It is clearly time to hammer selective hyperskepticism again. Here is AK at 49 in the Answering thread:
A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims. And I don’t apologize for that.
BA, UD President (and a lawyer familiar with correcting fallacies) duly hammered the fallacy:
BA, 50 – 53 : >>50: . . . Like the extraordinary claim that a bag of chemicals configured in just the right way suddenly becomes subjectively self-aware?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of that extraordinary claim. Can you point me to one?
51: . . . Like the extraordinary claim that non-living chemicals spontaneously combined in just the right way to become living things?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of that extraordinary claim. Can you point me to one?
52: . . . Like the extraordinary claim that everything came from nothing? Or the universe created itself? Or “because we have something (e.g., gravity), the universe can and will create itself from nothing?
Funny, I’ve never met an A/Mat who was skeptical of those extraordinary claims. Can you point me to one?
53: . . . Like the extraordinary claim . . .
Well, you get the picture. I could go on all day.
AK is typical of A/Mats who would impose super heavy evidentiary burdens on theists for what the A/Mats label “extraordinary claims” while at the same time swallowing their own extraordinary claims down with nary a thought for the fact that they lack even the slightest evidentiary support.>>
LM, in 54, focusses on some of the particular claims:
LM, 54: >>I can’t recall any proper skeptics who’ve identified as atheistic materialist. What I see is Epicureans who’ve surrendered skepticism, if they could even find it in the first place.
Materialism as a creed is generally a failure to come to terms with epistemology.
Personally, I think “Forgive thine enemies” would have been more appropriate.
That’s in there, too. But it goes a step further, in actually considering and acting to further the welfare of folks you aren’t getting along with.
I agree that it would require extraordinary wisdom, but I don’t see where the faith in a higher being is necessary.
Hence the junction “or”.
For example, it would have been easy after WWII to severely punish the Germans and Japanese. But cooler (and smarter) heads prevailed. They realized that if you want to prevent recurrence, you don’t do something that will just ingender continued hatred from those who were your enemies. The US approach of providing aid and support to get its enemies back on their feet and prospering is something that took guts. But it was the smart thing to do if the goal was long term peace. And this did not require the faith in a higher being to realize this.
The conflict proceeding immediately in historical terms from the conclusion of “The Great War” and the punitive treaty with Germany, I don’t even know if it could be properly called hindsight.
I very much like your example for the principle, though.>>
AK chooses to reply to LM:
AK, 55: >>LocalMinimum,
I can’t recall any proper skeptics who’ve identified as atheistic materialist.
Look closer.
That’s in there, too. But it goes a step further, in actually considering and acting to further the welfare of folks you aren’t getting along with.
For who’s benefit? If I communicate with and provide support to my past enemies, they are less likely to be future enemies.
[–> BTW, not at all well grounded historically, cf. the consequences of the 1930’s policy of Appeasement, and note the post-WWII generosity came after Germany and Japan were utterly smashed and devastated]
A purely self-serving and manipulative strategy, a strategy that I happen to support.
[–> How do you know that this was “purely” self serving and manipulative? Surely, that’s an extraordinary claim!]
But the bigger question is, why aren’t we using this strategy more often before they become enemies? Rather than take this approach, we invoke sanctions.
I very much like your example for the principle, though.
Thank you. I’m obviously not the complete {SNIP — language, thread owner] that some here would project. I’m looking at you Barry. 🙂>>
I made a response on the underlying principle as to why Cliffordian evidentialism (as popularised by Sagan et al) is fatally flawed:
KF, 56: >>I see your:
A/Mats are skeptical of extraordinary claims,
Which seems to be a compressed form of a common epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism. To see why it is a gross error, simply reflect on the correction:
In short, the selectively hyperskeptical assertion is a clever-sounding way to announce selective closed-mindedness. What “I” am inclined to agree with is of course not “extraordinary.” But, equally of course, what “I” am disinclined to believe must meet extra-stringent standards, usually calibrated to be beyond the evidence that is available on the question, which is usually a pressing issue.
Such a self-serving double standard on warrant is patently fallacious.
Instead, what is needed is a reasonable, responsible standard, which duly and consistently weighs the sort of evidence and argument that are likely to be available and the near and far, immediate and cumulative consequences of rejecting truth or accepting error on relevant matters.
Greenleaf had something significant to say:
Evidence, in legal acceptation, includes all the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved . . . None but mathematical truth is susceptible of that high degree of evidence, called demonstration, which excludes all possibility of error [–> Greenleaf wrote almost 100 years before Godel], and which, therefore, may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. [–> that is, his focus is on the logic of good support for in principle uncertain conclusions, i.e. in the modern sense, inductive logic and reasoning in real world, momentous contexts with potentially serious consequences.]
Matters of fact are proved by moral evidence alone; by which is meant, not only that kind of evidence which is employed on subjects connected with moral conduct, but all the evidence which is not obtained either from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life, we do not require demonstrative evidence, because it is not consistent with the nature of the subject, and to insist upon it would be unreasonable and absurd. [–> the issue of warrant to moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt; and the contrasted absurdity of selective hyperskepticism.]
The most that can be affirmed of such things, is, that there is no reasonable doubt concerning them. [–> moral certainty standard, and this is for the proverbial man in the Clapham bus stop, not some clever determined advocate or skeptic motivated not to see or assent to what is warranted.]
The true question, therefore, in trials of fact, is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but, whether there is sufficient probability of its truth; that is, whether the facts are shown by competent and satisfactory evidence. Things established by competent and satisfactory evidence are said to be proved. [–> pistis enters; we might as well learn the underlying classical Greek word that addresses the three levers of persuasion, pathos- ethos- logos and its extension to address worldview level warranted faith-commitment and confident trust on good grounding, through the impact of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in C1 as was energised by the 500 key witnesses.]
By competent evidence, is meant that which the very-nature of the thing to be proved requires, as the fit and appropriate proof in the particular case, such as the production of a writing, where its contents are the subject of inquiry. By satisfactory evidence, which is sometimes called sufficient evidence, is intended that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind [–> in British usage, the man in the Clapham bus stop], beyond reasonable doubt.
The circumstances which will amount to this degree of proof can never be previously defined; the only legal [–> and responsible] test of which they are susceptible, is their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man; and so to convince him, that he would venture to act upon that conviction, in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own interest. [= definition of moral certainty as a balanced unprejudiced judgement beyond reasonable, responsible doubt. Obviously, i/l/o wider concerns, while scientific facts as actually observed may meet this standard, scientific explanatory frameworks such as hypotheses, models, laws and theories cannot as they are necessarily provisional and in many cases have had to be materially modified, substantially re-interpreted to the point of implied modification, or outright replaced; so a modicum of prudent caution is warranted in such contexts — explanatory frameworks are empirically reliable so far on various tests, not utterly certain. ] [A Treatise on Evidence, Vol I, 11th edn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1888) ch 1., sections 1 and 2. Shorter paragraphs added. (NB: Greenleaf was a founder of the modern Harvard Law School and is regarded as a founding father of the modern Anglophone school of thought on evidence, in large part on the strength of this classic work.)]
I suggest, you need to take an inventory of how you have approached warrant on a list of significant issues that have come up here at UD, and on broader issues in general. Selective hyperskepticism tends to become a destructive, self-serving habit of mind.>>
Now, observe AK’s response and what it inadvertently exposes:
AK, 57: >>KairosFocus,
Which seems to be a compressed form of a common epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism.
Those are big words that appear to preclude an illuminating prognostication that present a counter-argumentative rebuttal of… OK, as the youth say [SNIP-language]? What are you trying to say?
Are you saying that I am being hyperskeptical because I don’t blindly accept your claim that god-did-it?>>
Notice, the invidious projection and implied appeal to “ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked,” when the substantial and quite serious error of selective closed mindedness has been corrected from three directions. Note, too, that BA’s similar correction was turned into you are suggesting that I am a whatever.
At no point has the substantial issue of a key fallacy been actually responsibly, much less adequately, addressed.
I responded further at 58 and 59:
KF: >>58: I already took time to explain the error and to correct it. If you had even bothered to look at the specific one line correction to Sagan’s form of Cliffordian evidentialism [yes, that is a technical name] — which is the popular one nowadays, you would have seen the corrections in a nutshell by use of strike and insert. I amplified and took time to cite a longstanding corrective from Greenleaf’s Treatise on Evidence. I have done my job, now it is time for you to do yours.
59:
Let me continue from where you so cleverly cut off citation:
>>Which seems to be a compressed form of a common
epistemological error, descriptively termed selective hyperskepticism.
To see why it is a gross error, simply reflect on the correction:
In short, the selectively hyperskeptical assertion is a
clever-sounding way to announce selective closed-mindedness. What “I”
am inclined to agree with is of course not “extraordinary.” But,
equally of course, what “I” am disinclined to believe must meet
extra-stringent standards, usually calibrated to be beyond the evidence
that is available on the question, which is usually a pressing issue.>> >>
The response is again inadvertently revealing:
AK, 60: >>I honestly don’t understand what you are on about.
[–> Nope, THREE people have corrected the key error — four if you count Simon Greenleaf (a distinguished jurist on Evidence), this is personalising and targetting, insinuating that I have not made good sense.]
All I said is that I am skeptical of extraordinary claims.
[–> Doubling down, refusing to acknowledge cogent correction]
I am skeptical of Bigfoot, alien abductions,
[–> Notice, the silly examples]
and
[–> And joins equals, so note the fallacy of invidious association. Here, by setting up a string of ill founded claims then appending a far weightier one as though it were of the same order. A strawman tactic.]
the existance of god.
[–> AK cannot even summon enough respect to correctly spell: God. That is itself revealing. And of course, he was long since invited to seriously examine the 101 on warranting a theistic worldview here on, and a similar 101 on the more specifically Christian case here. He gives little sign of any serious engagement, even at 101 level. Okay, God is a serious candidate to be the world-source, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Where, a serious candidate necessary being will either be impossible of being (cf. a square circle) or else possible. If possible, in at least one world. But, as framework to any world existing, a necessary being that is possible will be in all worlds; thus actual in this one. E.g. try to imagine a world without distinct identity, thus two-ness etc. So, it is not enough to announce that one is selectively hyperskeptical on the reality of God and dismiss it with a fallacious quip. No, the would-be atheist has taken up the epistemological burden to show that either God is not a serious candidate NB, or else that God is impossible of being. A tough row to hoe in either case. AK has shown no evidence of shouldering such, and in an earlier sneer that “evil is a concept fabricated by religion” he has shown that he has not done his homework before using the fallacy of confident manner to rhetorically brush aside serious matters of literally eternal weight.]
At no point did I say
[–> you directly implied, through the known provenance of the quip you used]
that I needed extraordinary evidence to convince me otherwise. Those are words that you put in my mouth, took offence to, and then berated me for.
[–> there is no taking offence or berating, that is projection. There is correction, a very different thing. Now we know how AK views being corrected in an error.]
And you talk about others raising strawmen.
[–> turnabout accusations and projections. As just noted, AK half-cited a popular quip, knowing that the blank would be filled in. As Ari pointed out, in rhetoric, enthymemes are persuasive. This is in part as they induce the audience to participate, filling in missing parts by inference. And, often, unreflectively accepting the claims. No, the correction, from FOUR sources, is on target.]
For any claim, extraordinary or otherwise, all I am looking for is compelling evidence to support them. I haven’t seen any compelling evidence for the existance of god,
[–> have you showed evidence of having seriously interacted with the evidence already presented or linked? No. The pattern speaks louder than the clever talking points.]
or the evils of sex education, contraceptives, homosexuality or same sex marriage. Or for the existance of objective morality, or for the decline of morality and civilization. Maybe compelling evidence exists for all of this, but you certainly have not presented any.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry and Meghan Wales (Or, should that be Mountbatten-Windsor?)
[–> Here, we see a real case of piling up weak claims that are mutually reinforcing in error. The linked worldviews 101 context goes on to address several of them, and of course, these are not addressed by AK. Given the pattern already in evidence, we have no good reason to take AK’s claims seriously. If AK wishes, in addition, to imagine that by word magic, aggressive enemies of civilisation can culturally appropriate marriage and twist it into a counterfeit under false colour of law then imagine that tampering heedlessly with a core institution the family will not have devastating consequences, we have good reason to see that this is just part and parcel of a pattern of reckless behaviour that is just one curlicue of sawdust. But, cumulatively, zip zip zip, he and many others are busily sawing away at the branch on which we all must sit. CRAACK-crash is a serious concern. As for “sex education,” Augustine in City of God long since pointed out the destructive impact of teaching the techniques of vice, i.e. of undermining moral fibre. AK went on a long run on contraception, imagining that I must be Roman Catholic. My mother was a public health educator who dealt with real, responsible family planning and I took time to point out how different forms of contraception are of different merits — I add, not just effectiveness (esp. in the hands of immature and irresponsible teens) some are little more than disguised very early term abortions. I could also point to the
Decreeing that henceforth fool’s gold (shown above) will be treated as real gold would not thereby change the realities of real Gold or of Iron Pyrites
dangers of encouraging risky behaviour with but dubious benefits so that sound cost benefits analysis would counsel, go in another direction. And more, but this is a day when many are hell-bent on folly. It is enough to highlight key examples of the pattern of fallacies.]
When you do, I will reassess my opinions.
[–> Nope, on evidence in hand, you will not do homework, you will not acknowledge correction, you will project and double down. Grade: F.]>>
One slice of a cake has in it all the ingredients. END
Comments
Since you insist on scientific accuracy, most abortions remove an embryo.
"an unborn or unhatched offspring in the process of development, in particular a human offspring during the period from approximately the second to the eighth week after fertilization (after which it is usually termed a fetus)."
Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
AK,
Will you answer my question before you start your evasive maneuvering?
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
Andrew,
Empties it of what?
The fetus. What did you think? A car?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
Andrew, I think that you are reading something into my question that is not there. All I did was ask if you agreed that unwanted pregnancies, especially amongst teens, is bad for society. I was not asking about whether abortion as a means to terminate unwanted pregnancies was good for society; I was asking about whether preventing the pregnancies in the first place was a good thing.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
Suction is applied and empties your uterus.
Not my uterus. ;)
Empties it of what?
Scientific detail lacking here, Sherlock.
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
Andrew,
Do you even know what an abortion is? Can you describe it in scientific detail?
Yes. A doctor places a speculum into the vagina. The doctor numbs the cervix and then gradually widens, or dilates, the cervix. A small tube is then inserted into the uterus. Suction is applied and empties your uterus.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
I’m confused.
Ya think?
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT
Andrew,
Why would I agree? Killing innocent children is bad for society.
I'm confused. How is avoiding unwanted pregnancies a bad thing?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
AK,
Do you even know what an abortion is? Can you describe it in scientific detail?
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
But we have to have a starting point that we agree on. Do we both agree that unwanted pregnancies, especially in teens, are bad for society?
Why would I agree? Killing innocent children is bad for society.
Your starting point is a misrepresentation of the issue.
Seriously, you don't see that it is?
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
AK, we have created a culture of abortion.
This may be true. But it was not created in the last few decades. It has existed from the dawn of recorded history. It will never go away.
PS: And by the way your bigotry is showing: “misplaced religious nonsense.” It is obvious that to you ethical theism and nonsense are closely associated.
No. Nonsense exists everywhere. But the religious arguments against comprehensive sex education and access to birth control are nonsense.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
Andrew,
Wait a minute AK, can’t we deny them because we think it’s good for society? On what basis could you tell us we are wrong?
That is what we are discussing. But we have to have a starting point that we agree on. Do we both agree that unwanted pregnancies, especially in teens, are bad for society? If so, we should be looking at programs to reduce the risk of this.
You could argue that early comprehensive sex education is worse for society than the unwanted pregnancies because it might increase the rate of sexual activity and its risks at a young age. However, the studies that have looked at this have not found that sex education increases sexual activity. But it has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.
You could also argue that ready access to contraceptives might increase the frequency of sexual risk taking. However, the data does not support this:
We found little evidence to support concerns of increased sexual risk-taking behavior subsequent to greater access to no-cost contraception. [Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Apr; 123(4): 771–776.]
And finally, you could argue that banning legal abortions would significantly reduce abortions and, therefore, be good for society. Undoubtedly this would be true for the first few months, but data from different jurisdictions show that the abortion rates in countries with abortion on demand are very similar to those of countries where abortions are illegal. The only real difference is the increased health risk to women who seek illegal abortions.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
AK, we have created a culture of abortion. We have created a global holocaust. Until and unless we recognise and recoil in horror from what we have enabled, we will not address the root problem: we have embedded the principle that the stronger party can at will put to death an innocent, weaker, inconvenient party. That is why I do not give 10c for bleatings about oh we have put a dent in rates etc. If rates go down, they can go up again as the operative principle is that of the holocaust. That is what we must face and it is what we must turn from decisively before it is catastrophically too late. Then, maybe, we can plead for forgiveness and cleansing then healing from the blood-guilt of half a generation that we have slaughtered. KF
PS: And by the way your bigotry is showing: "misplaced religious nonsense." It is obvious that to you ethical theism and nonsense are closely associated. That is in fact a polarising projection that reduces cognitive dissonance due to the readily demonstrated facts that evolutionary materialism is both self-refuting (undermining the rational mind) and amoral (undermining the responsible mind). Displacing the locus of your discomfort does not make it go away. The problem keeps on seeping out the edges, and it will not go away.kairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
I am not the one denying them all of the above out of some misplaced religious nonsense.
Wait a minute AK, can't we deny them because we think it's good for society? On what basis could you tell us we are wrong?
Andrewasauber
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
ET,
You don’t know that
Look at the studies. They are very clear.
I wouldn’t have any guilt about that. Women are smart and should know better. You clearly think that women are not smart and need to be bailed out after making stupid choices.I wouldn’t have any guilt about that. Women are smart and should know better. You clearly think that women are not smart and need to be bailed out after making stupid choices.
No. I am giving women far more credit than you do in allowing them to make their own choices. I'm not the one who is saying that they should not use birth control. I am not the one saying that they cannot use IUDs. I am not the one saying that they can not use the morning after pill. I am not the one saying that they should not be given all of the information necessary at an early age to allow them to make informed decisions. I am not the one denying them all of the above out of some misplaced religious nonsense.
But thank you for letting us know that you are fine with letting women die due to inadequate medical care.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
07:57 AM
7
07
57
AM
PDT
ET,
Just saying so doesn’t make it so. You have to make a case but I doubt that you can.
Same sex marriage has been legal in Canada for well over a decade yet polygamy is still not allowed (unlike in the bible), interspecies marriage is still not allowed. And divorce rates have declined. That slippery slope must be paved with glue.Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Allan:
Simply banning legal abortions, knowing that it will not have any real impact on abortion rates,
You don't know that
Where is your guilt over doing something that you know will not reduce the abortion rate but will increase the rate of death of women who have illegal abortions?
I wouldn't have any guilt about that. Women are smart and should know better. You clearly think that women are not smart and need to be bailed out after making stupid choices.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT
Allan:
The picture that slippery slope arguments are the sign of a weak argument,
Just saying so doesn't make it so. You have to make a case but I doubt that you can.ET
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus,
PS: At 52 mn/yr and on a 40 year ramp, with 20% let off, we get 800+ mn. I have seen serious estimates of 1.4 billion, but cannot show it as above. 50+ mn/year is of course effectively a million per week. The underlying figures are Guttmacher and UN.
Yet the same sources are saying that the rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortion are lower now than they were at the time of Roe v Wade. Simply banning legal abortions will not make them go away. To think this goes beyond naive. Guttmacher in 1999 showed that the abortion rate in countries where it was legal was no different than abortion rates in countries where it is illegal. So I hope we can agree that banning legal abortion will not reduce the rate of abortion, other than a short duration decline as illegal options develop.
But there are examples of countries that have legal abortion but have very low rates of abortion. What do they all have in common?
1) Early, comprehensive, non-judgemental mandatory sex education. Parents can not have their kids opt out. Think of this as a preventive action, much like vaccinating your children. Many countries do not allow children to attend public schools without being vaccinated. Why would we allow children to opt out of obtaining knowledge that is critical for informed decision making?
2) Unrestricted access to birth control. In many cases, doctors are prohibited from seeking parental approval for prescribing birth control to minor children.
3) Universal health care.
4) Abortion on demand in the first three months of pregnancy.
Countries like Switzerland, that have all of the above, have abortion rates that are less than half that of the US. If we are serious about significantly reducing the number of abortions, we should drop our puritanical nonsense and adopt practices that have proven to be successful. Simply banning legal abortions, knowing that it will not have any real impact on abortion rates, is the height of hypocrisy. It may assuage your misplaced guilt, but it will do nothing to improve the situation. Where is your guilt over doing something that you know will not reduce the abortion rate but will increase the rate of death of women who have illegal abortions?Allan Keith
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Harry, Planet Evo Mat. KF
PS: At 52 mn/yr and on a 40 year ramp, with 20% let off, we get 800+ mn. I have seen serious estimates of 1.4 billion, but cannot show it as above. 50+ mn/year is of course effectively a million per week. The underlying figures are Guttmacher and UN.kairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
Allan Keith @103,
What planet are you from Allan? You don't seem too familiar with the current situation on planet Earth.
Here is a major issue to which you are oblivious: A few decades ago a group of people called the National Socialist Party, or "Nazi" party, seized control of a country called Germany. Over a decade before that, the German intelligentsia began advocating the absurd notion that the state had the authority to "legalize" the murder of innocent humanity as a matter of social policy. This would begin with the "legalization" of abortion and euthanasia. The Nazis, when they rose to power, took that absurd notion and ran with it, applying it as they saw fit.
Earthlings know that the Nazis grand social experiment in "legal" murder was an unmitigated disaster. Today, Western civilization is more gravely threatened than ever before because contemporary, militantly atheistic Western states have relaunched the failed Nazi social experiment by "legalizing" abortion and euthanasia. The "legalization" of the murder of the political opponents of those in power will follow eventually. We already know that is where it leads from the Nazi experience.
How many human beings have been murdered already? Some estimates are as high as nearly two billion innocent human beings have already been murdered by "legal" abortion. That is more people than the entire human population of planet Earth at the beginning of the twentieth century. I assume you are familiar with how time is measured here on planet Earth.
Anyway, things just aren't going as good on our planet as your naive assessment suggests.harry
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT
A follow-up on amorality of atheistical materialism: https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/ct4-ak-on-morality-since-the-moral-fabric-is-man-made-all-we-are-doing-is-seeing-it-change/kairosfocus
May 25, 2018
May
05
May
25
25
2018
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
PPS: Here is a useful in-brief on radical relativism and subjectivism:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping:
. . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts.
Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values.
Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible.
Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
The consequences are a matter of history. And that history is being echoed all around us. Already, our civilisation in this generation is implicated in enabling the worst holocaust in history. Yes, the ongoing slaughter of our living posterity in the womb at a million further victims per week, 800+ millions in 40+ years. AND MANY REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SOMETHING IS DRASTICALLY WRONG.kairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
PS: Again, Plato has a warning. This time in The Republic:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.)
Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures.
Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it]
The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27].
Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling.
Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing?
[Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus.
[Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already.
[Ad.] Certainly.
[Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary.
[Ad.] I will.
[Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers.
[Ad.] Precisely so, he said.
[Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical].
[Ad.] Yes.
[Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained?
[Ad.] True.
[Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other?
[Ad.] By all means.
[Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
AK, keep going, you are further painting the picture. When a crooked yardstick is your measure of straightness of course what is genuinely straight seems wrong. KFkairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
KairosFocus, zip, zip, zip goes the saw, undercutting the branch we are sitting on? Sorry, but your cautions remind me of chicken little and the boy who cried wolf. You have repeated them so often, with no support from actual events, that they cease to have any meaning.
Abortion on demand has been around since the 70s and the rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions are lower than they were at the time of Roe v Wade. Same sex marriage has been legal for well over a decade and none of the dire consequences that were predicted have come to be. Early and comprehensive sex education are in place and unwanted pregnancies are at an all time low. Unrestricted access to birth control is here and I haven’t seen people having sex in the streets. Secularism is increasing in the west and violent crimes are still declining, standards of living are high. Persecution of homosexuals has declined. Women are no longer second class citizens. Violent conflicts between countries are lower than they have been throughout history. Life expectancy is higher than ever. We are staying healthy longer. Infant mortality is lower than ever. This amoral nihilistic society that you warn of seems to be chugging along quite successfully.Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
AK, this picture:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .
[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
KFkairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, keep it up. You are sketching quite the picture. One, that is a warning. KF
What picture would that be? The picture that slippery slope arguments are the sign of a weak argument, which they are? The picture of someone who does not deem it necessary to respond to every question from someone who has a track record of abuse towards those he disagrees with?Allan Keith
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
AK, keep it up. You are sketching quite the picture. One, that is a warning. KFkairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
ET,
Still too afraid to answer my question. I wonder why that is…
Forgive me, but I tend to skip over inane questions. Could you please repeat it?Allan Keith
pattern of reckless behaviour that is just one curlicue of sawdust. But, cumulatively, zip zip zip, he and many others are busily sawing away at the branch on which we all must sit. CRAACK-crash is a serious concern. As for “sex education,” Augustine in City of God long since pointed out the destructive impact of teaching the techniques of vice, i.e. of undermining moral fibre. AK went on a long run on contraception, imagining that I must be Roman Catholic. My mother was a public health educator who dealt with real, responsible family planning and I took time to point out how different forms of contraception are of different merits — I add, not just effectiveness (esp. in the hands of immature and irresponsible teens) some are little more than disguised very early term abortions. I could also point to the
Look closer.
For who’s benefit? If I communicate with and provide support to my past enemies, they are less likely to be future enemies.
[–> BTW, not at all well grounded historically, cf. the consequences of the 1930’s policy of Appeasement, and note the post-WWII generosity came after Germany and Japan were utterly smashed and devastated]
A purely self-serving and manipulative strategy, a strategy that I happen to support.
[–> How do you know that this was “purely” self serving and manipulative? Surely, that’s an extraordinary claim!]
But the bigger question is, why aren’t we using this strategy more often before they become enemies? Rather than take this approach, we invoke sanctions.
Thank you. I’m obviously not the complete {SNIP — language, thread owner] that some here would project. I’m looking at you Barry. 🙂>>