If I Made This Stuff Up No One Would Believe Me

_{Barry Arrington

November 26, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

Mark Frank: “PVH is surely right that it is always possible you are wrong about an objective belief.”

Barry: “Mark, is it possible that that statement is wrong?”

Mark Frank: “Yes”

Comments

#39 WJM I am being a bit mean not providing more explanation. I think what is confusing you is that it is implausible that someone would sincerely and simultaneously assert both: I am uncertain that X and X because asserting that X is a shorthand for expressing a rather higher level of certainty that X is true. However, both of these are obviously true: A) People often assert that X without being absolutely certain X is true. B) Someone may be uncertain that X is true and yet it is the case that X is true.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
01:28 PM
1
01
28
PM
PDT}

#39 WJM I thought you might find it a bit too hard. I am uncertain that all snakes are carnivores. and All snakes are carnivores. Are clearly compatible. Not only are they compatible but for many people they both are true.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT}

WJM Do you acceot that nothing pertaining to that discussion arises from either: 1 There exists a proposition that is certain, and 2 There exists a proposition that is uncertain? Does not the non-refuting statement "all statements declaring a moral injunction are uncertain" serve the same role in the discussion. Was not this thread started with an exercise in snarky and hypocritical pedantry?Tony Lloyd_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

TL, “there are self-evident moral truths” is established by the existence of self-evident moral truths. Others attempt to find room for denial of those self-evident, certain truths by diving into the hyperskeptical, self-refuting waters of "all assertions can be in error", and thus there can be no true "certainty". This thread was begun by Mr. Arrington exposing just such an attempt, using hyperskepticism in order to avoid admission of certainty in the moral arena.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

MF attempts to make the case that these claims: 1. It is always the case that if X, then Y and 2. I am uncertain that it is always the case that if X, then Y are not incompatible. I dont' think further comment here is required.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT}

WJM @ 6 Shoud be the quote of the week. :)CannuckianYankee_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT}

#13 WJM
“All” + “Cannot” + “Always” = “no specific level of certainty”. The madness continues. Perhaps MF would like to direct us to where “specific levels of certainty” are enumerated and defined specifically, and where the words “All”, “Cannot”, and “Always” reside on that chart?
I will give it a try. It requires a certain precision of thinking which I suspect you are not used to and you may well call it sophistry – but that’s OK. Basically “certain” is a description of degree of belief. It doesn’t even have to be justified although it is kind of perverse to be certain for no good reason. “all”, “cannot” and “always” are words that describe the frequency that things happen in rather broad terms. The two are orthogonal. So I can have any degree of belief from “it just might be true” through to “I am absolutely certain” about any of these propositions: A) It is always the case that X B) It is sometimes the case that X C) It is possible that X D) It is never the case that X So for example I might think that - it just might be true that it is always the case that X - it is absolutely certain that it is sometimes the case that X What maybe confusing you is that A, B, C and D confer different degrees of justification on the proposition X. So that if I am certain that A is true then it would be strange not to be certain that X is true. But X is not the same as A. Does that help?Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT}

That, WJM, is why people are so worried about "certainty". Other people leap from "there is certainty" to "[substantive claim] is certain.". No proposition other than "there exists a certain proposition" is established as certain by the premise "there exists a certain propositiion". Near enough nothing is established by "there exists a certain proposition": "there are moral truths" is not established, still less "there are self-evident moral truths". As it has no bearing on moral discourse it's best to ignore it when discussing morality. The trouble is that many commit the howler of using a claim about the existence of a class of things that are x to "prove" that their pet candidate is a member. "There exists a certain proposition" is irelevant to the discussion you mention. Some will then deliberately misinterpret a statement (I don't believe the US/UK English explanation) to genreate an "error" to sneeringly cover up their howler.Tony Lloyd_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT}

Accepting that there is certainty, what is certain? Is it anything interesting?
Apparently, you're unfamiliar with the arguments that led to this thread. PHV employed self-contradicting hyperskepticism to avoid agreeing that there are moral truths one can be certain are self-evidently true, such as "it is wrong to torture infants for personal pleasure". Inserting that claim of doubt prevents PHV and MF (in their minds, apparently) from having to account for the existence of a certain, self-evidently true moral statement that they hold applicable and binding on others, even if others disagree. Difficult to do when one is a moral subjectivist. IOW, "I'm denying all certainty, because if I admit certainty exists, this is clearly a case of it, but the rational consequence of that admission would undermine my materialist/atheist beliefs, so .... nyaaahhh!!! Certainty certainly doesn't exist!!! nyaaahh!!!"William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT}

Hi WJM Accepting that there is certainty, what is certain? Is it anything interesting? So far we seem to have established: 1. Something is certain 2. Something is uncertain (as error exists) I suppose there is an argument that those two statements are certain. But they're not very exciting: what non-trivial propositions follow from them? Interesting excercise in logic, but not a lot else. So, given a certain reading of Mark's statement, he's not quite totally precise. It's a bit like saying that the odds of "heads" with a toss of a fair coin are 1/2. There is a neglible though non-zero chance of the coin landing, and staying, on it's edge. Let's say the odds are actually 1/(2 - 10^-200). What do we say to someone who quotes odds of 1/(2 - 10^-200) as 1/2? Nothing. What would we think of someone who reacted by saying "Wow! How stupid! You couldn't make it up!"?Tony Lloyd_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
09:46 AM
9
09
46
AM
PDT}

William, you're priceless! You write comment 32 and elswhere describe someone else as "bloviating". :roll:Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

I think the real question here is not whether one can cling to hyperskeptical doubt about all assertions, even to self-contradiction, but rather what is the reason to do so? Is it reasonable to deny certainty that "error exists"? Is it rational to deny certainty about 2+2=4? What is the purpose behind denying one's certainty about the principle of identity, or of non-contradiction? Why is it so important to atheists/materialists to deny certainty that they will embrace the absurd just to insert uncertainty in a proposition that is patently certain? IMO, the reason so many materialists/atheists insist that they are not "certain" of "anything" (apparently, not even certain that they are not certain of anything), is out of an overpowering, irrational fear of certainty (which is probably a psychological equivalent of "authority", which so many despise). Many of these people are anti-theists, and more specifically anti-Christians, and often refer to the "religious" atrocities that have been committed (arguendo) out of a certainty of correctness about "objective beliefs" (beliefs about things held to be objective commodities, such as morality). Perhaps they believe, deep down, that since such certainty can lead to error and bad outcomes, it's best to simply never be certain (or, at least, never formally admit it - it's always best to have some leeway for denial, whether others find it plausible or not). I think this irrational, extreme rebellion against certainty is another case of throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water by atheist/materialists.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

He just asserts that all objective statements (which would include this one) cannot be certain. He doesn’t attribute any specific level of certainty to it.
"All" + "Cannot" + "Always" = "no specific level of certainty". The madness continues. Perhaps MF would like to direct us to where "specific levels of certainty" are enumerated and defined specifically, and where the words "All", "Cannot", and "Always" reside on that chart?William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

Oh I'm quite clear on "surely" (and I still think Barry Addington owes us a defence of "no one"). If you reword the claim to be clearly "certain" though there is an interesting paradox. On one reading it seems to conjure up certainty merely by making a statement about certainty: not very unsatisfactory. On the other hand at least one belief is absolutely certain. But which one? We're not certain! So we're not certain that a certain statement is certain, which seems to mean that it's not certain. It's going to need to be a long course in modal logic.Tony Lloyd_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT}

Alan you are right! If I deny this and believe that the two nations are united in a common language then I have to accept that WJM and I are talking the same language - which is clearly absurd.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT}

Didn't this get discussed somewhere before? The Myth of Absolute CertaintyAlan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Surely you jest, Mark? It's self-evident that there are at least two nations divided by a common language. Obviously, nay, objectively true. Surely?Alan Fox_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

#24 WJM But PVH doesn't say: "I’m certain this assertion cannot be certain." He just asserts that all objective statements (which would include this one) cannot be certain. He doesn't attribute any specific level of certainty to it.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

#23 Eric thanks - to be honest it is easy to be cheerful when the accusation is so clearly wrong.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Luckily, as discussed, I am not claiming certainty.
PHV is, though. You are claiming that a self-contradicting statement is "surely right".
The word “surely” appears to be ambiguous and I apologise for any misunderstandings. It is simply a kind of emphasis and is normally pronounced as if the sentence were a question inviting refutation. Gpuccio understood this and I thought Tony did in #8 – but I am bit confused by your #19.
Because PHV cannot be right. It is absolutely certain that the assertion contradicts itself. "I'm certain this assertion cannot be certain" is the very definition of self-refuting. Self-refuting statements are examples of something you can be certain are not true because they are logically absurd.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT}

Mark Frank: Thanks for being a good sport about all this.Eric Anderson_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT}

#19 and #20 Luckily, as discussed, I am not claiming certainty. The word "surely" appears to be ambiguous and I apologise for any misunderstandings. It is simply a kind of emphasis and is normally pronounced as if the sentence were a question inviting refutation. Gpuccio understood this and I thought Tony did in #8 - but I am bit confused by your #19.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

And MF says that "surely" PHV "must" be right in PHV's certainty that assertions cannot be certain.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
08:00 AM
8
08
00
AM
PDT}

Tony Lloyd, Thank you for that succinct summation. PHV is employing certainty in an assertion that assertions cannot be certain.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

@Mark Frank #17 Wouldn't a claim of certainty be false if it could be false? EG "It is 100% certain that Everton will beat Stoke on Saturday"Tony Lloyd_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

Oh - another typo It does not follow from the fact that the assertion could be false that it is false i.e. “that there are some objective beliefs that it is not possible that you are wrong about”. Gpuccio do us a favour - explain WJM where he is going wrong. He will take it from you but never from me.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

WJM #15
If one takes the assertion “It is always possible you are wrong about an objective belief” as true, then one must hold that this assertion itself could be false, that there are some objective beliefs that it is not possible that you are wrong about. This directly contradicts the claim that it is “always” possible, because if the statement is wrong, then it is not always possible.
Your first sentence is a fallacy. It does not follow from the fact that the assertion could be false that is false i.e. “that there are some objective beliefs that it is not possible that you are wrong about”. I recommend a short course in modal logic.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

So the amazement is that Mark Frank misused the word “surely” as “surely” admits of no doubt.
One of the points I often make is that these people claim to hold views that they cannot live by. If they wish anyone to begin to believe that they are not just blowing hot air, why not start phrasing your comments as if you actually believe what you are saying? If there is doubt, you cannot say always. If there is reasonable room for error, then you cannot say you are sure. What's really going on is that PHV and MF use the term "doubt" not because they actually, reasonably doubt the assertion or statement (which is why they use the terms "always" and "surely"), like "it is always wrong to torture infants for personal pleasure", but use the word "doubt" for ideological cover, as a self-induced smokescreen that hides from themselves the absurdity of their stated views. Does any sane person really doubt that the above moral statement is true? Of course not. But they must barricade themselves behind hyperskepticism to keep logic from destroying their beliefs. They use the foolish mantra "there's no way to absolutely know!" to hide from what is beyond rational doubt. The other problem is that MF is agreeing with a statement that is clearly self-refuting.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

An assertion refutes itself if assuming it is true leads to the conclusion it is false. If A is true then all you can deduce is that it is possible that A is wrong. It does not follow that A is wrong. So no refutation.
Yes, it does. If one takes the assertion "It is always possible you are wrong about an objective belief" as true, then one must hold that this assertion itself could be false, that there are some objective beliefs that it is not possible that you are wrong about. This directly contradicts the claim that it is "always" possible, because if the statement is wrong, then it is not always possible. Good grief.William J Murray_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT}

I have managed to confuse things with a typo. If I quite like something it means I only like it a bit. If Barry quite likes it then he thinks its the bee’s knees.Mark Frank_{November 27, 2013
November
11
Nov
27
27
2013
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply