their belief is true, the only “good purpose” they can possibly be serving is their own selfish, subjective, personal desire.

What "good purpose" are you serving if "good" is subjective? You can only be serving your own personal, subjective purpose. How can "good" be identified in any meaningful way if there is no presumed objective means by which "good" is established in the first place? Unless good is considered an objective commodity we have some capacity to sense (via conscience), no amount of logic or feeling can parse a correct good from an incorrect good because there would be no such thing as an incorrect good, any more than there is an incorrect personal preference or feeling. The terms "right" and "wrong" mean this very thing - that something is objectively right, and objectively wrong - otherwise, the terms are euphemisms for personal preference. We only have two complementary means of identifying and validating true statements from false, right from wrong, corrrect from incorrect; logic, which identifies and structures the nature of the comparison and the rules for comparing, inferences, deductions and conclusions; and sensory capacity, which brings information from the objective world into the mind about that which is going to be identified, categorized and and evaluated. Subjective feelings and preferences are incompatible with the idea that they can be tested or arbited for correctness & incorrectness. I cannot say that it is true that you consider adultery wrong whether you agree with me or not; I can only say that it is wrong whether you agree with me or not. Arguing with others that adultery is wrong, when they disagree with you, is a de facto admission that you hold it to be objectively wrong, that it can be correctly arbited to be objectively wrong, and that those who disagree are objectively wrong and should impose the correct view onto their biological substate. otherwise, it makes no sense to argue - unless you're just trying to manipulate others to agree with you for your own purposes. William J Murray

EL said:

OK, let’s assume that. Now, tell me what method you use to discern objectively true statements from false.

A combination of logic and sensory input. (With caveats - for instance, I consider logic ultimately a sensory capacity; we recognize/discover logical principles in a manner consistent with sensory discovery; some true statements are discerned with other mental senses, like conscience and mathematics, which IMO refer to objectively existent mental commodities.) William J Murray

EL, the very first premises are the first principles of right reason and linked self-evident plumbline truths. Also, on that side, validity is separate from soundness. Where, necessary incoherence thus self-falsification of not_X entails truth of X. On the inductive side, cogency is tied to the truth of premises supporting the likelihood of truth of conclusions. Truth of premises then addresses accuracy of reference (thus also coherence) with reality. Where, there are many reasons to accept core premises such as that we can accurately perceive many things in the real world, we are responsible and reasoning creatures who can and do know certain things, that self referential incoherence is a sign of falsehood . . . which includes any worldview that entails general delusion -- and more. KF kairosfocus

EL said:

Establishing the truth of the premises is antecedent to core logic.

Establishing the truth of any statement is logic - principle of identity, excluded middle and non-contradiction. You seem to think empiricism establishes truth; what establishes empiricism as what establishes truth? Why should we think that repeatability and cross-checking results increases the chances of a ruler's accuracy? Without logic, there is no reason to think so. I can as easily think that screaming at a ruler and threatening to melt it down will give me the best chance that the ruler is accurate if I don't have to vet any of my expectations by applying logic. Your process of vetting the ruler gains you absolutely nothing with regards to my argument. You must assume that you have some means by which to find objectively true statements regardless of what your methodology is to vet the accuracy of your statements; that's the whole point. You have agreed to my entire argument with these words:

I’m not disputing that to verify something we have to make the assumption that it can be verified.

We must assume we have the mental/sensory capacity to recognize, verify and install objective facts/truths in order to make any claims whatsoever about anything presumed objective in nature (reminder of definition: existent whether we believe it or not; true whether we agree or not). William J Murray

EL, core logic is antecedent to inductive reasoning. KF

Establishing the truth of the premises is antecedent to core logic. If you can't establish the truth of the premises how can you know your conclusion is correct, however impeccable the logic? That is why I am saying that the only way to establish that something is "objectively true" is to establish that it remains true for independent observers. There will always be some measurement error, but we can be much more confident that something that many people can independently confirm, under controlled conditions, than of something that they can't. That's why, to turn back to the OP, Randi's challenge is not "confirmation bias" but the reverse. His methodology is the controlled, independently conducted trial. If such a design is "biased" it is only "biased" against finding effects that cannot be replicated. Which is fine. Perhaps some phenomena don't play by the rules. But in that case, we can't detect them by scientific methodology. Elizabeth Liddle

Axel, yes, the Plato's world type argument invites an infinite regress of challenges. That's why a sensible person will accept that any claim of general delusion is self undermining and will start afresh on better premises. And selective hyperskepticism is little better than self serving dismissive special pleading by infinite objections beyond reason. Hence, elevatorgate. KF kairosfocus

Sounds like potentially infinite regress! Axel

EL, core logic is antecedent to inductive reasoning. KF kairosfocus

WJM:

Now, you are refusing that assumption. Fine. Let’s assume that the supposed objective arbiter of length is a ruler that you have run multiple direct and comparative tests (as you have described) on. That entire process depends on the same kind of essential assumptions I originally outlined, just pushed back a level or two, related to relying on senses and mental capacity assumed to refer to objective commodities, only it involves the other devices, materials, and thought processes used to “validate” the objective capacity of the ruler. At some final (or original) point, one must make assumptions about capacity to verify the objective nature of a thing, or else they have nothing at all to stand on; as kf points out repeatedly, one must make sure those foundational assumptions are not self-defeating or self-negating and actually provide for one’s later conclusions.

I'm not disputing that to verify something we have to make the assumption that it can be verified. What I'm asking you is how you do it? My method is the standard empirical method. But you appear to reject that. Or have I misunderstood? Elizabeth Liddle

WJM:

Monitoring the correctness of ones thought and changing it fundamentally requires there to be “correct” and “incorrect” thoughts, and requires one have the capacity to change ones thoughts on account of their “correctness” and “incorrectness”. Otherwise, all we are doing here is flinging feces at each other. In order for either of our arguments to be “true” in anything other than the most trivial sense (“true statement because physics compels me to think it is”), then the assumptions I have listed must be assumed. At some point in our line of evidence and reasoning, we must assume we have the independent, unilateral capacity to discern objectively true statements from false and impose those truths top-down on our biological substrate.

OK, let's assume that. Now, tell me what method you use to discern objectively true statements from false. Elizabeth Liddle

WJM:

If there is no means by which we can deliberately, objectively determine error in our own thoughts, why are you even bothering to ask questions, and why would you attempt to change my views?

I think there is a method. And apparently you do too. I'm asking you what your method is.

Even as you say “But I think there are dragons lurking in your passive-voiced clauses”, you are subscribing to the very assumptions I have listed that you must make. Do you mean that I have errors (dragons) in my thinking? On what basis would you call them errors, if not according to some assumed arbiter of correct and incorrect thinking?

I think your use of the passive voice hides assumptions you believe you are not making. That is why I asked you to explain how an "arbiter" could be "held" (by someone, presumably) to be an objective measure of length. Who decides?

Or, if you do not assume such an objective arbiter (logic), all you can be doing is trying to subjectively change my mind to simply be in line with your own subjctive views. Why bother trying to change the leaf of a fig tree to look like the leaf of a maple tree? They’re just thoughts produced by physics with no arbiter of intrinsic “correctness”.

I am not denying there is such an arbiter. I'm asking you what method you use to find out what it is, and to use it.

It’s like you’re trying to argue that you are not assuming a ruler to be an objective arbiter of length, and your means of making your argument is pulling out the same ruler to make a measurement.

No, I'm not arguing any such thing. I'm simply trying to get you to say how you actually evaluate whether something is objectively true. So far all you have told me is that if the claim is about the length of a plank I should use a measure "held to be" (by person or persons unknown) to be an "objective arbiter of length". I can tell you, as a scientist, how I would establish an "objective arbiter of length" and the method is empirical - if the same instrument gives the same value for all observers, we can say it is "objective". If the same instrument gives values that depend on the person doing the measuring, then we say it is "subjective". But you seem to have some other definition, and I'm trying to get you to articulate what it is.

You have nothing to work with but the assumption that you have some means of objectively arbiting the validity of my argument and your own, and the top-down capacity to make such an assessment and impose it on your biology.

Well, it would be helpful if you would answer my questions! Elizabeth Liddle

WJM, in short, to be reasonable, we must be responsibly free, and we have more confidence in reason than in any theory allegedly arrived at by reasoning so if a theory cuts against reason it should be discarded as flawed. KF kairosfocus

PS: The skeptical blogger known as Lousy Canuck has posted, regarding elvatorgate:

[W]hen the bugs crawling out from under the rock that had been overturned . . . by Rebecca Watson continued unabated, and pretty much everyone was shocked [--> h'mm, as in maybe conscience bears witness to the reality of morality? As in,what IS can bear the weight of OUGHT? . . . ] that that many creepie-crawlies resided in our vaunted skeptical community, I wrote a series of posts on the whole ordeal called The Problem with Privilege. One of those posts dealt with the rampant and repeated demands for evidence regarding the incident that Rebecca had called creepy — as though recounting a story and saying “guys, don’t do that, it’s creepy” was some kind of misandrist clarion call [--> as in a tipsy woman at 4:00 am in an elevator is invited to come into someone's hotel room, for "coffee"] . . . . these trolls, being part of the skeptical community (apparently), used our strengths against us by attacking the claim on its merits [ -->as in, if I can post a skeptical doubt I can dismiss in absence of arbitrarily high standards of demanded evidence that I would not otherwise ask for, so maybe evidentialism and hyperskepticism are not so much strengths as psychosocial and rhetorical defences that fend off where one would not go] , since the claim “I was tipsy in an elevator at 4am and a guy followed me in and asked me to his room” doesn’t meet the high standards of evidence we use in the skeptical community when it comes to extraordinary claims [--> Extraordinary claims boil down tot hose one is disinclined to accept, and so arbitrarily high standards that would not be generally used for such matters generally are applied; to this the proper answer is reasonable and adequate evidence i/l/o our circumstances is all that is necessary for a reasonable person]. Never mind that it was a perfectly ordinary claim about someone’s experience with a slightly-offputting person that did not result in any physical harm. Specifically, I characterized this compulsion as hyper-skepticism [--> in short the soundness of the problem O have highlighted for years is acknowledged], along the same lines as 9/11 truthers, birthers, and other conspiracy theorists. [--> Note the list is projected to the out-group. Look in the mirror a little more closely please] We’re now seeing the exact same tactic being used again in the wake of a conflagration that Jen McCreight accidentally set off when she casually mentioned at the Women In Secularism CFI conference that female speakers occasionally warn one another of potentially creepy male speakers. Since Stephanie called for real harassment policies to be implemented, and over half a dozen conventions started putting a very good template policy into place in response, real progress has been made on the issue. Progress involving building infrastructure that ameliorates the problem and provides harassment victims with real support. People have come forward with their specific complaints about harassment that had not been reported immediately, supporting the need for these infrastructures — and the hyper-skeptics replied in droves, “but where’s your evidence!?” . . .

If you sow dragon's teeth . . . kairosfocus

Monitoring the correctness of ones thought and changing it fundamentally requires there to be "correct" and "incorrect" thoughts, and requires one have the capacity to change ones thoughts on account of their "correctness" and "incorrectness". Otherwise, all we are doing here is flinging feces at each other. In order for either of our arguments to be "true" in anything other than the most trivial sense ("true statement because physics compels me to think it is"), then the assumptions I have listed must be assumed. At some point in our line of evidence and reasoning, we must assume we have the independent, unilateral capacity to discern objectively true statements from false and impose those truths top-down on our biological substrate. William J Murray

WJM, I suspect I am being studiously ignored and probably lampooned or worse elsewhere for the thought crime of pointing to how years of cyberstalking have now apparently moved to on the ground stalking [on evidence of trying to play outing threat games out to the business places of people remotely connected to me], and by pointing out that enabling of such needs to stop. But, I speak for record. Sense does not become nonsense jut because it is studiously ignored, and as another case in the wider point, FSCO/I does not become nonsense because some would not even look at live cases in point. KF kairosfocus

Axel: See what happens when one opens the door to the general delusion, hyperskeptical notion? That's been on the table since Plato and the parable of the cave: VID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ&feature=related Summary:

[Plato] envisions a group of men, held prisoner from infancy in a cave, and so fastened that they can only look on an opposite wall. Behind them, by walking along a roadway and sticking up images above a wall, with a fire behind, a shadow-show is projected unto the wall . . . . This shadow show the prisoners confuse for the “real” world. Then, one breaks free and, with pain for the glare in his eyes, sees the parapet, the puppets and the fire behind. Then, he is forced up out of the cave and by degrees comes to grip with reality. Taking pity on his fellows, he returns, to inform and help liberate them. But, he is challenged, so -- even while he stumbles to adjust to the darkness that the denizens imagine is light -- he now has to defend himself. The fellow prisoners conclude that on being led out of the cave he was harmed and turned into a fool, and threaten to kill any who would set another one free.

The answer to all such is that the interlocutor assumes the validity of communication to at least some extent or we would not be arguing. But once general delusion is admitted, as opposed to limited manipulations that can be detected and corrected by reference to plumbline self evident truths and common sense, it tears everything up ending in absurdity. And then, indeed we see cynical operation on th premise might and manipulation make right, truth, meaning etc, so it is all about who is the cleverer or more powerful. Stop the madness! In short, not even skeptics can live by the standards they would push on us all. That should be enough for the reasonable person. But then, selective hyperskepticism is exactly how we can see the incoherence of today's evolutionary materialism coming down to absurdity. As, the elevatorgate scandal shows. With echoes from cases much closer to hand. KF kairosfocus

EL said:

Yes, I do, but I have a methodology for arriving at that knowledge. I hold something to a be a reliable measuring instrument, if the instrument, used by many different measures on many different objects firstly, gives consistent results with a minimum of variation (internal consistency), and secondly, gives results consistent with a range of other measures, each of which also has internal consistency (that gives me the external consistency of the measure).

Let's refer back to what I said originally, which preceded your line of questions into the specific example/analogy:

IOW, to evaluate whether or not the claim “the plank is 10 ft long”, one must make a set of assumptions first in order for the claim to make any sense being uttered, and 2nd in order to have any hope of discerning the objective truth value of the claim; primarily, one must assume they have some means of objectively understanding the truth claim in the first place; of correctly interpreting the truth claim; and then a sensory capacity related to objectively existent commodities where an assumed-valid arbiter (tape measure) can be applied and the results correctly understood. It all must begin, however, with the assumption that there are at least some aspects of mind that are primary and represent that which can arbit objectively.

After which you quoted the above and said:

All you have done here is tell me what assumptions I can make before I can evaluate the statement. You have not told me how to do it. OK: Consider the assumptions granted.

You granted the assumption: "an assumed-valid arbiter (tape measure) can be applied" Now, you are refusing that assumption. Fine. Let's assume that the supposed objective arbiter of length is a ruler that you have run multiple direct and comparative tests (as you have described) on. That entire process depends on the same kind of essential assumptions I originally outlined, just pushed back a level or two, related to relying on senses and mental capacity assumed to refer to objective commodities, only it involves the other devices, materials, and thought processes used to "validate" the objective capacity of the ruler. At some final (or original) point, one must make assumptions about capacity to verify the objective nature of a thing, or else they have nothing at all to stand on; as kf points out repeatedly, one must make sure those foundational assumptions are not self-defeating or self-negating and actually provide for one's later conclusions. William J Murray

'Here’s the correct wording: Some guy claims that a plank is 10 feet long. I measure it with a tape - (B)held to be an objective arbiter of length.(B) - The tape says it is 10 ft long. I therefore reasonably conclude that the plank has been objectively demonstrated to be 10 ft long. Therefore, the statement “the plank is 10 ft long” is regarded as an objectively true statement.” Elizabeth, "How do you establish that the bolded is true?" Is it really necessary to question the validity of a standard tape-measure bought from a common or garden shop? When you travel, say, to the US, do you question whether the plane is really flying there? Or do you wonder if it might not be a gigantic fraud the travel people and goodness knows who else might be committing against you? And when you land there, is it perhaps a vast simulacrum of depictions of the US as shown on TV and in films? A mega-maquette, with a soupcon of Westworld? Axel

EL, If there is no means by which we can deliberately, objectively determine error in our own thoughts, why are you even bothering to ask questions, and why would you attempt to change my views? Even as you say "But I think there are dragons lurking in your passive-voiced clauses", you are subscribing to the very assumptions I have listed that you must make. Do you mean that I have errors (dragons) in my thinking? On what basis would you call them errors, if not according to some assumed arbiter of correct and incorrect thinking? Or, if you do not assume such an objective arbiter (logic), all you can be doing is trying to subjectively change my mind to simply be in line with your own subjctive views. Why bother trying to change the leaf of a fig tree to look like the leaf of a maple tree? They're just thoughts produced by physics with no arbiter of intrinsic "correctness". It's like you're trying to argue that you are not assuming a ruler to be an objective arbiter of length, and your means of making your argument is pulling out the same ruler to make a measurement. You have nothing to work with but the assumption that you have some means of objectively arbiting the validity of my argument and your own, and the top-down capacity to make such an assessment and impose it on your biology. William J Murray

Hi William You ask me:

Do you not know if you hold a ruler to be an objective arbiter of length?

Yes, I do, but I have a methodology for arriving at that knowledge. I hold something to a be a reliable measuring instrument, if the instrument, used by many different measures on many different objects firstly, gives consistent results with a minimum of variation (internal consistency), and secondly, gives results consistent with a range of other measures, each of which also has internal consistency (that gives me the external consistency of the measure). In other words, I hold the statement "this measuring stick is an objective arbiter of length" to be true if it gives similar results for all observers, and is consistent with other measures that also give similar results for all observers. But I am at a loss as to apply that methodology to:

An objective evaluation of one’s thinking would be comparing your thinking against an objective arbiter of thinking,

Where do I get an "objective arbiter of thinking" and how do I evaluate whether it is objective? Elizabeth Liddle

".. held to be an objective arbiter of length" How do you establish that the bolded is true?

Do you not know if you hold a ruler to be an objective arbiter of length? Or are you saying that when you pick up a ruler to measure something, you do not assume it is an objective arbiter of length? If that is the case, why are you picking up a ruler in the first place? William J Murray

Elizabeth:

How do you establish that the bolded is true?

Scientifically accepted standards. Joe

WJM:

Here’s the correct wording: Some guy claims that a plank is 10 feet long. I measure it with a tape held to be an objective arbiter of length. The tape says it is 10 ft long. I therefore reasonably conclude that the plank has been objectively demonstrated to be 10 ft long. Therefore, the statement “the plank is 10 ft long” is regarded as an objectively true statement.” How do you establish that the bolded is true? BTW, these are dead serious questions, William. I'm not playing games. But I think there are dragons lurking in your passive-voiced clauses.

Elizabeth Liddle

EL asks:

I do? OK. So if the guy tells me that the plank is 10 feet long, and I measure it, and I also find that the plank is 10 feet long, I can conclude that “the plank is 10 feet long” is “objectively true”?

Here's the correct wording: Some guy claims that a plank is 10 feet long. I measure it with a tape held to be an objective arbiter of length. The tape says it is 10 ft long. I therefore reasonably conclude that the plank has been objectively demonstrated to be 10 ft long. Therefore, the statement "the plank is 10 ft long" is regarded as an objectively true statement." William J Murray

WJM @ 46:

That was a point I had gotten to, but the only reason I think I got there under my stint as a materialist/atheist is because I was not content to sit comfortably in a pocket of unexamined premises.

Then you were never a skeptic of the TSZ type who come over here and fill our comboxes. They seem content to continue to sit comfortably in a pocket of premises that have been examined and demonstrated to be false. Barry Arrington

Elizabeth is confused by objectivity because evolutionism despises the concept. Science is objective, Elizabeth. That is why you are confused. Joe

WJM:

You measure the plank with the appropriate arbiter of measurement wrt the thing in question – in this case, a tape measure.

I do? OK. So if the guy tells me that the plank is 10 feet long, and I measure it, and I also find that the plank is 10 feet long, I can conclude that "the plank is 10 feet long" is "objectively true"? Elizabeth Liddle

EL:

What do I do next?

"What to do next" was contained in where you quoted me: "...where an assumed-valid arbiter (tape measure) can be applied and the results correctly understood." You measure the plank with the appropriate arbiter of measurement wrt the thing in question - in this case, a tape measure. William J Murray

WJM:

Depends on what it is one is attempting to discern as true or not

Yes, I would agree. So let us take your plank example

IOW, to evaluate whether or not the claim “the plank is 10 ft long”, one must make a set of assumptions first in order for the claim to make any sense being uttered, and 2nd in order to have any hope of discerning the objective truth value of the claim; primarily, one must assume they have some means of objectively understanding the truth claim in the first place; of correctly interpreting the truth claim; and then a sensory capacity related to objectively existent commodities where an assumed-valid arbiter (tape measure) can be applied and the results correctly understood. It all must begin, however, with the assumption that there are at least some aspects of mind that are primary and represent that which can arbit objectively. Without that, we’re lost in material or mental solipsism.

All you have done here is tell me what assumptions I can make before I can evaluate the statement. You have not told me how to do it. OK: Consider the assumptions granted. Now, how do I ascertain whether the claim is objectively true? What do I do next? Elizabeth Liddle

EL said:

So what is your methodology for objectively evaluating your thinking? What is the analog of the tape measure?

Primarily, logic. William J Murray

And how do you determine whether something is, or is not, “objectively true”? By what methodology?

Depends on what it is one is attempting to discern as true or not; generally speaking, it involves comparing assumedly objective arbiters of values implied as authoritative by the claim against the truth claim. However, all such methods rely upon foundational principles (as kf repeatedly points out) must be accepted as valid or else one has no reason in the first place to hold their thoughts in any way valid or meaningful. IOW, to evaluate whether or not the claim "the plank is 10 ft long", one must make a set of assumptions first in order for the claim to make any sense being uttered, and 2nd in order to have any hope of discerning the objective truth value of the claim; primarily, one must assume they have some means of objectively understanding the truth claim in the first place; of correctly interpreting the truth claim; and then a sensory capacity related to objectively existent commodities where an assumed-valid arbiter (tape measure) can be applied and the results correctly understood. It all must begin, however, with the assumption that there are at least some aspects of mind that are primary and represent that which can arbit objectively. Without that, we're lost in material or mental solipsism. William J Murray

EL: Yesterday, in clearing some Xmas palm branches blown down by high winds, I stepped in a hole and rolled my right ankle. As a result I have been hepping as my 2nd Mom would put it. The hole is objective, the sub-sprain is objective, the winds and branches, even the palm trees. So is the compost heap on which the branches now reside. When it comes to the reality of morality, purposes etc. First, I purposed to remove the branches but most definitely did not intend the twist. And I am glad it was not the other ankle which I nearly broke many years back and which would have reverted. I have no more reason to deny the objectivity of the purposing that I perceived from within, than the accident that intruded from without. Both require the same mind, and I am fully aware that allowing general delusion would create absurdity by incoherence. And, I am willing to acknowledge purpose in others who are as I am without imposing selectively or generally hyperskeptical games. Those who would, carry the burden of proof which they cannot meet. But this turns an unflattering light on a lot of the rhetorical patterns in dismissal of design inferences or even the reality and relevance of FSCO/I, as well as on issues of stalking and enabling behaviour etc that have been dismissed when pointed to. (Do I need to say, elevatorgate?) So, yes, we may err. But even that is a point of certain knowledge. Where, to err -- as I did by stepping into that hole -- is itself directly connected to aiming at a target and missing. That is, to the reality of purpose. The dismissive rhetoric collapses in absurd consequences. Not least, to reason -- as we all purport to do -- we must purpose. So, we see self referential incoherence haunting those who would deny the reality of purpose. Which is a means of objective warrant. Plumbline, self-evident truths strike again! KF PS: For those who need to come up to speed: An Atheist: http://freethoughtblogs.com/lousycanuck/2012/06/02/the-further-hyper-skepticism-stalling-our-conversation/ DDD no 12: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/atheism/darwinian-debating-devices-12-selective-hyperskepticism-closed-mindedness-and-the-saganian-slogan-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence/ kairosfocus

“Objective” means exists whether you believe it does or not; and/or is true whether you think it is true or not.

And how do you determine whether something is, or is not, "objectively true"? By what methodology?

An objective evaluation of one’s thinking would be comparing your thinking against an objective arbiter of thinking, much like comparing ones personal idea about how long a plank of wood is against the results of a tape measure.

So what is your methodology for objectively evaluating your thinking? What is the analog of the tape measure?

Without a means of objectively arbiting our thinking for correctness, we’re lost.

Right. So can you explain what those means are? Elizabeth Liddle

EL: "Objective" means exists whether you believe it does or not; and/or is true whether you think it is true or not. An objective evaluation of one's thinking would be comparing your thinking against an objective arbiter of thinking, much like comparing ones personal idea about how long a plank of wood is against the results of a tape measure. Without a means of objectively arbiting our thinking for correctness, we're lost. William J Murray

'A thing can be objectively true whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Was it not true that the Earth was orbiting the sun before anyone could discern that it was?' Don't confuse Elizabeth, William, there's a good chap. Elizabeth has her own pathways, her own highways and byways of addressing issues. They may seem at times to UDists to take the form of a peculiarly convoluted sophistry, but, well, maybe they are; maybe they aren't. Perhaps only Darwin could penetrate to the core the issue. Axel

WJM: A few nukes blowing in near space and sweeping electrical, electronics and t/comms stuff away in a wave of EMP, will suffice. But at utterly bitter cost. KF kairosfocus

kf @ 41: That was a point I had gotten to, but the only reason I think I got there under my stint as a materialist/atheist is because I was not content to sit comfortably in a pocket of unexamined premises. The realization of what my premises necessarily meant and resulted in helped propel me on a quest to find a way to escape materialism/atheism. As long as atheists/materialists can sit comfortably within the safety of a social structure built by the concepts of theism and non-materialism, and physically protected mostly by the religious (our armed forces), they mostly don't have to face the consequences of their worldviews. They live in the ivory tower religion and philosophy built and sneer down upon that which built and protects it, arguing that the ivory tower and walls beyond should be dismantled, thinking they will still be able to lounge around in the high air without the tower itself supporting them or those idealistic, religious brutes at the gate protecting them. William J Murray

EL, I will plead with you for a moment, in re:

A “good purpose” could only be “objectively true” if there were some objective methodology for discerning it. What is that methodology?

It begins with recognising a yardstick self-evident, absolutely knowable cluster of truths then setting on the path of transformation of worldview and mindset: http://nicenesystheol.blogspot.com/2010/11/unit-2-gospel-on-mars-hill-foundations.html#u2_bld_wvu Yes, it goes back to recognising that we begin with finitely remote first plausibles that include some plumbline self-evident truths. The very ones that have been so often despised. That, error exists is undeniably true. Thus, truth as what accurately describes reality is real, and in some cases is accessible to undeniable, self-evident certainty. Thus, schemes of thought and agendas that undermine truth beyond perception or institutional or social "consensus" as well as undermining rationality (as opposed to rationalism) are overturned at one go. Which of course inevitably includes the self-falsifying self referentially incoherent, but institutionally dominant evolutionary materialism of our day. A scheme that is also morally hazardous as it has in it no foundational IS that can bear the weight of ought. (Cf. here: http://iose-gen.blogspot.com/2010/06/origin-of-mind-man-morals-etc.html#is_oght ) Going beyond, it includes the direct correlates of the act of recognising the reality of distinct identity such as a bright red ball on the table, say A. That is, world partition: W = { A | NOT-A } and so also immediately, the first principles of right reason are self-evident as a cluster: law of identity, A is A law of non-contradiction ~ [A AND ~ A] law of excluded middle, best put as an X-OR: A X-OR ~ A. From these, much follows. Add in the weak form principle of sufficient reason, that if A is (or is not etc) one may reasonably ask and inquire as to why, i/l/o modes of being/non-being . . . possible/impossible, contingent/ necessary. Where, nothing is non-being. From this, a reasonable account of cause-effect arises, and is associated with the point that if ever there was an utter nothing, that would forever obtain. Pointing to a root of being that always was, via the issue why is there something rather than nothing. Something, I explored here in responding to AS and his dismissiveness about evidence and testimony: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/religion/as-vs-eyewitness-experience-non-testimonial-evidence-and-the-reasonableness-of-theism/ But then, such cuts so drastically across the dominant ideologically rooted, indoctrinated views of our day that even the authors of the book I recommended are like a spider caught in its own web. (Yes, they seem to be blind to their own biases and blind spots.) KF kairosfocus

Without assuming your mind is capable of objective evaluation, or that you have top-down power of will and intent over and free from causation by underpinning matter, you can have no means of purposefully, objectively identifying any flaws in your thinking. One must assume that mind is primary in order for there to be any hope of intentional escape from such embedded flawed thinking.

In that case, William, and this applies to your comment 43 as well, can you define the word "objective" as you are using the word? ETA: or, if you prefer, the term "objectively true". how does the adverb "objectively" qualify the adjective "true"? Elizabeth Liddle

EL @ 40: A thing can be objectively true whether or not anyone has the capacity for discerning it as such. Was it not true that the Earth was orbiting the sun before anyone could discern that it was? William J Murray

EL @ 38: Without assuming your mind is capable of objective evaluation, or that you have top-down power of will and intent over and free from causation by underpinning matter, you can have no means of purposefully, objectively identifying any flaws in your thinking. One must assume that mind is primary in order for there to be any hope of intentional escape from such embedded flawed thinking. William J Murray

WJM: Yes. I decided to add a 2000 yo parable that our civilisation seems hell-bent on living out, literally with nuclear fire in play. KF kairosfocus

A "good purpose" could only be "objectively true" if there were some objective methodology for discerning it. What is that methodology? Elizabeth Liddle

kf@36: In my personal life I've long recognized that a lot of people are wound up as your clip in #34 states and that there is no remedy for it - at least none that I can provide. The remedy always comes from within themselves and generally only after their proclivities have led them to a point where continuation of self as it is is no longer a viable option. At least, realizing the nature of their condition, I am better equipped to not take any of it personally or become angry & frustrated with them. What is appalling is those that actually believe they are serving a good purpose while denying that any sort of objectively true "good purpose" exists; they cannot complete the rational connection that if their belief is true, the only "good purpose" they can possibly be serving is their own selfish, subjective, personal desire. William J Murray

WJM: If it is possible - and I agree it is - to be so certain one is right that counter arguments appear ludicrous, even though to others they might seem to have merit, then do you have an objective methodology by which one can figure out whether or not one is in that grip of such a state? In other words, if I find myself convinced of a position, and that the rebuttals offered to that position are fallacious, how do I set about finding out whether the position I am convinced by is indeed correct and the rebuttals are indeed fallacious, or, alternatively, that I am so self-delueded that I am simply unable to see the force of the counterargument? Elizabeth Liddle

WJM, I hear you on the absurdities of selective hyperskepticism. I'd say, though, that when one leaps over a cliff and finds out by failing that flapping arms is not enough to fly, then goes CRASH one tends to wake up due to the pain . . . at least, when one recovers consciousness. But, the cost of that sobering lesson can be awful. Hence, the NT doctrine of metanoia -- repentance, change of mind rooted in profound sorrow over wrong -- and the famous parable of the prodigal son waking up when he was reduced to the pig pen. As an illustration, I see some pretty good economic perspectives these days in my homeland. Problem is, by follies in the 70's we threw away TWO generations of development and sowed a bitter crop we reap year by year. Forty more years in the wilderness to go. And, right now our civilisation is playing with fire in ever so many ways. KF PS: The parable, which speaks to us at ever so many levels in ever so many ways: >> The Parable of the Prodigal Son Lk 15:11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to[b] one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything. 17 “But when he came to himself, he said, ‘How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’[c] 22 But the father said to his servants,[d] ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet. 23 And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate. 24 For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate. 25 “Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, ‘Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.’ 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, ‘Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found.’” >> kairosfocus

kf @34: There's no way, IMO, to penetrate self-deception from the outside. One must be willing to give up their self/world narrative - willing to admit their own foolishness - in order to even begin to evaluate their views honestly and objectively. Unfortunately, many "skeptics" are absolutely certain of their views and cannot even properly look from another point of view. One wonders why they should be so certain if they hold that their views are compulsed by the same blind chance and physics that produces opposing views, but the self-defeating nature of such a position apparently has no place in their minds to take root. William J Murray

WJM: I should also add that when I ran across a wiki -- of all places -- discussion of the lie, it was eye-opening: to speak in disregard to truth, in hopes that what is said or suggested is taken as true. This pivots on a duty of care to the truth in light of signs of what it is that are accessible and the consequences of promoting falsehood as though it were true. Self-delusion that irresponsible, patently absurd or unwarrantedly accusatory remarks are instead reasonable is not an excuse. And, of course the shoddy trick of projecting unwarranted, turnabout accusation compounds the problem. To the merits, we must always go. And, we must ever be aware of not only the abstract possibility of error, but of the inherent limitations of inductive reasoning. KF kairosfocus

WJM: I ran across a web clip of Paul & Elder's The Thinker’s Guide to Fallacies: The Art of Mental Trickery and Manipulation. http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-Fallacies1.pdf Looks quite serious. Just the table of contents is already instructive, a rarity. Here is a clip:

The human mind is a marvelous set of structures and systems. It is a center of consciousness and action. It forms a unique identity. It creates a view of the world. Rich experience emerges from its interactions with the world. It thinks. It feels. It wants. It apprehends truths and suppresses errors. It achieves insights and fabricates prejudices. Both useful truths and harmful misconceptions are its intermixed products. It can as easily believe what is false as what is true. It can see beauty in right conduct and justify what is flagrantly unethical. It can love and hate. It can be kind and cruel. It can advance knowledge or error. It can be intellectually humble or intellectually arrogant. It can be empathic or narrow-minded. It can be open or closed. It can achieve a permanent state of expanding knowledge or a deadening state of narrowing ignorance. It both transcends the creatures of lessor ability and insults their innocence and nobility by its self-deception and cruelty. How can humans create within their own minds such an inconsistent amalgam of the rational and the irrational? The answer is self-deception.

Another:

The over-whelming preponderance of people have not freely decided what to believe, but, rather, have been socially conditioned (indoctrinated) into their beliefs. They are unreflective thinkers. Their minds are products of social and personal forces they neither understand, control, nor concern themselves with. Their personal beliefs are often based in prejudices. Their thinking is largely comprised of stereotypes, caricatures, oversimplifications, sweeping generalizations, illusions, delusions, rationalizations, false dilemmas, and begged questions. Their motivations are often traceable to irrational fears and attachments, personal vanity and envy, intellectual arrogance and simple-mindedness. These constructs have become a part of their identity . . . . There is a much smaller group of people who are skilled in the art of manipulation and control. These people are shrewdly focused on pursuing their own interest without respect to how that pursuit affects others. Though they share many of the characteristics of uncritical thinkers, they have qualities that separate them from uncritical persons. They have greater command of the rhetoric of persuasion. They are more sophisticated, more verbal, and generally have greater status. On average, they have more schooling and achieve more success than uncritical persons. They typically acquire more power and occupy positions of authority. They are accustomed to playing the dominant role in relationships. They know how to use the established structure of power to advance their interests.

For some days now, these thoughts have haunted me, sounding uncomfortably like what I have seen and challenged for decades. And yes, I can already hear the snidely dismissive "you're another"/ "he hit back first" rhetorical counter-attacks limbering up. I will say to such that I have long since paid my dues to be able to say what I have said, e.g. here and here [at root, those two are about 30 years apart in my life . . . ] and that the cynical resort to the turnabout, unwarranted projection is itself one of the nastiest propagandistic tricks out there. The pivotal issue here is that -- as Francis Schaeffer warned long ago now -- we need to wake up to the ways we can catch worldviews and embed them into our sense of personal identity and worth much like measles. And, to the fact that there are people who go about spreading worldviews measles to their advantage. Using of course, the weapons of rhetoric. That is why I have long called for us to understand rooted-ness and foundational faith-point commitments at the base of world views, and it is why I have called for thinking through in light of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power and elegance: neither simplistic nor an ad hoc patchwork. I note again, something I put up in a FYI-FTR, from Cicero in the opening words of his On Invention -- written when he was but one and twenty, which shows up in how he puts the matter:

I HAVE often and deeply resolved this question in my mind, whether fluency of language has been beneficial or injurious to men and to cities, with reference to the cultivation of the highest order of eloquence. For when I consider the disasters of our own republic, and when I call to mind also the ancient calamities of the most important states, I see that it is by no means the most insignificant portion of their distresses which has originated from the conduct of the most eloquent men. But, at the same time, when I set myself to trace back, by the aid of written memorials and documents, affairs which, by reason of their antiquity, are removed back out of the reach of any personal recollection, I perceive also that many cities have been established, many wars extinguished, many most enduring alliances and most holy friendships have been cemented by deliberate wisdom much assisted and facilitated by eloquence. And as I have been, as I say, considering all this for some time, reason itself especially induces me to think that wisdom without eloquence is but of little advantage to states, but that eloquence without wisdom is often most mischievous, and is never advantageous to them. If then any one, neglecting all the most virtuous and honourable considerations of wisdom and duty, devotes his whole attention to the practice of speaking, that man is training himself to become useless to himself, and a citizen mischievous to his country; but a man who arms himself with eloquence in such a manner as not to oppose the advantage of his country, but to be able to contend in behalf of them, he appears to me to be one who both as a man and a citizen will be of the greatest service to his own and the general interests, and most devoted to his country . . .

We are playing with fire, and our civilisation is liable to get rather badly burned indeed. (And, I dare suggest that we could do a lot worse than to start here again, with a now old old story that too many have been far too prone to deride and dismiss without good warrant.) KF PS: On the strength of that web clip I am recommending that book: http://www.amazon.com/Thinkers-Guide-Fallacies-Trickery-Library/dp/094458327X/ref=tmm_pap_title_0 PPS: I find it not a little ironic, to see how the likes of sparc have been ever so ready to dismiss FSCO/I as stillborn, in the face of refusing to properly regard actual demonstrative examples in front of them, not only say the Abu 6500 C3 fishing reel, or a petroleum refinery, but the very text strings they produce to object and the DNA code driven protein synthesis system and the wider cellular metabolism network. That is, functionally specific complex organisation and/or associated information is real and relevant so no sound discussion of OOL or OOBP can proceed without taking it and its known adequate cause seriously. This is not something as exotic as spoon bending, it is something as familiar as the s-t-r-i-n-g data structures and the coded data in the text of posts in this thread. The hyperskepticism about something right there in front of us all, driven by the utter refusal to entertain the fact that such FSCO/I has only one actually observed adequate cause -- design, then forces hypercredulity on what one wishes were insted true. Cf here: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/fyi-ftr-sparc-et-al-vs-the-patent-reality-and-relevance-of-wickens-organized-systems-which-must-be-assembled-element-by-element-according-to-an-external-wiring-diagram-with-a/ kairosfocus

Seversky said:

Fine, then it should be a simple matter for you to approach some scientists with a view to demonstrating this abnormal phenomenon under controlled conditions. That’s the only way to settle the question of whether this is real or not once and for all., isn’t it?

Whether or not it's "real" is entirely irrelevant to me and any actual points I've argued when using that example.

What Shermer was demonstrating was how someone who knows the techniques of a stage magician or illusionist can fool an audience.

Shermer did no such thing. He merely attempted to explain what he himself (and others he was observing) was able to do by invoking adrenaline.

Do you really think that Shermer, as a professional skeptic, would not have rushed straight into the laboratory if he really believed he had discovered a hitherto unidentified “psychic force”? I know I would. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever in science and pose as big a challenge for physics as a Cambrian rabbit would for biology.

I have no idea why Shermer does whatever he does; I only know what's on the video. William J Murray

William J Murray @

All I have ever claimed about spoonbending is that quite a number of people have been involved in spoonbending parties that have accomplished the same thing that Shermer accomplished and that others at the same party accomplished, and which I also accomplished.

Fine, then it should be a simple matter for you to approach some scientists with a view to demonstrating this abnormal phenomenon under controlled conditions. That’s the only way to settle the question of whether this is real or not once and for all., isn’t it?

Shermer himself noted that he bent the spoon in a manner that seemed well beyond his normal physical strength and felt compelled to offer up an explanation – that the crowd chanting fired up his adrenaline and made him and others able to bend silverware he and others could not have otherwise.

What Shermer was demonstrating was how someone who knows the techniques of a stage magician or illusionist can fool an audience.

This means that even Shermer admits that spoons (and other silverware) were bent in a manner that requires some sort of an explanation, whether that explanation is “adrenaline”, “psi”, or something else. Since it was not established that adrenaline was in fact the answer, why would anyone conclude that “psychic” spoon bending was “impossible” after watching this professional skeptic admit that some sort of explanation was required?

Do you really think that Shermer, as a professional skeptic, would not have rushed straight into the laboratory if he really believed he had discovered a hitherto unidentified “psychic force”? I know I would. It would be one of the greatest discoveries ever in science and pose as big a challenge for physics as a Cambrian rabbit would for biology. Seversky

Let's examine Barry's intentional misrepresentation at 22. It started when I commented on the following comment by Barry: "There is a genetic basis for numerous conditions that no one suggests are good. For example, sickle cell anemia has a genetic basis. No one argues that we should embrace and celebrate sickle cell anemia. Rather, it is regarded as a genetic defect." I pointed out that his example was probably not the best to get his point across because until modern medicine having the sickle cell gene could be advantageous because of its affects on contracting malaria. Did Barry acknowledge the point and thank me for pointing out his error as a mature adult would? No, he decided that it was better to call me a liar, stupid and an idiot. I stand by my point. And Barry can't explain why I am wrong. All he can do is demonstrate rudeness and bad manners. I should also point out that in the comment above Barry intentionally excludes the follow on sentence where I explain my statement. But I guess that context didn't fit with his story line so he left it out. Yarko Matkewski

KF,

DS, First, quite a number of people (including professionals) were present. Second, I would think that suppressing what was an obvious attempt to do full levitation, coming from the liberating power, was in the end far more significant and convincing. Yes, oddly the more powerful was He who in effect said thus far and no farther, followed by: OUT! And the inferior, stubbornly, sullenly, had to obey. Obey THAT NAME.

Well, all I can say is that a full levitation would have been much more impressive to me.

As to spoon bending or other forms of poltergeist phenomena, having seen what I saw, I have little doubt that they too can and on testimony I believe, have happened.

Okay, thanks. daveS

phoodoo @26: Well, you might be right. I probably try to be too forgiving/tolerant because I was once a materialist/atheist making many of the same flawed arguments, but certainly wasn't deliberately trying to deceive or harm. kf @27: One wonders why one would close ones mind to an idea at all - except, perhaps, the logically absurd leading to self-contradiction. Like the case of daveS:

But, back to my question, I have provisionally concluded that psychic spoon bending is impossible, with a high degree of confidence. Essentially because while a lot of people talk about it, nobody seems to be able to do it under controlled conditions. Seems like common sense to me. Is anything wrong with that?

It's not "common sense" to consider a thing "impossible" just because one hasn't yet seen any evidence they personally consider "compelling". What on earth would be the point? Watch the following video of Michael Shermer, founder of The Skeptics Society, and Editor in Chief of its magazine Skeptic, himself succeeding in a spoonbending exercise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3X9h1WlQpA All I have ever claimed about spoonbending is that quite a number of people have been involved in spoonbending parties that have accomplished the same thing that Shermer accomplished and that others at the same party accomplished, and which I also accomplished. Shermer himself noted that he bent the spoon in a manner that seemed well beyond his normal physical strength and felt compelled to offer up an explanation - that the crowd chanting fired up his adrenaline and made him and others able to bend silverware he and others could not have otherwise. This means that even Shermer admits that spoons (and other silverware) were bent in a manner that requires some sort of an explanation, whether that explanation is "adrenaline", "psi", or something else. Since it was not established that adrenaline was in fact the answer, why would anyone conclude that "psychic" spoon bending was "impossible" after watching this professional skeptic admit that some sort of explanation was required? William J Murray

DS, First, quite a number of people (including professionals) were present. Second, I would think that suppressing what was an obvious attempt to do full levitation, coming from the liberating power, was in the end far more significant and convincing. Yes, oddly the more powerful was He who in effect said thus far and no farther, followed by: OUT! And the inferior, stubbornly, sullenly, had to obey. Obey THAT NAME. As to spoon bending or other forms of poltergeist phenomena, having seen what I saw, I have little doubt that they too can and on testimony I believe, have happened. The more important issue, is by what hand. As for control experiments and the like as criteria of knowledge, those work to identify some limited instances, but the vast majority of real life experience is not like that and much of that is known to moral certainty. A lot more is known to sufficient likelihood that a prudent person would accept it. A lot more good history is more like this. So, I suggest, perhaps the criteria you apply are not apt. KF PS: My thoughts here, in reply to AS, may be helpful: https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/religion/as-vs-eyewitness-experience-non-testimonial-evidence-and-the-reasonableness-of-theism/ kairosfocus

KF Fair enough. I believe I remember reading about the levitation incident earlier. Anyway, you saw what you saw, but the fact that the person was still pinned to the ground makes it quite a bit less compelling than it would have been if the subject had actually been suspended in midair (as the word "levitation" suggests), at least in my view. But, back to my question, I have provisionally concluded that psychic spoon bending is impossible, with a high degree of confidence. Essentially because while a lot of people talk about it, nobody seems to be able to do it under controlled conditions. Seems like common sense to me. Is anything wrong with that? daveS

DS, I spoke to the pattern that WJM described, one that is familiar to me -- starting with having had to deal with Marxists decades ago; later I learned they were not only doing courses but sitting exams in activism, including selling the party newspaper. Something that both amazed me and suddenly made a lot of things that had seemed odd chillingly clear. When it comes to what is called paranormal phenomena, I can speak as a witness in many ways. One particular case about a year past was semi-public levitation, pinned down by another liberating power, and leading to rescue and deliverance. I see no in principle reason why spoons cannot be bent by such means, similarly in contexts where no credible possibility of trickery obtains. There are more things in heaven and on earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy. KF kairosfocus

I think anytime you hear someone say the phrase "from an evolutionary perspective..." you already know that this is an orchestrated catch phrase that is code speak. Its not an accidental repeat phrase, it is someone who reads skeptic sites. It seeps into Huffpost, Abcnews, Cnn, Ny Times, BBC science, The Daily Show, NatGeo...."From an evolutionary perspective..."and the rest is just a talking robot who has no idea about evolution. Its such BS. phoodoo

KF,

you seem to be describing the fallacy of the closed, indoctrinated mind, a particularly virulent form of selective hyperskepticism.

Do you think the folks at TSZ are being selectively hyperskeptical with regard to psychic spoon bending specifically? Do you think that it's a real phenomenon? daveS

WJM, you seem to be describing the fallacy of the closed, indoctrinated mind, a particularly virulent form of selective hyperskepticism. Where, if one busily rejects what would be warranted absent such a lock-out, then one is forced to be hyper credulous regarding what one wishes were so instead. And of course when dealing with those who beg to differ it is so easy to drag or run after red herrings led out to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems and set alight to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. And that is before we get to acting out the resulting dehumanisation, demonisation, stereotyping and scapegoating. Or, at minimum, enabling that. That pattern of behaviour becomes highly recognisable:

http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Selective_Hyperskepticism.htm#clsdmind CLOSED-MINDEDNESS*: Stubbornly irrational, question-begging resistance to correction and/or alternative views. (Cf. a typical turnabout accusation on this, here.) This fallacy manifests itself in a habitual pattern of thought, feelings and argument that is: (a) question-beggingly committed to and/or (b) indoctrinated into thinking in the circle of a particular view or position and/or (c) blindly adherent to "the consensus" or vision and school of thought or paradigm of a particular set of authorities. [NB*: This last includes today's new Magisterium: "Science."] As a result, (d) the victim of closed-mindedness becomes unwarrantedly (i.e. fallaciously and often abusively) resistant to new or alternative ideas, information or correction. (NB: Cf. discussions on belief, knowledge, warrant and justification here, here [an excellent introductory lecture note], here, here, here, here and here [technical].) That is, it is not a matter of mere disagreement that is at stake here, but of (e) stubborn and objectively unjustified refusal to be corrected or to entertain or fairly discuss on the merits ideas or points of view outside of a favoured circle of thought. In extreme cases, (f) the closed minded person who has access to power or influence may engage in the willfully deceptive (and even demonic) practice of actively suppressing the inconvenient truth that s/he knows or should know. (By contrast, a properly educated person is open-minded but critically aware: s/he is aware of the possibility and prevalence of error, and so (i) habitually investigates and then (ii) accurately, objectively and fairly describes major alternative views, fact claims and lines of argument on a topic, (iii) comparing them on congruence to his/her real-world experience and that of others s/he knows and respects, general factual correctness, logical coherence and degree of explanatory power; thus (iv) holds a personal view that results from such a process of comparative difficulties, while (v) recognising and respecting that on major matters of debate or controversy, different people will hold different views.) _________________ * It is worth noting that it was unusually hard to find a serious, detailed, balanced and objective discussion of this key concept on the Internet; including in that well known generic reference, Wikipedia. It was therefore saddening -- but utterly revealing -- to then find the just following in that encyclopedia's discussion on indoctrination: " Instruction in the basic principles of science, in particular, can not properly be called indoctrination, in the sense that the fundamental principles of science call for critical self-evaluation and skeptical scrutiny of one's own ideas." (This is of course precisely a case in point of diverting the naive reader from being critically aware on a significant and dangerous possibility for abusing science for indoctrination in various avant garde schools of thought that are often precisely capital examples of propagandistic advocacy, misleading or outright deceptive manipulation and indoctrination . . . )

The truly dyed in the wool indoctrinated will only wake up when their world collapses around their ears. Unfortunately, it is looking more and more like our civilisation will have to crash very badly indeed for that to happen. And we are obviously heading for the cliff. If you doubt me, reflect on what we are being warned a few nukes blown in space to trigger widespread EMP could do. Then, multiply by message dominance and a domineering spirit animated by systems of thought and life that have in them no foundational IS that can properly ground OUGHT. KF kairosfocus

William, Because I am well aware of the "skeptical" movement, and how they use all kinds of means to try to censor and manipulate mass media, I am less willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, when it comes to them wanting to see and preach truth. They actively correspond on how to game the system. They do it on Wikipedia, they have groups which call themselves "guerilla skeptics" (what honest person would want to do this), they have podcast which intentionally give biased information, and they basically all work within the same community of deceivers. Its no coincidence that they are all over the media. These insincere scientists include Bill Nye, Seth Shostak, Michael Shermer, Coyne of course, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Novella, Rebecca Watson, DeGrasse Tyson, Neil Shubin, Don Prethero and virtually every science podcast you can think of are all connected into the same talking points. You can't as a curious person, know where to go to simply get truth, because virtually every source you can find easily is part of this same cult of codewords. They have stopped thinking about the issues long ago-they just repeat the same things they hear on skeptic sites. The more you know about these people, the more often you hear the same lies and distortions just repeated over and over (did you know they have already shown how the eye evolved)! Its truly disgusting when you hear these voices of people who the average listener thinks is talking truth. They are more like talking puppets than academics. Lizzie is just another in a long list of these mouthpieces. phoodoo

Aurelio Smith

I generally dip in to it when folks here quote some text reference. There’s a double irony with “mote and beam” which I find especially delicious when reading some comments here.

Which Biblical text reference did someone quote that you are responding to? What does "mote and beam" have to do with exposing confirmation bias?

If you think Murray has gone one step in the direction of “exposing confirmation bias”, you are more naïve than I thought you were.

Show me how I am being "naive." Where and how, in your judgment, did WJM pass moral judgment on anyone? Be specific.

Just checking my Bible. What did Jesus say about homosexuals?

I have a preliminary question about relevancy: What does Jesus and homosexuals have to do with WJM's arguments about Materialist gullibility and confirmation bias? StephenB

Barry #22, maybe some of this behavior can be explained by being accustomed to having bad or no arguments at all. Box

BA @ 22: I've spent now several years here and at TSZ and they never fail to astonish me. All evidence that contradicts their position is "non-evidence", "flawed evidence", or was research conducted by "non-scientists". Or material that was never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Or was only published in faux journals. Or was mistakenly published in reputable journals. Or was later debunked. Or contained potential holes in the protocols and must be fraudulent or erroneous. Or was promoted by people with ulterior motives. All criticisms of any non-materialist argument or evidences are taken as valid and as having the last word on the matter. And so all such non-materialist claims or evidences are considered "debunked" or "destroyed". Anyone with an open mind on the subject is "gullible". Materialists are comfortable making sweeping, categorical claims they cannot possibly support against any theistic or non-materialist views or claims. "There is no evidence of god"; "nothing paranormal or miraculous has ever occurred"; "They're all frauds and fakes"; "all paranormal events have been demonstrated fake or mistaken". These can only be statements of personal faith and expressions of a set of ideological commitments. It seems that for many of them, they simply cannot step outside of their own views for any duration and objectively evaluate those views or admit where there are problems. Some of the heavy hitters of materialism/atheism have at least been able to admit where their views necessarily lead: to a post-rational, post-scientific, post-morality redefinition of our entire existence establishing us as nothing more than delusional animated-matter brutes compulsed by physics to do whatever we happen to do and think whatever we happen to think. William J Murray

WJM @ 21. Here is an exchange from another thread that demonstrates the point you are making. YM:

Calling something a genetic defect (bad) is totally dependent on perspective.

Barry:

Really? Whether Cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, Alzheimer’s disease, Hemophilia, Huntington’s disease and Tay-Sachs are bad is totally dependent on perspective? Idiot

YM:

And some of your other examples do not reveal themselves until after reproductive years. So, again, whether or not they are defects (bad) depends on perspective.

And after all that Mark Frank and Aurelio Smith jump in. Do they bemoan the gobsmacking stupidity of YM's statements? Of course, not, they attack me. So let me get this straight, YM says something really stupid. I point it out. He doubles down on his stupidity. But I am the one who needs correction? Yes, I called him an idiot. I agree I should not have done that. It is an insult to idiots. As I said on the other thread, I should probably just ignore a lot of the idiocy that gets spewed into the comboxes on these pages. But in a classic example of the triumph of hope over experience, I assume that fools such as YM will respond to correction. I try to shame them into doing better. It pretty much never works, as the YM example above demonstrates. Yet, for some reason I still feel compelled to continue trying. Barry Arrington

phoodoo said:

I don’t think it should come as much of a surprise how biased, and dishonest the folks at TSZ are. Its not like they try to hide their lack of curiosity.

After all the time I've spent here and on TSZ, I don't think the bulk of such posters should be thought of as "dishonest". I think that most of them (perhaps by a slim margin) honestly believe that they are making good arguments and responding honestly. The problem, IMO, is their confirmation bias; their gullibility in service to their ideology; their cognitive dissonance that leads them to say very ill-advised things in defense of their views and reputation; their irrational, emotional commitment to their worldview and the identity they've forged for themselves under that worldview. It appears to me that this renders them incapable of properly understanding some very basic, straightforward statements of their opponents, which is why they often reply with complete non-sequiturs and cannot maintain a consistent focus on a train of thought that requires them to hypothesize a perspective outside of their own. This is why virtually no debate goes by without them inserting straw men and red herrings. Though I think KF is certainly correct that some of them are materialist agitators of certain political perspectives (who embrace dishonesty in service of their ideologies), I think most of them are just gullible, "useful idiots", so to speak. It's really amazing and at times astonishing to observe and, at times, wonder at some of the things they say. People can really make themselves believe **anything**. William J Murray

AS said:

If you think Murray has gone one step in the direction of “exposing confirmation bias”, you are more naïve than I thought you were.

I'm not sure how anyone can explain what occurred in that thread several times (especially with EL and DNA_Jock) other than as cases of blatant confirmation bias; I'm not sure how anyone can reasonably consider what Randi does as any sort of honest scientific endeavor unless one is incredibly gullible. Just in case you didn't get the memo: I'm not a Christian, and I don't hold myself up as a model of moral behavior. William J Murray

That's another interesting point phoodoo brought to light in that thread - materialists think that all evolutionary evidence supports Darwinism - the materialist characterization of evolution. This is part of their overwhelming confirmation bias and gullibility - they think that all the data that supports the changing of biological forms over time and adaptions over time via inheritance or horizontal transfer is data that supports Darwinistic evolution when it simply does not. As I said in that thread,

In order to provide such evidence as [phoodoo's] challenge calls for, it would require Darwinists to produce a ID/non-ID (or natural & chance/artifice) differential metric capable of describing what Darwinistic evolution is and is not capable of plausibly producing given the available time and resources. That differential matrix is something that Darwinists insist does not exist. IOW, [Darwinists] cannot demonstrate nature & chance forces & interactions categorically, causally sufficient to account for evolutionary product. [Darwinists have not] ruled out ID as a necessary causal contributor; [they] just assume its absence. While there may be an enormous amount of evidence for ["Evolution" as the variance of biological forms over time via heredity, and for some role for selection and mutation], there is, to my knowledge, no (or at least minimal) evidence for Darwinistic evolution [as a sufficient explanation].

William J Murray

Thanks William and Phoodoo.

“Oddly enough I have encountered more passion from adherents of the computational theory of the mind than from adherents of traditional religious doctrines of the soul. Some computationalists invest an almost religious intensity into their faith that our deepest problems about the mind will have a computational solution. Many people apparently believe that somehow or other, unless we are proven to be computers, something terribly important will be lost.” (Searle, 1997, p. 189)

Box

I don't think it should come as much of a surprise how biased, and dishonest the folks at TSZ are. Its not like they try to hide their lack of curiosity. I think Allan Miller summed it up best once, when responding to a new study in epigenetics which contradict Darwinian evolution claims. His response was : 1. Prove the study is authentic. 2. That is not what the study is saying 3. Even if that is what the study is saying, it doesn't effect evolution. 4. Evolutionists have known about this all along, its no new news. In ONE POST! The study is not real, prove it, that's not what it says, that is what it says, so what, we already knew, means nothing. Every possible denial, in one post. So this is exactly how Lizzie also talks, and the rest just play a dumb game of hand-waving. Lizzies hand-waving is just a lot more wordy, but no more intelligent or curious. She is a typical guerrilla skeptic type. Just try to flood the internet with typical bullsh*t propaganda. Just like they do on all their nonsense websites, like Wikipedia, pandasthumb, talkrational, EvC, Skeptics Guide to the universe, you name.... Anything with the word skeptic in the website, you know exactly the agenda they have. To BS and squelch curiosity. Atheism seems to be a hallmark of people who lack curiosity and a search for truth. phoodoo

Aurelio Smith

I know Mr Murray doesn’t read the Bible but let me suggest a glance at Matthew 7: 3-5

Apparently, you don't read the Bible very much either. Otherwise, you would know the difference between exposing confirmation bias and passing moral judgment. StephenB

Aurelio must have posted that from memory. Mung

Good. As long as that is clear. Elizabeth Liddle

EL said:

So I utterly deny your accusation of dishonesty, William.

You really should try better to read for comprehension and clarity, EL. Especially after what happened wrt Zammit's challenge and book. I haven't accused you of any dishonesty. William J Murray

But unless someone presents evidence that is actually repeatable, under controlled conditions, it can neither be falsified nor verified.

And they wonder why we doubt evolution. There's no double standard here is there? Mung

WJM:

Apparently, EL thinks “anecdotes” are categorically the same as “substantive objective evidence”.

No. I think that Zammit thinks that "substantive objective evidence" is categorically the same as "anecdotes". Or, if he does not, he signally fails to make it clear which parts of his "book" are to be rebutted in order to meet the challenge. For instance, in at least some of the chapters he specifically mentions as containing such evidence, there are only anecdotes or unreferenced experiments. Which is why it was not necessary to read the entire book to see that his challenge was a scam. Nor to see that he supports own his claims with include pseudo-scientific junk. So I utterly deny your accusation of dishonesty, William. Elizabeth Liddle

eigenstate @1: Unfairness of the entry protocol:

In June of 1999 a German man named Rico Kolodzey attempted to apply for the Challenge as a self-described "breatharian." Kolodzey calims he can live on nothing but water and "prana" - a supposed divine form of "life energy." This certainly would qualify as a claim of the "paranormal," and on the surface, does not seem any less plausible than Sylvia Browne's claim of psychic powers. However, Randi immediately and categorically rejected Kolodzey's application. The problem for Randi is the logic - or total lack thereof - he displayed in defending this rejection. Randi's email to Kolodzey reads: (from http://www.alternativescience.com/randi_retreats.htm): Date: 6/18/99 12:03 PM Mr. Kolodzey: Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims. Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it? If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

If Randi can just outright dismiss any entrant based on his own bias, he can certainly dismiss any entrant he feels has a good chance of beating his challenge. This type of dismissal is utterly unprofessional and reveals his bias. Unfair/deceitful handling of serious cases that might actually beat the challenge:

The January 2000 issue of Dog World magazine included an article on a possible sixth sense in dogs, which discussed some of my research. In this article Randi was quoted as saying that in relation to canine ESP, "We at the JREF [James Randi Educational Foundation] have tested these claims. They fail." No details were given of these tests. I emailed James Randi to ask for details of this JREF research. He did not reply. He ignored a second request for information too. I then asked members of the JREF Scientific Advisory Board to help me find out more about this claim. They did indeed help by advising Randi to reply. In an email sent on Februaury 6, 2000 he told me that the tests he referred to were not done at the JREF, but took place "years ago" and were "informal". They involved two dogs belonging to a friend of his that he observed over a two-week period. All records had been lost. He wrote: "I overstated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained. It was rash and improper of me to do so." Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.

Randi has refused to conduct the dog-telepathy test he lied twice about. Also, as far as the testing of psychics or telepaths, JREF requires "hit" rates of 70%+, when the current scientific research indicates that you can expect no better than a hit rate of 10-40% above chance. Also, Randi will not allow the same protocols developed over many years by others (Bieschel, et al) that maximize both the intgrity of the tests and the comfort/familiarity of the medium/psychic to produce the best chance for well-defined success. Also, nothing scientific is determined with one test, especially not under the control of a stage magician entirely hostile against the success of any applicant with a vested interest in the failure of the test. No serious person should use the challenge as evidence of anything other than Randi's self-marketing acument. William J Murray

EL claims:

The challenge is for “skeptics” to “rebut” the “evidence” in the “book”. I read enough of the “book” to reveal that at least some of that “evidence” was unreferenced studies and uncorroborated anecdote.

This is another blatant misrepresentation by EL. After pointing her to the Zammit's counter-challenge and his book (which his callenge refers to), and after explaining the purpose behind the counter-challenge (all of which was lost on EL and the others),EL claimed:

It’s very hard to refute a loonie, William. His challenge, as far as I can see, amounts to an invitation to “refute” a bunch of assertions that are supported only by anecdote. It’s probable that most of the reported experiences are believed, by their reporters, to be real. But unless someone presents evidence that is actually repeatable, under controlled conditions, it can neither be falsified nor verified. So no, not easy. But he offers no good grounds on which to believe he might be right.

I responded:

In the first place, you have Zammit’s challenge wrong. Blatanty, absolutely, unbelievably wrong. All I can say is that you must not have read through his book that refers to the evidence that must be rebutted. He doesn’t collect all the data and research details in his book, he simply refers to it – sums up the evidence and refers the reader to the much more detailed information/evidence. The evidence he challenges to be rebutted is not comprised of “stories” or “anecdotes”, but data collected largely through scientific research. In essence, Zammit is asking challengers to scientifically rebut the scientific data that has been accumulated.

EL:

No, he isn’t. That’s what he says he’s doing, but he isn’t. And you don’t, in any case “scientifically rebut” “data”. You rebut a conclusion, or sometimes, an argument, or sometimes, you show that the data is erroneous. No references, just assertion. Anecdote, iow.

I presented EL with some of the substantive objective evidence Zammit referred to in his book to demonstrate here assertions about the book incorrect:

The Pye Laboratory tests conducted by Colin Smythe and Peter Bander Konstantin Raudive’s EVP and Radio ITC Recordings 1994 ITC experiments Radio Luxembourg experiments Klaus Schreiber ITC experiments Kubris and Macy 1995:14; Locher and Harsch-Fischbach 1997 ITC experiments the Scole experiments The Afterlife Experiments A Perceptual Channel for Information over Kilometer Distances – http://www.espresearch.com/espgeneral/IEEE-329B.shtml These are just a handful of the references available in the book that refer to scientific experiments many of which included published papers, one of which I linked to above.

EL admits:

Well, I certainly didn’t read the whole book. The pages I read had no references, and what I mean by references, is a proper citation so I can actually find the paper.

And yet, she felt comfortable insisting on was contained in, and not contained in, the book, and then doubling down on that commitment when challenged. Attempting to save face (IMO), EL later quoted the Zammit challenge:

The applicant has to rebut the substantive objective evidence presented in Victor Zammit’s A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/) (see chapters 3 to 24) which includes: Materialisations, Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz’ Experiments, Mediumship – Mental, Physical and Direct Voice, Xenoglossy, the Cross-Correspondences, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing, Laboratory Experiments, Poltergeists, Apparitions together with the evidence provided by Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences which psychics claim are supportive of and are directly linked with the afterlife.

Note the highlighted part of the quote - what kind of evidence in the book Zammit requires be rebutted. And then she adds:

Which sounds like you only get it [Zammit's counter-challenge prize of 1 million dollars - WJM] if you “rebut” the lot, to me [including the anecdotal evidence found in the book - WJM].

When called on this, EL attempts to explain:

I assumed his anecdotes were include in the substantive objective evidence, as they are included in the book he cites as the source.

Apparently, EL thinks "anecdotes" are categorically the same as "substantive objective evidence". William J Murray

Yes. Skepticism is an illusion because those who are skeptical about "x" are gullible about "not x". The stronger your emotional attachment to a belief, the more skeptical and gullible you will be. It takes 100% ironclad proof to get someone to change his mind about a strongly held belief, but it only takes a tenuous hypothesis for them to explain away contradictory evidence. Jim Smith

WJM:

EL make assertions (and doubles down on them) about a book she later admits she didn’t even bother to read, assertions which were demonstrable false;

WJM: this is a blatant misrepresentation. The challenge is for "skeptics" to "rebut" the "evidence" in the "book". I read enough of the "book" to reveal that at least some of that "evidence" was unreferenced studies and uncorroborated anecdote. You not need to an exhaustive investigation to find one item, and in this case one item was all that was required. I found several. If even part of what a "skeptic" is required to "rebut" is unreferenced studies and uncorroborated anecdote then the challenge is a scam. ETA: google "one black swan" Elizabeth Liddle

eigenstate- We can apply Randi's challenge to macroevolution and get the same results as his PSI challenge. :cool: Joe

@WJM, Over at TSZ, you made this comment in the thread you reference:

I didn’t say none of the applicants were “happy” with the protocols; I said that all of the applicants can either accept Randi’s protocols or go home. Of course any protocols that the applicant agrees to in order to take the test are “mutually agreed to”, that’s the nature of any signed contract. But that doesn’t mean the protocols are scientific or fair to the applicant. That’s the nature of con men and magicians – they set marks up to be fooled, even while the marks think everything is on the up and up.

So, ostensibly, there is either a) some essential non-scientific or anti-scientific aspects to the tests/demonstrations that Randi hosts, and/or b) some kind of fraud or deception visited on the challengers (which you call "marks" for this reason). Do you have an example that you suppose is a good showcase for this problem? I have only a passing familiarity with Randi, but the couple times I've watched and read about his debunkings, they seemed quite solid in their scientific controls. I took this to be whole point of Randi's project, that scientific test -- rigor in scientific evaluation -- would be decisive in exposing all the various woo and hoaxes that are out there looking to make a buck from the unduly cedulous. As for fairness, I'll grant you that anyone who agrees to let their "paranormal" or "supernatural" abilities get put under the microscope of science is not engaging in a "fair fight". It's quite true to say that some of these characters actually believe in the woo they are pitching and so having a scientific test seems no threat, based on their own self-deceptions. It's not really fair when it plays out, the woo-pitchers don't really have any prospects of success, if that's what you would say is required for "fairness", here. But that's the larger point of Randi's project. Science is a killer for all this woo. It's not a fair contest, none of the psi/magic/woo can perform under controlled and rigorous examination, contexts where deception and legerdemain are not feasible due to the design of the tests. All that, though, would depend on the design and characteristics of the tests, which is why I am asking for a showcase example, in your view, of Randi's violation of scientific best practices in these tests. Thanks. eigenstate