Compatible? Not Really.

_{Barry Arrington

December 20, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

One of our commenters says he has solved the determinism problem by becoming a “compatibilist.” Briefly, a compatibilist is someone who tries to avoid the logic of his premises by resorting to semantic dodges about the meaning of free will. The compatibilist says that free will is compatible with determinism (thus the name). Isn’t that kinda like saying my existence is compatible with my nonexistence? Yes, it is. But the compatibilist avoids this problem by re-defining “free will.” The compatibilist says that “free will” does not mean “the liberty to choose;” instead, says he, it means “the absence of coercion.” In other words, he says that so long as a choice is not coerced it is completely free even if it is utterly determined.

The problem with this approach is easy to see – just as we don’t get to win a game by changing the rules to suit us in the middle of the game, we don’t get to impose meaning on words to suit the conclusion we want to reach. The entire issue in the determinism/free will debate is whether we have liberty to choose. Suppose I ask my friend Joe the following question: “Do I have free will, if by “free will” I mean ‘the liberty to choose?’” It is obviously no answer to that question to say, “Yes, you have free will if by free will you mean, “the absence of coercion.” I really do want to explore the question about whether I have the liberty to choose, and Joe’s answer is not helpful. You might even say Joe dodged the question. Thus, in the end, the compatibilist answers a question no one has asked.

“Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1953, aphorism 109

Comments

"I appreciate KF’s contributions, and the effort invested in them. They are a nice contrast to the one-or-two line sniping that some commenters are wont to offer." Me too. Your right, there is always the scroll bar. Vividvividbleau_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT}

I appreciate KF's contributions, and the effort invested in them. They are a nice contrast to the one-or-two line sniping that some commenters are wont to offer. Personally have no issues using the little scroll bar on the right side of my browser window if a comment is too long. It's a great way to exercise my right not to read a comment, if time or interest forbids it. Merry Christmas KF, and to everyone, in celebration of the birth of our Savior.Apollos_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

I would appreciate if KF could become an official UD contributor. It would be much easier to rather skip complete threads than to identify the ends of his interspersed comments. BTW, did WMAD ever react to any of KF's musings?sparc_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT}

"My idea of charity is to unmask materialism’s pretenses and expose it for what it is—-illogical nonsense......Bad ideas deserve no mercy at all, and I show them no mercy" As someone once said "Ideas are more powefull than armies" I say that then armies impose those ideas. Materialism has profound consequences and I cannot agree with you more that it is a bad idea and needs to be examined with no mercy. "Determinism means no free will; free will means not determined" I would state it this way . Materialistism means the will is "matter determined". Free will means "self determined". For the materialist self and matter are interchangeable so lets call it what it is, a deception. Vividvividbleau_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
11:35 AM
11
11
35
AM
PDT}

Mark, for the record, I always try the kindler gentler approach at the beginning of the thread and raise the bar just a little bit (not a lot) at the end for one simple reason---- materialists simply will not address issues and I don’t want to dance with them indefinitely. That is when they go into their "I was offended" mode, and then, suddenly, I become the issue. In any case, you are confusing mild ridicule with vitriol. In fact, vitriol is not even allowed on this site. Vitriol is what I get when materialists say that I am “a slimy liar for Jesus.” I hope that the difference is clear. Now back to the two issues: [a] Determinism means no free will; free will means not determined. Each word was conceived to dramatize the difference between other. Translation--words mean things even though materialists manipulate them to have it both ways. Compatibilism (of the materialist variety [not the theological variety]) deftly and quietly changes “determined” to mean “heavily influenced by” and changes free will to mean “free from coercion,” and then, surprise, surprise, suddenly the two can be reconciled. Well, under the circumstances, of course they can. In effect, the materialist has surreptitiously maintained the word “determinism” while changing is meaning and justifying it with the word, “soft determinism.” [b] Materialists do indeed believe that “things just happened.” For them, something came from nothing and, after coming from nothing, it morphed into you and me.” Like it or not that, that it is your argument. There is no design, no meaning, no objective morality, and no purpose for life. Some materialists, not all, want to put a human face on that inhuman doctrine and the only way they can do it is to manipulate the language and posit that somehow, without help, semi-noble things arose from matter while, nevertheless, being grounded in matter. It goes by the name of “epiphenomenalism.” Frankly, I prefer the honesty of flat out materialism, which, while dodging the issue of its irrational nature, at least makes no bones about its brutality At any rate, just to show you what a sport I am, I will be a paragon of gentleness, at least for the remainder of this thread. Onlookers will be shocked. Besides, I can use the practice.StephenB_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT}

In point of fact you are the irresponsible party unwilling to muzzle yourself for the sake of almost everyone else who has the common courtesy to not spam the comments here with such long winded bloviation. Get over yourself.
seconded.sparc_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
09:30 AM
9
09
30
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus Your comments far, far exceed the average length here. You claim that "serious and responsible" responses require that length. By implication you are saying that people who make responses in tens or hundreds of words instead of thousands are not serious and not responsible. In point of fact you are the irresponsible party unwilling to muzzle yourself for the sake of almost everyone else who has the common courtesy to not spam the comments here with such long winded bloviation. Get over yourself.DaveScot_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT}

Merry Christmas to all! Mark, you really "go to some effort to be polite" when you comment, and we really appreciate that. You are also, IMO, definitely openminded, as far as you can be without changing your personal beliefs (which is the most we can ask of anyone). I personally appreciate that too. And be sure that for me a passionate, vigorous and fair intellectual confrontation is in no way a hindrance to personal esteem, indeed the contrary. And, by the way, you have even introduced me to the glories of compatibilism :-) So, many special and friendly Christmas wishes to you.gpuccio_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT}

Merry Christmas, KF. And you too, Marktribune7_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT}

Trib: You are very, aptly and sadly right:
SMARMY: Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous. [Amh Dict]
Let's add here, vitriolic:
Bitterly scathing; caustic: vitriolic criticism.
Mark, on a point of following up on my point 1: who, given the definitions above, is -- objectively -- being smarmy and who is -- objectively -- being vitriolic? (Cf Antievo in their linked discussion thread [no 4 above] and UD commenters in this thread . . . ) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT}

PS: Mark, A: There is a reason an undergrad term paper is of length 2,000 - 5,000 words, and why College grad level theses start at around 40,000. I think it is fair to say that a 200 word synopsis is not at all in the same class, where one expects and has to properly address seriously hostile scrutiny [cf Antievo, Panda's Thumb and the like, if you don't know what I am saying], and brief citations will invariably be pounced on as "quote mining" and more. But also, we can take this in steps. There's no rush . . . So, why not let's start with the issue of the term you introduced: vitriol? It's point no 1 in my note just above, and is addressed in 208 words. (If you like imagine ther is a horizontal rule just after that point . . . ) So, why not look at this one first, then move on from there? _________ [I even put in the HR . . . ;-) ) B: More broadly, the sort of length just adverted to is what it typically takes to even at a first level seriously and responsibly address an important matter at the level of the guild of peers, or even in a semi-popular but serious forum as at UD. (A typical garden variety 1 hour college lecture is 11 pp long, for similar reasons.) And, we are here dealing with the core matters that have driven a massive polarising wedge across our whole civlisation. _______________ C: Not to mention, just for a moment, let us indulge a philosophical thought experiment that I hope and believe will help us put things in proportion:
THOT EXPT: Imagine what happens on a certain Day if you turn out to be wrong in your reductive materialism, and you are asked before a certain Bar, to account for how you handled the opportunity to think through the issues on your worldview and lifestyle. (After all a certain classical and authoritative Christian writer states in his most important writing, that living by even the quite limited the truth one knows or should know and associated persistence in the right are key factors that would count on such a day . . .) "It wasn't written out in 200 words or less . . ." Do you think such would wash at such a bar? [In short, is the limit of 200 words realistic for responsibly addressing such matters?]
______________ D: As well, I am not just writing for you, but for the many onlookers who almost never post here. They, too, need to hear a responsible answer. And, many times such have communicated with me directly, expressing thanks for taking time to take up matters point by point and speak to the evidence and issues. (It helps to view my point- by- point comments and always linked note, longer comments by SB and similar ones by GP or others as back-up to the briefer remarks by others and even by myself. Indeed, I am actually officially "retired" from regular commenting at UD. I re-entered the fray only because of a wave of issues that came to a head recently; on the evidence, tied to a thrust from Antievo. I actually shortly intend to return to my lurking.) _______________ E: Also, again, there's no rush. So, why not let's take on the points one at a time [they are numbered for that very reason], and we can discuss? +++++++++++ I will monitor UD, especially this thread. Merry Christmas GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Mark --Atheists are at their funniest etc. is not personal. “Clive belongs to that smarmy subclass of believers is rather personaltribune7_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus Your comment is 1663 words long! That's about the length of an undergraduate essay. To read an essay properly is at least an hour's work. I am sorry but if you want intelligent responses to what you write you will have to find a way to be more concise. Try setting yourself a limit of say 200 words. You will be amazed at how much better your comments are.Mark Frank_{December 24, 2008
December
12
Dec
24
24
2008
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT}

Mark First, Happy Christmas to you and all others here at UD (and even Antievo lurkers . . . )! I think several observations, however, are in order. Please do not let them spoil your Christmas: 1] "Vitriol" Have you ever seen someone whose face has been deliberately burned by conc H2SO4? (Some schoolgirls in Afghanistan were recently in the headlines, having been so attacked by Taliban terrorists for the "crime" of going to school. That, sir, is the primary reference of "vitriol." [And by the way, Islamist radicals are not to be equated to most Muslims, much less the Bible-believing traditionalist Christians who will be celebrating the birth of the Son of Man at the centre of history tomorrow.] I would therefore ask you to pause before again using such an outlandishly exaggerated, strawmannish, demonising term to describe even the strongest language used by ID supporters above, much less the very mild remarks by SB in 150 above. Especially, since it -- post Expelled -- should be notoriously public knowledge that it is the Darwinist establishment and prominent advocates who have repeatedly indulged in the rhetoric of strawmannish demonising caricature ["ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked"], and have gone on to besmirch reputations, bust careers and operate under false colour of public policy and even of law to censor education. In short, your sadly rather disproportionate remarks above bear all the signs of improper [im-]moral equivalency designed to blame the victim. Please, do better than this. 2] I, Mark Frank, my opinions, and even the thoughts expressed in this comment, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. I have to infer from this that you have signed on to the most reductionist forms of evolutionary materialism, as an account for mind. That brings you up against the basic reductio ad absurdum problem that any such monistic, deterministic, reductionistic philosophy runs into. That is, you face an issue of self-referential incoherence. As I summarise in my always linked, App 7:
. . . [evolutionary] materialism [a worldview that often likes to wear the mantle of "science"] . . . argues that the cosmos is the product of chance interactions of matter and energy, within the constraint of the laws of nature. Therefore, all phenomena in the universe, without residue, are determined by the working of purposeless laws acting on material objects, under the direct or indirect control of chance. But human thought, clearly a phenomenon in the universe, must now fit into this picture. Thus, what we subjectively experience as "thoughts" and "conclusions" can only be understood materialistically as unintended by-products of the natural forces which cause and control the electro-chemical events going on in neural networks in our brains. (These forces are viewed as ultimately physical, but are taken to be partly mediated through a complex pattern of genetic inheritance ["nature"] and psycho-social conditioning ["nurture"], within the framework of human culture [i.e. socio-cultural conditioning and resulting/associated relativism].) Therefore, if materialism is true, the "thoughts" we have and the "conclusions" we reach, without residue, are produced and controlled by forces that are irrelevant to purpose, truth, or validity. Of course, the conclusions of such arguments may still happen to be true, by lucky coincidence — but we have no rational grounds for relying on the “reasoning” that has led us to feel that we have “proved” them. And, if our materialist friends then say: “But, we can always apply scientific tests, through observation, experiment and measurement,” then we must note that to demonstrate that such tests provide empirical support to their theories requires the use of the very process of reasoning which they have discredited! Thus, evolutionary materialism reduces reason itself to the status of illusion. But, immediately, that includes “Materialism.” For instance, Marxists commonly deride opponents for their “bourgeois class conditioning” — but what of the effect of their own class origins? Freudians frequently dismiss qualms about their loosening of moral restraints by alluding to the impact of strict potty training on their “up-tight” critics — but doesn’t this cut both ways? And, should we not simply ask a Behaviourist whether s/he is simply another operantly conditioned rat trapped in the cosmic maze? In the end, materialism is based on self-defeating logic . . . .
Similarly, if you think like Rib did, that natural selection gives a magical out, Plantinga has aptly warned:
. . . evolution is interested (so to speak) only in adaptive behavior, not in true belief. Natural selection doesn’t care what you believe; it is interested only in how you behave. It selects for certain kinds of behavior, those that enhance fitness, which is a measure of the chances that one’s genes are widely represented in the next and subsequent generations . . . But then the fact that we have evolved guarantees at most that we behave in certain ways–ways that contribute to our (or our ancestors’) surviving and reproducing in the environment in which we have developed . . . . there are many belief-desire combinations that will lead to the adaptive action; in many of these combinations, the beliefs are false.
Indeed, not even highly reliable, empirically supportexd theories and models of science are proved true beyond dispute or correction -- as the very existence of scientific revolutions -- such as the one starting at the end of C19, which transformed classical into modern physics -- reminds us. Also, as Reppert has elaborated from C S Lewis:
. . let us suppose that brain state A, which is token identical to the thought that all men are mortal, and brain state B, which is token identical to the thought that Socrates is a man, together cause the belief that Socrates is mortal. It isn’t enough for rational inference that these events be those beliefs, it is also necessary that the causal transaction be in virtue of the content of those thoughts. . . . In rational inference, as Lewis puts it, one thought causes another thought not by being, but by being seen to be, the ground for it. But causal transactions in the brain occur in virtue of the brain’s being in a particular type of state that is relevant to physical causal transactions.
Unless you have a cogent answer to that [and to the like], your position has defeated itself. And, sadly, your following words underscore rather than answer the problem . . . 3] Those cells/molecules combine to make me a conscious, mental creature who at least some of the time has the freedom to think, intend, decide, speak, act and even write based on the logic and evidence of the situation. This is a claim that, at best, boils down to an assertion that when certain combimations of matter happen under the forces of chance and necessity, they somethow emerge into and end up as conscious, reasoning creatures. This brings you up against the issue in the Welcome to Wales example at the start of Appendix 7:
. . . suppose you were in a train and saw [outside the window] rocks you believe were pushed there by chance + necessity only [i.e., say, "by extremely good luck we have seen the rocks fall and take up this shape for ourselves . . . "], spelling out: WELCOME TO WALES. Would you believe the apparent message, why?
a --> It is no accident that most evo mat advocates who have engaged this have tried to turn it into something other than it is: a physically possible, thought experiment designed to be an experimentim crucis. b --> So, let me underscore: We know, immediately, that chance + necessity, acting on a pile of rocks on a hillside, can make them roll down the hillside and take up an arbitrary conformation. There thus is no in-principle reason to reject them taking up the shape: "WELCOME TO WALES" any more than any other configuration. (Of course,such an outcome is so improbable that it shows up the problem of claiming that lucky noise can give rise to messages within the search resources of our observed cosmos.) c --> We thus can see that apparent messages that trace to non-rational determining forces and circumstances, i.e. chance + necessity only, are not credible as a source of truth, and are further so vastly improbable that we instinctively see that mind is a better explanation for message than chance + necessity. d --> this is because of our massive direct experience on the observed source of functionally specific, complex information. And, I can confidently assert that there are no credible exceptions to the statement that where we see FSCI involving information storage capacity beyond 500 - 1,000 bits, and directly know thew source; it is invariably the product of mind. e --> In short, you and your fellow materialists are asserting he physically possible but probabilistically incredible, because of a prior commitment to a worldview, not on the evidence in hand.And worse, too many of you then indulge in the sort of censorship of the alternative as Lewontin so plainly described in 1997:
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
Were I you, sir, I would pause and think again. Regards at Christmas GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

#153, #154 You are probably right that I was being oversensitive. It is just that I go to some effort to be polite when I comment and I am always a bit surprised when I get something different in response.Mark Frank_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT}

-----"As I said above - the vitriol flows both ways." Sorry, but "it just happened," is a reasonable summation of your philosophy. Others here are more congenial, and I admire them for their manifest expressions of charity. My idea of charity is to unmask materialism's pretenses and expose it for what it is----illogical nonsense. I am attacking that philosophy, not the people who happen to be living at a time when it is running rampant. I have said it before, and I will say it again. People are precious and they deserve to be treated with respect and mercy. Bad ideas deserve no mercy at all, and I show them no mercy.StephenB_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

Mark: I really think you should be more objective: it is not the same quantity, and quality, of vitriol. There may be excesses here, but it would be truly unfair to compare them to those on many darwinist blogs. Even the examples you quote are not so nasty after all... And another difference is that here we discuss our ideas, alone or with those who want to discuss. But certain darwinist blogs seem to exist only to unilaterally insult us. In a sense, I should feel flattered by that. But in another sense, it just seems sad.gpuccio_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Atheists are at their funniest when they enter into a discussion about origins or the design of life. On the one hand, they bristle at the allegedly simplistic notion that “God did it.” On the other hand, they believe it to be the last word in intellectual sophistication to assert that “it just happened.” As I said above - the vitriol flows both ways.Mark Frank_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT}

dgosse: thank you for your interesting thoughts. Just a few more notes from me. I am in no way a subjectivist, except in a particular sense. I do believe in subjective truth, but exactly in the opposite sense of how it is usually intended. I mean "subjective" as a merit, not as a limit. I believe there is a personal, experiential component in our maps of reality which makes them sacred and deep, and intimately ours. In other words, rational knowledge is important and precious, and must be regarded as fundamental, but it must not remain alone and merely "objective", in the sense of a set of outer ideas, more or less correct: it has to be interiorized by each one of us, and to become "our" understanding, "our" intuition, "our" faith. That personal component is very important in the transmission of our ideas to others. When I say that I do not love authority (in cognitive matters, I obviously respect it in general) I mean that I don't love authority coming only from an outer role. But the authority coming from inner conviction, and from humble personal assurance, is really important in transmitting our opinions with significance. So, while we should always respect teachers for their difficult and important role, still the role in itself is not sufficient to ensure cognitive authority; but if a teacher has personal inner authority, that will be recognized and felt by the student. And that kind of authority is never abusive, is never compulsive, because it is based on respect of the other's independence and value. Finally, while I believe in the deep value of good cognitions, I amnot a fun of the adjective "absolute" for them. The reason is simple: I believe that rational cognitions, however good, are maps, and never the territory. That is in no way intended as a limit. There is nothing more precious than good cognitions, and nothing more dangerous than bad cognitions. But for me, they are anyway maps. And whoever has been lost must know how useful it is to own a good map...gpuccio_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT}

----"I, Mark Frank, my opinions, and even the thoughts expressed in this comment, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. -----"Those cells/molecules combine to make me a conscious, mental creature who at least some of the time has the freedom to think, intend, decide, speak, act and even write based on the logic and evidence of the situation." Atheists are at their funniest when they enter into a discussion about origins or the design of life. On the one hand, they bristle at the allegedly simplistic notion that "God did it." On the other hand, they believe it to be the last word in intellectual sophistication to assert that "it just happened." Whoever said that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist certainly spoke words of wisdom. Its "true believers" have been known to take a word like "determinism," which, by definition, means no free will, and declare it as compatible with free will.StephenB_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

Mark--Those cells/molecules combine to make me a conscious, mental creature who at least some of the time has the freedom to think, intend, decide, speak, act and even write based on the logic and evidence of the situation. You just had to say that, didn't you? :-)tribune7_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

dgosse--I think (hyper-skepticism/relativism) is one of those hidden assumptions that so firmly underpins every other teaching that it goes unsaid, but appears everywhere. I agree and until you start looking for it, you never see it.tribune7_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

#143 I, Mark Frank, my opinions, and even the thoughts expressed in this comment, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. Those cells/molecules combine to make me a conscious, mental creature who at least some of the time has the freedom to think, intend, decide, speak, act and even write based on the logic and evidence of the situation.Mark Frank_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

#142 I have no doubt that GP at 21 represents a lot of reading and thinking. So do my comments and no doubt many others. However, when requested, he kindly precised the same in GP 31 and that seemed to capture all the essential features. Maybe it is my age - but I simply can't digest a long comment without printing it out and marking it up like I would an essay. I don't have time to do this except in very exceptional cases.Mark Frank_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT}

Hi gpuccio I didn't really think you were of that mindset, but I relish the opportunity to pontificate on the subject of "truth" since it helps me to reconsider my own thoughts on the subject and to hone my arguments. You wrote; "What I mean is that I don’t want to “convince” anybody by authority, like the authority which could be considered implicit in the fact that I am the “teacher”. If anybody wants to be convinced, that must be the result of his personal evaluation of what I, and others, may say, and of his private and free assessment and choice." I came out of the hyper-sceptical, truth-is-relative, worldview and, looking back, I was convinced that my beliefs were "absolutely" true, not because I had evaluated their content, but because I had been informed that I was qualified to judge their veracity by my own subjective standards. So, with feet firmly planted in the shifting sands of relativism it is absolutely true that my capacity to evaluate the "truth content" of my various (and often conflicting) beliefs was virtually nil. The funny thing is, I don't remember being taught that truth is subjective and relative. I think it is one of those hidden assumptions that so firmly underpins every other teaching that it goes unsaid, but appears everywhere. Looking back I realize that the hidden assumptions are the most influential, they are never challenged or evaluated on their own merits because they are almost never consciously examined. You wrote; "What I mean is that I don’t want to “convince” anybody by authority, like the authority which could be considered implicit in the fact that I am the “teacher”." I have, at times, been tempted to blame the parents and teachers, to whose tender mercies I was committed, for the deficiencies in my upbringing, however, time and age have informed me that they too suffer from the same deficiencie as I. I can hardly blame thme for failing to pass on to me that which they never possessed in the first place. For more than a century there have been several influential "authories" that have gained predominance in education under the guise of questioning authority (by which they mean all tradition sources of knowledge) so that they might aggressively push their own utopian ideology. A key part of their strategy is the rejection of received authority (traditional sources of knowledge) so that they may assert their own authority without reference to traditional concepts of truth or evidence. I recently read to my mother,(she is an MA Psychology with a background in education), a passage from Margaret Mead that asserted (paraphrase) "that parents and educators should avoid presenting truth claims to children, but should instead present ideas and let them determine for themselves the truth or falsity of the ideas." Her response was that Mead's advice was sounded good and she agreed with it. The difficulty arises, to my way of thinking, when we ask, "How does the child determine the truth or falsity of the ideas presented?" In my own case I was presented with a great number of ideas, from an equally large number of source, each of which asserted varying claims to the truth of their ideas, but I was nver, ever, taught any method of evaluating truth claims. The underlying assumption seems to have been that I would somehow know which are true and which are false, or that it was perfectly appropriate for me to make up my own truth. So I am now firmly in the camp which claims that there are "truths" that can be known to varying degrees of certitude and that we humans are capable of discovering them. So I now challenge any statement that I think implies subjectivity to assertions of truth. Any implication that truth is subjective is, at root, self-referentially incoherent. ---------------------------------- "Scorn in plenty has been poured out upon the mediaeval passion for hair-splitting; but when we look at the shameless abuse made, in print and on the platform, of controversial expressions with shifting and ambiguous connotations, we may feel it in our hearts to wish that every reader and hearer had been so defensively armored by his education as to be able to cry: "Distinguo." For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armor was never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left them at the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and the radio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure them from the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know what the words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edge or fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions instead of being the masters of them in their intellects. We who were scandalized in 1940 when men were sent to fight armored tanks with rifles, are not scandalized when young men and women are sent into the world to fight massed propaganda with a smattering of "subjects"; and when whole classes and whole nations become hypnotized by the arts of the spell binder, we have the impudence to be astonished. We dole out lip-service to the importance of education--lip- service and, just occasionally, a little grant of money; we postpone the school-leaving age, and plan to build bigger and better schools; the teachers slave conscientiously in and out of school hours; and yet, as I believe, all this devoted effort is largely frustrated, because we have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence can only make a botched and piecemeal job of it." Dorothy Sayers"The Lost Tools of Learning", http://www.cambridgestudycenter.com/artilces/Sayers1.htmdgosse_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT}

About compatiblism, I haven't had the chance to read all the comments so my comment might have already been stated. It seems that Barry didn't like the "absence of coercion" answer, but it is a legitimate one. He states in his article, "....” I really do want to explore the question about whether I have the liberty to choose..." and I think he answers his own question by using the word "liberty". Does one have the "liberty" to choose? If there is no coercion, then yes, he has liberty. Webster's defines "liberty" as "Freedom or release from slavery, imprisonment, captivity, or any other form of arbitrary control." That's "absence of coercion."DaRook_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT}

PS, on your substantial point, I note the exchange between Crick and Johnson, from app 7 my online note:
k] . . . something is very wrong with Sir Francis Crick's remark in his 1994 The Astonishing Hypothesis, to the effect that: "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules . . . l] Philip Johnson duly corrected him by asking whether he would be willing to preface his own writings thusly: "I, Francis Crick, my opinions and my science, and even the thoughts expressed in this book, consist of nothing more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules." [Reason in the Balance, 1995.] m] In short, as Prof Johnson then went on to say: “[t]he plausibility of materialistic determinism requires that an implicit exception be made for the theorist.” n] Thus, unless evident "fact no 1" -- that we are conscious, mental creatures who at least some of the time have freedom to think, intend, decide, speak, act and even write based on the logic and evidence of the situation -- is true, the project of rationality itself is at an end. That is, self-referential absurdity is the dagger pointing to the heart of any such evolutionary materialistic determinism as seeks to explain "all" -- including mind -- by "nothing but" natural forces acting on matter and energy, in light of chance boundary conditions. (This is as opposed to restricted, truly scientific, explanations that explain [i] natural regularities by reference to [a] underlying mechanical necessity, and explain [ii] highly contingent situations by reference to [b] chance and/or [c] intelligent action. We then distinguish the two by identifying and applying reliable signs of intelligence; similar to what obtains in statistical hypothesis testing and in control-treatment experiment designs and related factor analysis.)
I hope that helps you see the gap we see in what you are saying. GEM of TKI PS: 3 posts . . .kairosfocus_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Okay Back on mains, pardon the cutoff above. On "length." When I see a comment like GP at 21, I know that thousands of pages of reading and years of reflection and dialogue lie behind it. I am therefore plain out grateful for such a -- relatively speaking -- succinct but responsibly mature, substantial and quite insightful (even, wise) summary on such a serious and consequential matter; available for the mere price of reading it; especially form someone who is struggling with a second language to do that. (But then I am not here for debate-games and witty put-downs, but dialogue towards mutual up-building.) G'day again Enjoy the Advent Season GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Mark You are right on the general point, that there is a polarisation on both sides, that sometimes tips over into incivility. The evo mat side hat said, i must note that this is not tu quoquo. Thas been consistently extremely aggressive and contemptus, starting from international level leaders. Dawkins, et al. We need to move to dialogue. And, in a context where there is two facedness, after it has been corrected, the h word is relevant. g'day GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Gpuccio and Kairosfocus The flow of vitriol is pretty strong in both directions (although I notice both of you are consistently polite) – not least from Barry and Denyse. Here is a recent example from Barry. My comment There is no contradiction in supposing that consciousness is a key factor in ethics and also that it is the consequence of electro-chemical activity of the brain. Why do you see the two as incompatible? Barry’s reply Neither Mike nor Mark seem to understand the point of the post. The post is not about the nature of consciousness. It is about the hypocrisy of trying to have it both ways — saying it means nothing and that it means everthing at the same time. Mike and Mark should move along. Those of you capable of grasping the basic point of the post should feel free to post comments. I struggle to find a single post of Denyse that is not insulting and aggressive. I am all for cutting all abuse – but let the leaders set a good role model. Kairosfocus You also write: Nor, that others and the undersigned have addressed the issues and concerns surrounding evo mat based determinism on mind, reasoning and moral responsibility in both significant details and with at least a modicum of sober and informed reflection; e.g GP at 21 and SB at 56 and 112, or VJT at 62 and 85. Some of these comments are incredibly long and there are lots of them. There is no way anyone can respond to everything and have a life. My biggest plea is for comments that make just one or two points as concisely as possible. Even this one is too long.Mark Frank_{December 23, 2008
December
12
Dec
23
23
2008
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply