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
Allan:
Society has certainly improved for those who seek same sex marriage, and has no negative impact on society with respect to opposite sex marriage.
Except for people getting sued for not baking a cake for same sex marriages. The definition of marriage had to be changed. And now the door is open for all other types of marriages too.
Bowing to the unnatural is a sure sign of the downfall of society.
Yet there are fewer women dying of botched illegal abortions, and a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions even though abortions are legal.
If women die during botched illegal abortions that is their choice. They should have thought about it before having unprotected sex.
Killing the unborn is not a solution and has harmed society. It has made us into barbarians. And yes liberals tend to ignore that fact but ignorance is their virtue.
What really bothers me is the same losers that promote abortions get all bent out of shape with respect to gun violence. Yet gun violence has a long, long, long, long way to go before it reaches the level of carnage wrought via abortions.ET
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Vivid, that I did not know about. However, in this case I have now repeatedly specifically pointed out just how loaded the question is, to the point where it embeds a self-referential infinite regress and thus absurdity. AK apparently does not wish to address that. As to the context for his "extraordinary claims" talking point, that has been notorious for years. The slander of Dr Gish and of others now using that slander as a platform for further stereotyping and refusal to address serious issues is now quite explicit in this thread -- whether we give a compressed summary or write out or link extended details or use a sample to show the rotten ingredients in the failed hyperskeptical cake, makes no difference. We are not seeing responsible discussion. And besides, UD is unfortunately a high controversy context and what he wishes to call paranoia is in fact basic prudence. You can bet your bottom dollar that what we say here will be subjected to hostile, even jaundiced and sometimes outright malicious and slanderous scrutiny in the penumbra of the hostile obsessed. Indeed, sometimes we have had those who are playing rhetorical games here who are simultaneously boasting of how they are leading those IDiots in a merry chase, elsewhere. AK by his behaviour is now suspect of being a sock puppet persona. KFkairosfocus
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
AK re 26
“The fact that you refuse to answer a question which I have said is not loaded, points to a serious pathological paranoia.”
You did this very same thing to me. in another thread you would not answer my question claiming it was a loaded question. I said it was not a loaded question. So that pointing to a serious pathological paranoia applies to you LOL
Vividvividbleau
May 24, 2018
May
05
May
24
24
2018
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
AK, has it not registered with you that my objection is deeper than you imagine? Namely, that what you are insistently asserting is ill-formed, refers to itself, cannot pass its own test, imposes a self-referential infinite regress and reduces to absurdity? Therefore, that it cannot be sensibly answered? That, it needs to be corrected by reference to the challenge of warrant posed by the so-called Agrippa trilemma? That, this points to a need for finitely remote first plausibles defining our faith-points which are the cores of our worldviews and which may then be compared through a key philosophical method, comparative difficulties across coherence, factual adequacy and balanced explanatory power? That is, on subjecting the question to scrutiny before trying to answer it, it falls apart in a potentially instructive way? That, your repeated refusal to address this followed by projecting blind fideism to me (and linked closed mindedness) amounts to showing that the question rhetorically serves as a disguised accusation? Thus, turning your behaviour into an instructive example on how not to think? KF
PS: If you had read that far, you would have seen that I highlighted self-evident truths, using Josiah Royce's principle of pivoting on the undeniable claim, error exists. This instantly shows that truth is actual, that in some cases it is known beyond rational doubt, that some cases of strong-form knowledge exist, that entire worldviews -- sadly common today -- that imply falsity of or outright deny such possibilities are irretrievably false. It is also, not coincidentally, a particularly challenging truth, implying and suggesting that we must ever be aware of error and of the possibility of our own errors. This is a reason to go on to ground self-evident first principles of right reason that serve as plumbline truths to test the yardstick principles we have accepted. From this, we can embark on a more careful reconstruction of our worldviews. It is in that context that I address the credibility of generic ethical theism, which it is obvious that you view with a dismissive contempt that warps your ability to take relevant discussion seriously. Bring to bear your being caught up in projecting the slanderous pseudo-fallacy that those you disagree with are piling up half truths [= whole lies, hence the inherent slander], strawman caricatures and "weak arguments" [a dog whistle, new-speak term] and your being enmeshed in selective hyperskepticism which leads you to exert double-standards of warrant, and we can readily see how hard it is to think your way out of the schemes of thought and cultural agendas you are trapped in.kairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
11:36 PM
11
11
36
PM
PDT
BA, thanks. It is obvious that AK does not wish to acknowledge that he has blundered into philosophical territory and lacks expertise to address it. He has been repeatedly pointed to a 101 that starts from the issue of worldviews and warrant, showing why any worldview must start from finitely remote first plausibles that form a faith-point. Thus, we are forced to evaluate on comparative difficulties among live options. He has repeatedly twisted corrections into strawman caricatures, in his latest point accusing me of blind fideism and closed mindedness. Which, of course, reflects the selective hyperskepticism addressed in the OP and previously. Since he is also enmeshed in the habit of projecting the slanderous accusation of piling up half truths [a half truth being a whole lie], strawman arguments and "weak arguments" [this being a dog whistly for a lot more, cf. Rational Wiki etc], he has an excuse for refusing to address seriously the arguments or discussions of those he views with ill-disguised contempt. In this case, instead of realising he has an opportunity to learn something, he tries to brush off what is unwelcome. He then defends it by projecting to others. All of this is compounded by indoctrination in the now all too common media-amplified cultural marxist and radical secular humanist, evolutionary materialist shibboleths. A sad case, but unfortunately an all too typical one. One tooth of the zipping agit prop saw cutting off the branch on which our civilisation sits. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
Allan:
Your view is that some things should never be open to scrutiny. Fine. I accept that. I disagree.
Do you admit your disagreement should be subject to scrutiny Allan? If so, have you not admitted KairosFocus's point?Barry Arrington
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
AK:
I must have missed the part where making something legal makes it mandatory.
Since your statement is completely non-responsive to what I said, shall presume you having nothing to say? Instead of saying something stupid, why don't you just say "good point Barry; you are right and I was wrong."
You argued that because an act accomplishes its goal, it is good and therefore should be legal. Neither of us said anything about it being mandatory. Making something legal does not make it mandatory. It makes it legal -- sanctioned by the state.
I will state this again and give you another chance to admit how stupid your argument was and retract it. The fact that an act accomplishes it goal, does not make it good does it Allan.
Prediction: Allan has many times proven himself incapable of good faith or self-critical reflection. He will double down rather than admit his argument is invalid.
I suppose if one is OK with the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies, it is no great leap to argue in bad faith.Barry Arrington
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
Let me put it this way, “everything should be open to scrutiny” refers to itself and cannot pass its own test, imposes an infinite regress and ends in absurdity.
See, was that so hard? Your view is that some things should never be open to scrutiny. Fine. I accept that. I disagree, but I accept your view.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
kairosfocus @ 29: "AK, there you go again;" and again, and again, and...Truth Will Set You Free
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
AK, there you go again; you have here again demonstrated unwillingness to deal with the substantial issue. Grade F-. KF
PS: Let me add as a PS, a clip from above:
Maybe I need to add that “question everything” or in your phrasing “everything should be open to scrutiny” imposes a self-referential infinite regress and collapses in absurdity. What is feasible is what has been linked, which you have studiously ignored in your attempt to project blind fideism and dogmatism, distracting from your demonstrated selective hyperskepticism. Namely, to understand the structure of worldviews and why comparative difficulties across live options are where we have to go. In that context, one can examine and make an informed choice without grand question begging and/or selective hyperskepticism.
Let me put it this way, "everything should be open to scrutiny" refers to itself and cannot pass its own test, imposes an infinite regress and ends in absurdity. It SEEMS to be reasonable but collapses on closer scrutiny, much like the notorious verification principle did sixty years past. Likewise, evolutionary materialism is similarly self-falsifying. No serious answer can be given. Say, yes and that too is subject to scrutiny leading on to the regress. Say a simplistic no and you fall into a rhetorical trap much like in saying no to have you stopped beating your wife yet. In short, the posed implicit dilemma fails and embeds an absurdity.kairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, you obviously don’t intend to address the first problem with your question:
Are you referring to the question that I had no problem answering?
There is a serious paranoia vibe going on here. What is so hard with the question? All I have asked is whether everything should be open to scrutiny. If you prefer the inverse, are there things that should never be open to scrutiny?
The answer to either is simple. My answer to both is yes and no, respectively. What is so earth shatteringly difficult with answering? Are you expecting a loaded question when I have stated that there isn’t one?
You can either answer with a simple response, or do what you have done so far.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
AK, you obviously don't intend to address the first problem with your question: it is self-referential and infinitely regressive, therefore absurd on its face. This is essentially the problem already addressed by BA as clipped in the OP above. oops, you already dismissed that with a drive-by slander that amounts to a declared policy of unresponsiveness to inconvenient evidence and reasoning. That sets up the context in which you have repeatedly failed to deal with what IS feasible. Namely, recognising that infinite regress of warrant and/or grand question-begging are both absurd so we must all build worldviews on finitely remote first plausibles which define our various faith-points. We may then compare difficulties on factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power across live options. On which, one may hold a particular view responsibly. Once you see that this is something I have actually taught, it may then dawn on you that your question is not just absurd as outlined but it is also reflective of your refusal to actually seriously engage the real people here rather than to set up and knock over prejudice and slander-laden, stereotypical strawman caricatures. When you show a substantial responsiveness, then there can be a basis for some progress. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, argument by assertion is not going to work. When you insistently ignore a linked teaching on worldviews level comparative difficulties analysis to ask a loaded question, that tells us all we need to know.
I have already said that this is not a loaded question. The fact that you refuse to answer a question which I have said is not loaded, points to a serious pathological paranoia. And if you answer it, and the outcome is that I posed it as a loaded question, that would simply paint me as a liar. Where is the advantage in that for me?
Again, why are you so afraid to answer a simple question? All it does is set the baseline for future discussion, and possibly resolve issues where we differ.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
05:33 PM
5
05
33
PM
PDT
AK, argument by assertion is not going to work. When you insistently ignore a linked teaching on worldviews level comparative difficulties analysis to ask a loaded question, that tells us all we need to know. Maybe I need to add that "question everything" or in your phrasing "everything should be open to scrutiny" imposes a self-referential infinite regress and collapses in absurdity. What is feasible is what has been linked, which you have studiously ignored in your attempt to project blind fideism and dogmatism, distracting from your demonstrated selective hyperskepticism. Namely, to understand the structure of worldviews and why comparative difficulties across live options are where we have to go. In that context, one can examine and make an informed choice without grand question begging and/or selective hyperskepticism. Show us that you have engaged substance seriously, then we will have reason to begin to think you are taking first steps of serious thought. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
Or, should I point out that the question is an accusation in disguise, as regardless of my answer on your binary alternative set, you and ilk have already patently decided on proof by accusation...
Nonsense. My question was just to set the starting point to start a discussion. If you want to read something more into it than was intended, that is your problem, not mine.
As I don’t have your paranoid tendencies, I will start with a claim that you can pick apart.
I claim that establishing certain things that are beyond scrutiny is dangerous to the long term survival of society.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
AK, if you had bothered to simply click on the linked, you would see instantly that the premise of the question is ludicrous. In many ways. Do you really want me to take it apart on the challenge of self-referentiality and infinite regress? Or, simply point out that someone who has taken pains to teach comparative difficulties analysis at worldviews level over the span of many years is not a proper subject of such a question? Or, should I point out that the question is an accusation in disguise, as regardless of my answer on your binary alternative set, you and ilk have already patently decided on proof by accusation -- as you have already shown that you have not the slightest inclination to consult and be duly responsive to readily accessible evidence? No, I will not post "Workers Unite" in my shop window. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, if you had taken the time to actually read as already linked multiple times, you would instantly know how grotesque the strawman caricature you just set up is...
What strawman? I have asked a simple question. Do you believe that everything should be open to scrutiny? It is not a gotcha question. Or a loaded question. It is either yes or no. I have already said where I stand on this question. Yes.
If your answer is yes, fine. If it is no, all I would like to know is, why not?
Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
AK, if you had taken the time to actually read as already linked multiple times, you would instantly know how grotesque the strawman caricature you just set up is -- and just how that tactic further highlights the pattern being corrected. Let's put it this way: I am not putting up any handy slogan in my grocery window. Molon labe! KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
F/N: To understand the strategy of cultural marxist political correctness that is being imposed to crush independence of spirit, Havel’s green grocer is an excellent start-point:
I’m still not sure if you agree that everything should be open to scrutiny. A simple yes or no would suffice to progress this discussion.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
F/N: To understand the strategy of cultural marxist political correctness that is being imposed to crush independence of spirit, Havel's green grocer is an excellent start-point: http://vaclavhavel.cz/showtrans.php?cat=clanky&val=72_aj_clanky.html&typ=HTML KF
PS: Let me clip:
>>The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?
I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.
Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in ihe manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's. real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?
Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestion~ ingly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome ihis complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with ihe workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.
Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from ihemselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and iheir adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing hisjob behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying iu power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe.
The smaller a dictatorship and the less stratified by modernization the society under it, the more directly the will of the dictator can be exercised- In other words, the dictator can employ more or less naked discipline, avoiding the complex processes of relating to the world and of selfjustification which ideology involves. But the more complex the mechanisms of power become, the larger and more stratified the society they embrace, and the longer they have operated historically, the more individuals must be connected to them from outside, and the greater the importance attached to the ideological excuse. It acts as a kind of bridge between the regime and the people, across which the regime approaches the people and the people approach the regime. This explains why ideotogy plays such an importaut role in the post-totalitarian system: that complex machinery of units, hierarchies, transmission belts, and indirect instruments of manipulation which ensure in countless ways ihe integrity of the regime, leaving nothing to chance, would be quite simply unthinkable without ideology acting as its all-embracing excuse and as the excuse for each of its parts.>>kairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT
Barry,
Allan says that abortion is good because it results in a “lower rate of unwanted pregnancies”.
I must have missed the part where making something legal makes it mandatory.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
KairosFocus,
AK, doubling down. The above clearly shows that the term you have insisted on by way of using the smear against a man who actually won 300+:0 debates on the merits in order to try to skewer and dismiss what you clearly.....................................................................................
Does this mean that you disagree with the idea that everything should be open to scrutiny? I wasn’t sure from your response.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Allan says that abortion is good because it results in a "lower rate of unwanted pregnancies".
What an odd thing to say. It is like saying "abortion is good because it kills unborn babies that would otherwise be alive." Well, yeah, but isn't whether we should kill unborn babies the whole point to begin with?
I doubt Allan would use similar reasoning in other contexts. For example, I am all but certain he would never argue that murder is good because it results in a lower incidence of people unwanted by murderers. Or that rape is good because it results in a lower rate of unfulfilled sexual desires on the part of rapists.Barry Arrington
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
AK, doubling down. The above clearly shows that the term you have insisted on by way of using the smear against a man who actually won 300+:0 debates on the merits in order to try to skewer and dismiss what you clearly have been unable to address on the merits was slanderous and accusatory from its beginning. That you have insisted on continuing to use a tainted uncivil term speaks volumes and not in your favour. (The interested may look at the PPPS here.) Secondly, we were not born yesterday; we all know the context for the reference to extraordinary claims, i.e. intent to play Sagan's version of Cliffordian evidentialism; thus, selective hyperskepticism. So, when you try a transparent attempt to suggest otherwise and impose it by rhetorical fiat, all it shows is doubling down yet again. As to the attempt to continue kidnapping marriage under false colour of law, that resort to media manipulation, educational malpractice and destructive cultural marxist lawfare speaks for itself as to just how destructive it is. You have also made a fairly wide range of further assertions that are ill founded, and you have now simply tried to dismiss due correction. That pattern speaks and not in your favour. The correctives clearly stand and it is further evident that you have no cogent responses on substance, just a grab-bag of radical secularist talking points. You have made yourself into an example of what is going wrong. Zip, zip, zip, curlicue by curlicue, the roots of the branch on which our civilisation sits are being sawed off. If that continues unabated, CRAACK-crash. And with nukes etc in play. KF
PS: Notice, your implied approval of the central evil of our time, the worst holocaust in history, 800+ millions in 40+ years, growing at a further million per week. This is a crucial test of the crooked yardsticks being imposed under false colour of being straight in our time. That then calibrates all else.kairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
03:07 PM
3
03
07
PM
PDT
ET,
Society has not improved with the addition of same-sex marriages...
Society has certainly improved for those who seek same sex marriage, and has no negative impact on society with respect to opposite sex marriage. That is a net improvement.
...and it has definitely suffered because of legalized abortions, ie abortions as a means of birth control.
Yet there are fewer women dying of botched illegal abortions, and a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortions even though abortions are legal. Again, the math suggests that there is an improvement.
There is no excuse for teen pregnancies in the USA. There is no excuse for unwanted pregnancies either.
And the data indicates that these rates are lower now than they were at the time of Roe v Wade. We should be celebrating this improvement and continue to do the things that have led to this.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
Allan:
The prohibition of same sex marriage couldn’t stand up to scrutiny,
Yes, it can. It's that just there are people who just don't care about the arguments against it and prattle on regardless. The same goes for abortion.
Society has not improved with the addition of same-sex marriages and it has definitely suffered because of legalized abortions, ie abortions as a means of birth control.
I am all for sex education but this is the 21st century. All the information is at your fingertips. There is no excuse for teen pregnancies in the USA. There is no excuse for unwanted pregnancies either.ET
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Kairosfocus, all I can say is Wow! You get over-the-top self-righteous when I used the term "Gish gallop", and then you post this OP which is a textbook example of the written version of the "argument by verbosity" fallacy.
I say that I am skeptical of extraordinary claims and you make the erroneous jump to the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" phrase. Are you suggesting that people shouldn't be skeptical of extraordinary claims? Or do you not realize that being skeptical does not mean that you are necessarily opposed to the claim?
I am skeptical of all extraordinary claims, and many that are not so extraordinary. I am skeptical of the Bible's version of history. I am skeptical of abiogenesis. I am skeptical of evolution. I am skeptical of ID. I am skeptical of alien abductions, bigfoot and the shroud of Turin. I am skeptical of the existence of objective morality. I am skeptical of the power of prayer and faith healing. I am skeptical of the infallibility of forensic testing. Why is any of this bad? Skepticism is a good thing. It definitely beats dogmatic acceptance of anything.
Or are you suggesting that some things should never be scrutinized? Personally, I don't think that anything should be beyond scrutiny. If something can't stand up to scrutiny, then it will not survive. The prohibition of same sex marriage couldn't stand up to scrutiny, so it was trashed. Slavery couldn't stand up to scrutiny, so it was trashed. Abstinence-only sex education could not stand up to scrutiny, so it was trashed. Questioning things is how society improves. If we never questioned things, women would not have the vote, homosexuals would be jailed, etc.Allan Keith
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Mung, sadly, yes. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
More likely they are just reviewing their same old talking points.Mung
May 23, 2018
May
05
May
23
23
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
H'mm: I trust relevant parties are doing some homework on their assertions vs evidence and issues. KFkairosfocus
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. 🙂>>