In the Why thread, commenter KH has challenged:
KH, 157:>>What you see as “self evident first principles”, others may not see it that way. And, with respect, the tone in which you berate them I’d not going to do anything to convince them that you are right.>>
Now, the issue is of course both more complex than that and more simple than that.
On tone, it is easy to pose as on one side of an issue as a moderate then spend one’s rhetorical effort undermining that side. Given the history of abuse, targetting and trollery that regularly invades UD, that unfortunately has to be reckoned with; and in a wider context of addressing very serious and destructive agendas haunting our civilisation. But of course “tone” is always a challenge and one we must all ponder; in pondering such, we must not allow that to distract us from addressing the threat we face. You may not like how I cry out at the top of my voice while the play is in progress in a crowded theatre, fire and arsonists . . . but if there are indeed arsonists setting fires then that needs to be tackled as issue no 1.
I don’t know if it was this at 151 that drew KH’s remarks on tone:
>> it is not formal definitions, it is acknowledging self evident first principles that we
are concerned with, given that there has been a challenge all along that on tracing back is now at worldview root level. Remember even the concept that when A is accepted, it raises the issue why leading to B, C etc in a chain of warrant came in for challenge. The conclusion is that we have a major breakdown of basics of logic, reasoning, warrant, evidence and coherence here to address. It did not have to come to this, if there were not patent intransigence all along the line. But as of now, the conclusion I am reaching is that there is a widespread failure at basic rationality, to the point that it is a further factor adding to my increasingly pessimistic view of the prospects of our civilisation. This sort of thing is how classical civilisation broke down — I even note that in my son’s community college course, he is now doing “Communication Studies,” not general studies with a focus on solid reasoning — which I taught years ago. And yes, I take rationality that seriously: civilisation- foundational. But then I am a Christian intellectual fully cognizant of Him who is Communicative Rationality Himself and Wisdom Himself. Yes, part of this turning from root rationality is a reflection and consequence of the overgrown teen ager rebellion directed at God.>>
Or perhaps this at 148 directed to C, who had spoken of a “debate” though I had already pointed out the problem of debate i/l/o Jefferson’s summary: that wicked art that makes the worse appear the better case, being aided therein by rhetoric . . . the art of persuasion as opposed to proof:
>>You would love this to be a debate, wouldn’t you; something decided on rhetorical manipulation.
Ain’t gonna be so.
The only reliable basis for views, conclusions and systems of thought is fact and logic relative to those facts.
It is precisely because in thread after thread something was wrong that it was chased back to worldview roots and chains of warrant. Lo and behold, it came out that the problem starts with the first principles of right reason.
The bottomline here is that if you are unwilling to acknowledge the issue of distinct identity and its direct corollaries, LOI, LNC and LEM, there is no basis for reasoned discussion informed by fact and logic towards a sound or at least empirically reliable and coherent solution.
And if there is a whole side that is resisting such self evident first principles, we need to generally recognise that.
For it means that side, by directly resisting, or enabling or studiously refusing to correct the blunders, is abandoning reason.
Including the reason involved in using distinct letters and keys to type messages in this thread, which is a case of the world partition and consequent LOI, LNC, LEM at work.
Until your ilk accepts that here is a basis for reasoning, there is no argument to be had, just manipulation and selective hyperskepticism backed up by nasty power games to take institutional science and science education captive to a priori evolutionary materialist scientism as a lab coat clad ideology.
FYI, science pivots on inductive reasoning, especially abduction, and requires deductive reasoning especially in the mathematical aspects. Sound science education should acknowledge this.
On that, the evidence is actually pretty solid, that we have natural and artificial causes, which often may be reliably distinguished on tested signs such as functionally specific complex organisation and associated information. But so long as dialectic is being displaced by rhetoric and agit prop, no progress will be feasible.
So, what is left to us is to state our position and put it up.
Soon enough, there will be summaries for the interested person, but no way will there be an open season for the usual points scoring selective hyperskepticism, institutional imposition and the like.
Then, we can discuss, on the merits.
With the logic up-front, centre.>>
But I believe both of these are fair comment in context of what has been going on.
For a very long time now.
I would therefore quietly suggest that KH consider that the smell of smoke and the group clustering around that bright orange glow off in the corner are in fact a case in point of civilisational arsonists at work. Though of course, perhaps KH believes the real issue is my tone rather than the arsonists at work and the fire that is being set.
Having noted that in hopes of rebalancing tone and priorities, here is my response to KH on substance, in light of a fictional twelve year old girl, Sandy sitting with the two of us in a conversation:
KF, 159: >> . . . self-evident first principles are just that. Once one is in a position to understand — for most relevant things that is the 12 y o intelligent child — then one readily sees that something T is so, and is necessarily so on pain of clinging to absurdities on attempted denial.
Take, yardstick SET no 1, Josiah Royce’s Error exists, E.
A 12 yo will be instantly familiar with red X’s on sums and grades in school. So, s/he will understand the truth and will be familiar with it. No sane person will doubt its truth, it is at least morally certain, so beyond reasonable doubt.
Now sit such a child down and introduce the denial ~E. In effect, it is an error to claim error exists. Immediately it will be obvious that ~E is an error, so E is undeniably, self-evidently so.
I would point out that this shows that truth exists by direct example of being true, it shows that truth can be warranted as so, i.e. knowledge exists, and that our experience can often show us what is true. However, we also make errors, and should have the humility to use certain points of knowledge of foundational character, as plumb-lines and yardsticks to test other claimed truths, in order to think soundly and soberly. Reckoning that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling — I would actually introduce the concept, fallen — and too often ill-willed and stubborn.
Do you think such a child would be on the way to becoming a willfully blind, hate-driven potentially violent terrorist or the like? {I add, I here allude to the sort of talking point that says or implies things like: evolutionary materialist scientism flies men to the moon, religion flies planes full of hostages into buildings, as though that captures the essence of ethical issues on worldviews.}
I suggest, just the opposite.
Likewise, I would set a bright red ball on a table in front of the child, say Sandy.
Tag it A.
Explain that the world can be seen as partitioned i/l/o the distinct identity, A:
W = {A|~A}
A, patently is itself, sitting there on the table, and cannot be at the same time in the same sense ~A. And anything x in the world will be A or else ~A, not both and not neither. Where the ball is just a handy example.
You may want to say, these are the key first principles of right reason pioneered by Aristotle 2300+ years past:
I: A thing A is itself [(A => A) = 1, or A = A], LOI
II: no thing x in W can be both A and ~A, (A AND ~A) = 0, LNC
III: Any x in W will be A or else ~A, not both or neither, (A X-OR ~A) = 1. LEM.
Point out that just to use letters and words or computer keys or have a distinct tune etc to think, communicate and operate in community, one necessarily relies on these things. Paul of Tarsus pointed that out 2,000 years ago in 1 Cor 14.
Point out how just trying to deny such or cast doubt on it becomes futile as it must rely on what it disputes, just to communicate.
I am highly confident Sandy will instantly realise the foundational, self-evident nature of such principles.
And given the abuse of Q-mech etc to try to undermine respect for such laws, I would call up Einstein’s office chalk board as he left it and point out how, in order to do Q-mech, physicists and chemists have to rely on the laws just to reason and do the mathematics, or to make and write down observations or to see if they support or overturn predictions of various theories.
I would introduce the idea of sawing off the branch on which we all are sitting as a profoundly antisocial act.
Indeed, I would bring it up as a case of behaviour that profits by parasiting off the fact that most people most of the time do not act like that, and ask what would happen to societies in which such principles and their implications are routinely disregarded.
Collapse.
Then, I would introduce the Categorical Imperative, emphasising the forms that others should be treated as ends in themselves and the test on what happens if the behaviour spreads. I would connect the Golden Rule. I would then point out moral self evident truths as a key category, and link the foundations of modern liberty and democracy.
Do you think Sandy would be inclined to imagine that self evidence is unimportant or a mere matter of opinion?
I think she would know very differently, and would understand how people can be indoctrinated into clinging to politically correct absurdities, to the detriment of society and maybe their own souls.
And, I am sure Sandy would agree with BA’s maxim as stated just now:
If a man tells you he cannot know the truth, you can be sure he will probably act as if he has no obligation to tell the truth.
As the Greeks used to say — now, I cite a favourite saying of my Mom — a word to the wise is sufficient.>>
I trust that this makes the point clearly enough and in a tone that is not too outre. I think we have a fire, and some arsonists to deal with in a crowded theatre. What about you, why? END