Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Blatant Confirmation Bias and Gullibility of Materialists

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD regulars might want to check out this thread at The Skeptical Zone.

And follow it all the way through. In it you’ll get to see:

(1) 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;

(2) Keiths jump from the possibility of error/fraud in scientific studies on psi/the paranormal to the conclusion that the results must have been fraud/error;

(3) Countless groundless, blanket assertions best epitomized by Alan Fox’s blanket statement “It doesn’t happen”, who remains silent on how he knows psi events “don’t happen”;

(4) DNA_Jock completely misrepresent a past comment of mine on TSZ that concerned a video on spoon-bending saying I called it convincing evidence; I corrected him; he doubles down; I quote and link to the comment in question which explicitly proves him wrong (in fact, the opposite was true); and then he triples down on his misrepresentation.

(5) So-called “skeptics” defend as honest, good science the publicity-seeking, non-scientific antics of James Randi, a stage magician with deep, vested interests both professionally and financially in the outcomes of his “Randi Challenge” tests, who publicly and privately ridicules and attacks those whom he is supposed to be testing

Keep in mind that what I am ultimately doing in that thread (which at one point I explicitly explain, which doesn’t deter them one bit) is exposing their obvious, irrational confirmation bias and gullibility for all things that support their a priori materialist worldview.  These guys will swallow whole what any third-hand skeptical website or stage magician tells them as long as it confirms their materialist view; they will deny, misrepresent, mis-remember, ridicule and denigrate all information and scientific research that appears to conflict with their worldview.

The confirmation bias and gullibility of their mindsets runs throughout the entire thread and is, IMO, breathtakingly obvious to any objective observer.

Comments
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. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT
'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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
".. 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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Elizabeth:
How do you establish that the bolded is true?
Scientifically accepted standards.Joe
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Elizabeth is confused by objectivity because evolutionism despises the concept. Science is objective, Elizabeth. That is why you are confused.Joe
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.com/atheism/darwinian-debating-devices-12-selective-hyperskepticism-closed-mindedness-and-the-saganian-slogan-extraordinary-claims-require-extraordinary-evidence/kairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
“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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:19 AM
6
06
19
AM
PDT
'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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:13 AM
6
06
13
AM
PDT
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. KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.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.) KFkairosfocus
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PDT
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
May 9, 2015
May
05
May
9
09
2015
05:48 AM
5
05
48
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply