Darwinist rhetorical tactics Logic and First Principles of right reason Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and (Natural) Theology Selective Hyperskepticism They said it . . .

DO’s Prediction succeeds (2 1/2 years ago): “Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism”

Spread the love

In a recent UD post, our Newsdesk predicted: “Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism.”

This was actually fulfilled two and a half years ago, in a combox exchange at the shadow-site, TSZ.

I commented on UD President BA’s post on the prediction, and wish to headline that, feeding in some multimedia elements:

________________

>>BA & News:

Actually, the prediction has already happened, note this from a TSZ combox for a post there that was trying to dismiss first principles of right reason, 2 1/2 years ago:

Flint on February 21, 2012 at 2:37 am said:

aleta,

I don’t think I quite understand what you are saying with some of the rest of your post. However, you have pointed out the elephant in the room: an important aspect of Stephen’s beliefs about logic is that he wants to be able to use logic, starting with “self-evidently” true logical premises (in his eyes) to prove things about the nature and existence of God, absolute morals, and so on. The view that logic without empirically validated assertions is just content-free manipulations of invented symbols directly challenges that view.

Yes. What I was trying to say (not very well, unfortunately) is that much of what Stephen wishes to derive using logic, can NOT rest on empirically validated assertions. How could one even begin to empirically validate a god, a soul, or salvation? Instead, he must start with undecidable axioms, which (not being empirical) are selected with the foregone conclusions in mind.

Aleta’s reply: Yes, and well said. The elephant in the room.

This is so sadly, revealingly wrong-headed, at so many levels:

1 –> First principles of right reason, being self-evident, stand on their own merits, regardless of our particular worldview, hoped for conclusions or whatever. And to deny them is at once to end in absurdity. That is why they can serve as plumbline tests for whether we have built true and upright . . . straight and plumb.

2 –> Let us go to that notorious, Bible-thumping Fundy preacher [NOT] . . . see what ad hominems and motive mongering lead you into? . . . the philosopher Aristotle [as in, Aristotelian logic], Metaphysics Bk IV, 1011b:

. . . if it is impossible at the same time to affirm and deny a thing truly, it is also impossible for contraries to apply to a thing at the same time [–> LNC]; either both must apply in a modified sense, or one in a modified sense and the other absolutely.

Nor indeed can there be any intermediate between contrary statements [–> LEM], but of one thing we must either assert or deny one thing [–> LOI, thus too LNC], whatever it may be. This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true [–> notice, definition of truth]; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false. [–> notice, precise description of what we now call a proposition, this is what, C. 340 BC?]

3 –> Similarly, let’s look at the often dismissed Apostle Paul, to see how he addresses much the same issue, on the grounds that one should address the issue, not a caricature:

1 Cor 14:7 If even inanimate musical instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone [listening] know or understand what is played? 8 And if the war bugle gives an uncertain (indistinct) call, who will prepare for battle?[AMP]

red_ball

4 –> What is going on here? Basically, we contemplate a distinct thing, say a bright red ball on a table, let’s call it A. The reality of such a ball, and our contemplation of it, both reflect a world-partition:

W = { A | NOT_A }

5 –> Immediately as A is distinct and so partitioned. LOI, LNC and LEM are immediately in action:

LOI: A is itself not not-itself.

LEM: As there is a distinction, nothing is in the middle or apart from the ordered partitioned set W, it is A X-OR NOT_A. And of course

LNC: We do not have A also being NOT_A

6 –> To attempt to deny any of these in fact — as the old Apostle pointed out — depends on distinction, just to communicate:

a [vs ~a] + l [vs ~l] + e [vs ~e] + t [vs ~t] + a [vs ~a]

7 –> So, both Flint and Aleta are sawing off the branch on which they, like the rest of us, are sitting. Not wise. Patent absurdity, in fact. We are dealing with what is seen as necessarily true on understanding what is said, on pain of absurdity.

8 –> They would have been well-advised to heed this from Wiki, sampled that very same Feb 2012, as a case of speaking against known ideological tendency on the weight of evidence:

The law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle are not separate laws per se, but correlates of the law of identity. That is to say, they are two interdependent and complementary principles that inhere naturally (implicitly) within the law of identity, as its essential nature . . . whenever we ‘identify’ a thing as belonging to a certain class or instance of a class, we intellectually set that thing apart from all the other things in existence which are ‘not’ of that same class or instance of a class. In other words, the proposition, “A is A and A is not ~A” (law of identity) intellectually partitions a universe of discourse (the domain of all things) into exactly two subsets, A and ~A, and thus gives rise to a dichotomy. As with all dichotomies, A and ~A must then be ‘mutually exclusive’ and ‘jointly exhaustive’ with respect to that universe of discourse. In other words, ‘no one thing can simultaneously be a member of both A and ~A’ (law of non-contradiction), whilst ‘every single thing must be a member of either A or ~A’ (law of excluded middle).

What’s more . . . thinking entails the manipulation and amalgamation of simpler concepts in order to form more complex ones, and therefore, we must have a means of distinguishing these different concepts. It follows then that the first principle of language (law of identity) is also rightfully called the first principle of thought, and by extension, the first principle reason (rational thought) . . .

9 –> And the same SB these so wish to dismiss observed:

[If] an object has an essence or a nature, we do, in fact, know what it is by virtue of having abstracted its universal “whatness” from the particular we encounter through our senses.

In other words, the law of non-contradiction is true

ontologically–a thing is what it is and cannot also be something else at the same time and in the same way.

logically–a proposition about that thing cannot be true and false at the same time and in the same way.

psychologically–a proposition about that thing cannot seem to be true and false at the same time and in the same way.

10 –> And, let us go back to the red ball A. To observe it is to rely on: distinct, intelligible identity. Science and inductive logic, too, sit on the very same branch Aleta and Flint would saw off.

11 –> And so the notion that empirical observation can then ground/disestablish what it is based on, is another case of trying to saw off the branch on which we are all sitting. Save, saws, branches, sitting, us, and sawing are all crucially dependent on these self-same laws.

12 –> So, we see a wrongheadedness on the part of reasonably educated people that can only trace to indoctrination and secondary lack of understanding.

13 –> where, the appeal to the empirical as court of last resort is the key clue: scientism, the notion that science and its methods [dominated of course by evolutionary materialistic ideology] delimit real or serious or credible “knowledge.” This is of course actually an ideological- philosophical imposition, and so it is self-refuting.

14 –> Where, when we become committed to the false and absurd [as has been shown], it is liable to lead us to a state of stubborn confusion that rejects truth, reason and evidence.

KF

PS: Unsurprisingly, A and F also seem to be unaware of the actual evidential basis for Judaeo-Christian theism and have set up and knocked over a strawman. I suggest a 101 here on, with particular encouragement to take time to view the video. And, on the wider worldview question, including first principles of right reason, I suggest the 101 here on.  >>

Video:

embedded by Embedded Video

vimeo Direkt

________________

In short, we have a worldviews foundation challenge on the table, starting with logic itself. And, astonishingly, LOGIC is now under suspicion of being covert theism. END

23 Replies to “DO’s Prediction succeeds (2 1/2 years ago): “Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism”

  1. 1
    DavidD says:

    Well, let’s take a look at their version of logic, which is actually dumb stupid and asinine. Whether we all want it or not it’s shoved in our faces on a daily basis, take Aliens and their obsession with Worldview promotion.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....lp00000592

    Some of their version of logic in the quotes –

    “Even if telescopes detect CFCs in an alien atmosphere, it’s unclear if that would mean the planet itself is habitable. Still, advanced extraterrestrials may deliberately introduce CFCs or similar pollution into the atmosphere to warm the air of a planet that would otherwise be too cold for life,” the researchers said.

    “People often refer to E.T.’s as ‘little green men,’ but the E.T.’s detectable by this method should not be labeled ‘green’ since they are environmentally unfriendly,” Loeb said.

    So looking for habitat life on other planet’s they must now look for intelligent life that is as dumb & irresponsible as humans who mismanage the Earth?

  2. 2
    kairosfocus says:

    A bright red ball on a table, A, leading to the world-partition:

    W = {A | ~A}

    Which we contemplate:

    I: A, and understand:

    W = {A | ~A}

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    DD:

    Interesting thought, it is true we are all too prone to foolishly foul our nest.

    But doing so using gases that require ability to work with Fluorine, would likely be indicative of intelligence . . . unless someone can come up with a natural way to make CFCs.

    That explanatory filter thingie again , if natural law and or chance can account for it, intelligence is not inferred. As in, the usual ideological opponents of design thought use the design inference routinely, except where it is not convenient to their ideology.

    Logic with a swivel.

    Not a healthy sign.

    Intelligence, sadly, is not equal to wisdom.

    Certification is not equal to wisdom.

    A fat bank account is not equal to wisdom.

    And we are warned, what is the profit in gaining the whole world at the expense of one’s soul, the very thing that makes you different from a brute beast wolf preying on the lambs.

    KF

  4. 4
    Silver Asiatic says:

    In a materialist view, the only reason to use logic is that it might have some use for survival or for some reason.

    But, of course, that reasoning fails in itself, because we have to use logic to conclude that there is some reason to use logic.

    Logic cannot have been created by human reason because reasoning is not possible without logic. So, a logical universe had to exist before humans could reason.

    A mind without logic could not create logic, since it requires logic to create a system for reasoning.

  5. 5
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Onlookers may like to evaluate EL’s response on the issue of first principles of right reason, here, not as a response to her but as being illustrative of ever so much current thought:

    as Barry himself pointed out, the law of identity is fundamental to the other two (the axiom from which the others flow). However, the law of identity itself only applies to something that can be defined as an object. And that in itself raises an entire can of worms – not all objects are discontinuous with other objects; quantum “objects” of which macroscopic objects are composed are not “objects” in a sense that can be handled by the Law of Identity; some things we regard as “objects” turn out to be more like “processes” etc.

    So to regard the Rules of Right Reason as universally applicable, even where the assumption on which they are based (that we are talking about a clearly definable “object”) is itself at issue, is, I would argue, fallacious.

    (Hint: cf here and onwards.)

    KF

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:

    SA: Interesting thoughts, with hints on a bill of requirements for the roots of reality. Care to elaborate? KF

    PS: Reminder, I have a standing offer to guest post.

  7. 7
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: To get the ball rolling, here is our very own WJM in reply to EL:

    ____________________

    >> William J. Murray on February 21, 2012 at 1:55 pm said:

    [EL:] However, the law of identity itself only applies to something that can be defined as an object.

    You are imprinting your materialist ideology onto what the term “object” must mean. Because something may not qualify as a material object in the classical sense doesn’t mean that the LOI is non-applicable; it only means that one must be more careful about identifying the thing in question. The inability of the person applying the LOI to understand the nature of the thing in question is not a limitation on the validity of the LOI.

    Once again, regardless of how poorly we understand or can describe a thing, we cannot recognize that thing as anything unless the LOI is in play. IOW, to be able to say “photon” and have it mean something that nobody mistakes for dog, or love, or saliva means the LOI is being used – otherwise, when you say “photon”, nobody would really know what you’re talking about.

    Your attempt to diminish the universal validity of the LOI relies upon it being valid in every case you bring up – about any thing, or else we couldn’t have a meaningful conversation about it.

    You are mistaking “finite configurations of classical matter ” for “what the LOI can be applied to”. If a photon is a collection of superpositional states that can act as a particle or a wave, then the LOI says that a photon is either a collection of superpositional states that, upon observation, act as either a wave or a particle within the parameters of a stochastic frameset, or it is not.

    Even in the Jupiter case, if we are going to frame our identification of Jupiter in a subatomic superpositional frameset sense, Jupiter is either a collection of subatomic superpositions, or it is not, and either exists as that superpositional frameset, or it does not.

    If a superpositional frameset was not an identifiable thing (LOI), we couldn’t rationally discuss it because we wouldn’t know what we were talking about in the first place. So Jupiter – whatever it is defined as, a solid planet or a superpositional framework, either exists, or it does not exist, but cannot be both at the same time, regardless of how you frame the Jupiter question.

    It is only by conflating two different framed definitions of “what jupiter is” (a classical configuration of matter vs a quantum superpositional frameset) that this argument ensues. Pick a framed definition and answer the question; the answer is still “no, jupiter (X or Y definition) cannot both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same formal relation.

    You cannot talk about things that cannot be empirically or conceptually identified, generating a demarcation between what we are, and are not, talking about. That’s what is so irrational about the position that there are some “things” that the LOI isn’t applicable towards; you cannot imagine, talk about, or find any such “things”, because the moment you do, you’ve identified it.

    You might as well be arguing that 4-sided triangles can exist as to argue that the LOI may not always be applicable.
    >>
    ____________________

  8. 8
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N 2: Before I head off for now:

    Aleta: >> I think focussing on the issue of “thingness”, or what is an object, is central here. The moon is pretty clearly a thing: a photon, not so much. But what about love, truth, justice, morality, etc. – or even “I”, the self. Are these clearcut “things” that we can plug into the Law of Identity and the other laws in any meaningful sense?

    Letting StephenB be our metaphorical representative for a whole bunch of people who believe, roughly, as he does, I think we can say that such people believe

    a. that the universe was created for us, humankind,

    b. that we have a special rational connection to ideas and ideals that both inform the world, and exist outside the world, in the mind of God.

    c. That these ideals are primary: In the beginning was the Word …”, as is often pointed out.

    d. That many categories have clearcut and immutable boundaries, and something can’t change into something else: man is not related to other animals, species can’t evolve into other species, life can’t come from non-life, existence can’t arise from non-existence, and so on.

    To such people, the primacy of the laws of logic seems self-evident, and anyone who doesn’t think so is irrational. To such people, the words we use to describe the things and the things themselves are ontologically linked. These metaphysical assumptions pervade the thought of people like Stephen. >>

    WJM: >> There is no way to talk about “things” unless things exist for us to talk about, and unless words mean something in context and not something else. Unless we mean to say something, and not something else. Unless concepts describe something, and not something else.

    Slightly off topic, but relevant: There is a common denominator I’ve noticed in several threads from several posters that is very interesting and, IMO, important. When talking about intelligence, concepts of reality, logic, etc., many posters here take the tack that such things are subjective to human perspective (anthropocentric concepts) that may or may not apply to other “intelligent” beings, or to other perspectives of reality. Logic, it is apparently being argued, is really nothing more than a subjective map humans anthropomorphically apply to their experiences, which may or may not be a “true” description of reality (even though for there to be a “true” description of “reality”, reality would have to be an identifiable thing, requiring the LOI to be valid in terms of its relationship to “reality”.)

    So, I’m going to coin a term: hyperskeptical anti-anthropocentrism, or being skeptical of the human perspective to the point of embracing irrationality, or HAA for short.

    HAA would be the natural extension of atheistic materialism and the heir to the Copernican Principle, where Earth, and by extension humans, are “nothing special”. Our grip on reality would be nothing more than an evolutionary trait, like scales or hair, neither “true” or “not true”, just an aid to our survival differential. In that sense, a false belief is better than a true belief if a false belief aid more in our survival differential. Logic, epistemology, ontology, sound premises – nothing more than species-centric adaptations produced by mindless interactions of molecules. We can no more know “truth” than an amoeba or a cactus; what we consider to be “true” is just a result of interacting molecules.

    Rationality, technically, is based on logic. Logic is fundamentally rooted in axioms accepted as necessary; once one dismisses the necessary validity of those axioms, they have necessarily given up rationality. They can re-define what it is to be reasonable or rational (perhaps by appealing to consensus), but when it comes to logic, they have abandoned reason.

    And so we have these claims about how we cannot expect alien intelligence to be like human intelligence when producing a symbology that corresponds to the universe, because they might “see” and consider an entirely different universe than humans do. Their logic might not be the same. They might have 4-sided triangles, and relational distances between objects represented in symbols might be something entirely different than scale of some sort. Two moons orbiting a planet might be symbolically represented as 5 objects around a centered object. Or other intelligences might not identify one thing from another at all. I’m sure that all of life could exist just fine being unable to discern dinner from rocks from the moon, or predator from prey from indigestion.

    You either believe that humans are capable of deliberately discerning true statements about the world, or you do not. If you do not, I suggest your presence in a debate forum cannot be construed as intrinsically anything more than a monkey flinging feces around. If you consider logic nothing more than an evolutionary feature that helps in our differential survival, then you necessarily consider flinging feces, killing off the young of our competitors, and consuming one’s mate after copulation equally sound “arguments” to make.

    Making an argument that logic is not necessary, or is just an anthropocentric feature that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with reality, or that some things don’t have to be logically reconciled or supported, is itself an argument defeated by the content of your argument.

    So, you can fling some feces (words) around. So what? So can everyone else. How about this view: I’m right, because I say so. If we are going to abandon logical principles where it suits us, that is as good an argument as any. >>

    We need to think about where we are heading, and what it will be like if we end up there together. (As in, are we heading towards a Kantian reductio?)

    KF

  9. 9

    This is why you can’t have a meaningful debate with an entrenched “materialist” (or physicalist, or naturalist, or whatever new phrase they employ). To protect their deep, fanatical anti-theism, anything can be sacrificed – even logic. It doesn’t matter that they saw off the very branch they sit upon because because they can simply deny that they have done so.

    You cannot argue a person out of denial.

  10. 10
    Silver Asiatic says:

    SA: Interesting thoughts, with hints on a bill of requirements for the roots of reality. Care to elaborate? KF

    PS: Reminder, I have a standing offer to guest post.

    Thanks for both of those offers, KF. Both are challenges – Especially the latter because I'd want to contribute something significant to the ID proposal … so it will take some work but I greatly appreciate the offer! Please feel free to withdraw the standing offer at any time. 🙂

    Regarding reality … as we mentioned before, we can only understand or identify reality through our reasoning process. That requires the LOI – which requires an embrace of the truth about things.

    The only way to avoid that is to propose an equivalency between unreality and reality, and also between reason and irrationality.

    Nobody argues in favor of irrationality, because in order to do that they have to use reason and it becomes embarrassing to rely on the very thing one is claiming to be unnecessary or inferior. Instead, one should offer an irrational argument in favor of irrationality. I would really enjoy seeing how that works.

    Argument Proving the Superiority of Irrationality:

    A. Rational arguments are bad because they arrive at conclusions about reality.
    B. Irrationality is superior because it does not need any validation in reality.
    C. Therefore, I am right and I win … and you will always be wrong.

    I think that proves it! 😉

    We might be able to take it farther:

    A. The purpose of things can only be found in their origin, e.g. why they came into existence.
    B. Human beings came into existence through a blind, accidental, purposeless process that did not have them in mind.
    C. Therefore, human beings have purpose. It's obvious and I will just laugh at anybody who denies it.

    Isn't that true?

    We already read several good, irrational arguments like that about skepticism but I'll just offer the same again:

    A. In order to be considered intelligent, one must skeptically question all claims about everything.
    B. Anyone who questions claims about evolutionary theory is obviously ignorant and stupid.
    C. Therefore, in order to be considered intelligent, we should never question evolutionary claims.

    This works surprisingly well!

    A. Physical matter has no moral nature (no "ought) – it just is.
    B. Everything is reducible to physical matter.
    C. You cannot derive an ought from an is.
    D. Therefore, we ought to be morally offended when someone thinks that materialism is amoral.

    It's pretty convincing. 😉

    A. Purposeless, non-rational, natural processes cannot design things because design means purpose ("by design") and requires intelligent/rational intent.
    B. Nature has the overwhelming appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
    C. Therefore, it's obvious that there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature

    I think we can all go on and on with these sorts of arguments that we see just about every day from our friendly opponents. But maybe it helps to see them in syllogistic form.

    … by now I know you're going to regret your invitation for a guest post. 🙂 I'm sorry about that.

    To even carry on a discussion about roots of reality one has to accept the rational process and that conflicts with the implications of materialism (I believe you've said this very same thing in many different ways, KF, so thanks for that).

  11. 11
    Mung says:

    SA, lol.

  12. 12
    rich says:

    can someone summarize the “Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism” bit please?

    Is it based on poll numbers or something?

    Thanks in advance.

  13. 13
    kairosfocus says:

    WJM: That’s so sad; but I fear in too many cases your assessment is spot on. However, as if one rejects rationality that is patently absurd, the absurdity can be pointed out. I guess, though, that is why it tends to be done in an opaque, lab coat clad way, such as appeal to quantum phenomena, or the like. All of which is backed up by an obvious zero concessions, strawmannise, stereotype and scapegoat policy. Quite sad. KF

  14. 14
    kairosfocus says:

    SA:

    The offer is a general one.

    I see:

    we can only understand or identify reality through our reasoning process. That requires the LOI – which requires an embrace of the truth about things.

    That’s pretty insightful. Once we recognise distinct identity, all else follows. Perhaps, that’s why we see objectors above trying to fuzz out identity, not realising that recognising fuzziness is also recognition of something distinct.

    Nobody argues in favor of irrationality, because in order to do that they have to use reason and it becomes embarrassing to rely on the very thing one is claiming to be unnecessary or inferior.

    Another sobering point. I think a common rhetorical “solution” is brazen denial, or sometoimes ignoring, or distraction. But the point is plain. So is the one that to speak or write in order to argue is to rely on the same distinctness one wishes to undermine. A real oopsie moment.

    Let’s clip and interleave:

    >> Argument Proving the Superiority of Irrationality:

    A. Rational arguments are bad because they arrive at conclusions about reality.
    B. Irrationality is superior because it does not need any validation in reality.
    C. Therefore, I am right and I win … and you will always be wrong.

    I think that proves it! ;-)>>

    1 –> Arriving at undesired conclusions about reality seems about right.

    2 –> Avoid at any cost, as can be seen in OP, where the argument against SB seems to boil down to, principles of right reason lend credibility to theistic arguments so we attack the principles via motive mongering.

    >>We might be able to take it farther:

    A. The purpose of things can only be found in their origin, e.g. why they came into existence.
    B. Human beings came into existence through a blind, accidental, purposeless process that did not have them in mind.
    C. Therefore, human beings have [no?] purpose. It’s obvious and I will just laugh at anybody who denies it.

    Isn’t that true?>>

    3 –> It seems sold that purpose has to be embedded at root, and that purpose is an aspect of agent cause.

    4 –> Unsurprisingly, causality is under attack, too.

    5 –> The lab coat clad question begging comes out in the debates over origin of FSCO/I; which I intend to take up, noticing yet another strawman distortion at TSZ, from RTH.

    6 –> Boiling down, once a blind chance + necessity search is imposed on a very large config space, resource challenges come up in trying to find islands of function. Where needle in haystack islands are natural, due to requisites of complex, specific functionality.

    7 –> And to recognise a general search space challenge does not require any detailed probability value, all that is required is to identify a supertask.

    8 –> A blind sampling challenge issue, RTH, does not require a precise probability estimate.

    >>We already read several good, irrational arguments like that about skepticism but I’ll just offer the same again:

    A. In order to be considered intelligent, one must skeptically question all claims about everything.
    B. Anyone who questions claims about evolutionary theory is obviously ignorant and stupid.
    C. Therefore, in order to be considered intelligent, we should never question evolutionary claims.

    This works surprisingly well!>>

    9 –> Works, rhetorically. I actually think we need a distinction between being “skeptical” and being duly critically aware and balanced on limitations of knowledge.

    >>A. Physical matter has no moral nature (no “ought) – it just is.
    B. Everything is reducible to physical matter.
    C. You cannot derive an ought from an is.
    D. Therefore, we ought to be morally offended when someone thinks that materialism is amoral.

    It’s pretty convincing. ;-)>>

    10 –> A sad case, and one wishes this were just a comical parody.

    >>A. Purposeless, non-rational, natural processes cannot design things because design means purpose (“by design”) and requires intelligent/rational intent.
    B. Nature has the overwhelming appearance of having been designed for a purpose.
    C. Therefore, it’s obvious that there is no evidence of intelligent design in nature>>

    11 –> Too close for comfort. The assumption is, they have a designer mimic. But, they ignore the vera causa challenge to show that capability on direct observation.

    >>I think we can all go on and on with these sorts of arguments that we see just about every day from our friendly opponents. But maybe it helps to see them in syllogistic form. >>

    Sadly, yes.

    Why not do a cleanup for a guest post. Maybe for Friday Morning Funnies?

    KF

  15. 15
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich: Please, scroll up and read the OP; you will see a live case in action, one that seems to point to an underlying motive for resistance to what is otherwise fairly obvious and well founded, that first principles of right reason come first and are indispensable, so soon as one relies on distinct symbols to speak or write, or on the distinct identity of things in the world to say know the difference between food and poison. The follow-up exchange of comments at TSZ is also taken live above. Do you need for me to elaborate the number of times theistic motivation has been projected as controlling, improperly, the reasoning of proponents of the design inference? (I recall even seeing someone trying to suggest Sir Fred Hoyle — a lifelong agnostic — was a creationist.) KF

  16. 16
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Why not do a cleanup for a guest post. Maybe for Friday Morning Funnies?

    Thanks, KF — I will consider that and see how a clean-up looks and let you know. I liked your interlinear comments also.

  17. 17
    rich says:

    Hi KF! Hope you’re well and thanks for responding.

    Before we examine the specific anecdote, I’d like to back up the bus and look at the main claim:

    “Increasingly, logic will be seen as a covert form of theism”

    So, “increasingly” has the entailment of an increase over a historic baseline. We need this, or we’re just playing rhetorical games. Once we have the historical population (hopefully large enough to help with significance) we can look at the relative change in “logic being seen as a covert form of theism” in subsequent epochs and test (ANOVA perhaps?) the statistical significance of the change. We’ll also need to declare our sampling philosophy ahead of time so not to be accused of cherry-picking. I’m sure a man of science like yourself knows this is the right and proper thing to do.

    Once we’ve established an empirical and robust framework we may judge specific cases. We may elect to use a tool such as sentiment mining on the free text, so as to avoid personal bias, but we’re a couple of steps away from this and a deceleration of “prediction fulfilled” is very premature in my opinion. Looking forward to your thoughts,

    Rich

  18. 18
    kairosfocus says:

    OK, let’s try. KF

  19. 19
    Silver Asiatic says:

    KF – should I send the guest post to your yahoo.co.uk account?

  20. 20
    kairosfocus says:

    Perfect, you know it. Do you have any pics or vids you might want to embed? KF

  21. 21
    Silver Asiatic says:

    Ok, I’ll include links for thoose. Thanks, KF.

  22. 22

    “How could one even begin to empirically validate a god, a soul, or salvation?”

    Let’s see one of them empirically validate the demonstrable truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_theorem) that there are an infinite number of prime numbers.

  23. 23
    kairosfocus says:

    Rich: The citation in the OP documents the rise of an evo mat talking point, which in our experience typically spreads in even the background of exchanges that superficially are about something else. You need to ask yourself what motivates people on “your” side to object to truths that actually are self evident; here, first principles of right reason. This is multiplied by a talking point that lies deeper, or rather a clutch of them, ranging from the lie — yes, when you spread an accusation in defiance of duties to easily accessible evidence to the contrary that’s what is going on — that design thought is “creationism in a cheap tuxedo,” to the silly sneer that theists are irrational, to the hate-driven slander that theism is delusional and child abuse or inherently murderous that is spouted by too many new atheists. The very fact that highlighting the self-evident, foundational status of first principles of reason provokes silly motive mongering speaks volumes. And, such snide talking points that have no genuine foundation on the merits prosper by just one route: drumbeat repetition multiplied by distractive tactics and willful ignoring of correction . . . the techniques of agitprop that after years we have become all too familiar with. So, no, no statistical studies are necessary. KF

Leave a Reply