Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On Why Liars Lie

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a previous post, I exposed yet another of eigenstate’s outrageous lies.  Then I asked:

The real question is what motivates him to engage in such insane denials? I have to admit that I am utterly flummoxed by it. He knows he is lying. I know he is lying. Everyone else who reads his comment knows he is lying. What in the world motivates such outrageous conduct? If I did not see it myself I would not believe it.

Commenter Charles replies:

He can’t help himself. It has become his nature. I have watched liars lie for years, and I have noted their inability to admit even the simplest of truths. I have observed their self-destructive behavior (as a consequence of losing the trust and charity essential in routine communication and cooperation) over matters both mundane and mission-critical.

This fellow suggests a mechanism for something I have suspected for years:

Dishonesty reduces applied intelligence: re-wires the brain

What I am suggesting is that, although the fundamental efficiency of neural processing is an hereditary characteristic which is robust to environmental differences and changes (short of something like destructive brain pathology – encephalitis, neurotoxin, head injury, dementia etc) – habitual dishonesty (such as is mainstream among the modern intellectual elite) will generate brain changes, and a long-lasting (although probably, eventually, reversible) pathology in applied intelligence – such that what ought to be simple and obvious inferential reasoning becomes impossible.

 

I would add impossible not only in communication with others but equally impossible when alone and merely analyzing (rationalizing) information they find disagreeable.

UPDATE:

After observing Carpathian’s hi-jinks in the comment thread to this post, Charles adds:

Carpathian demonstrates the corollary, why liars lie badly.

A consequence of chronic, pathological intellectual dishonesty is a narrowing of ones sphere of influence to other liars. A further consequence of which is the positive reinforcement from other liars that their lies are credible and compelling. But when those lies are trotted out to an informed and experienced audience, those same lies don’t pass muster and are recognized as vapid and vacuous.

 

Comments
kairosfocus:
Carpathian, when a view is shown to be self-refuting, that is a cogent reply to the case.
Is A used in the same context in both of the following statements?
#define A 1 if (A == 2) {};
Carpathian
September 22, 2015
September
09
Sep
22
22
2015
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PDT
Carpathian, when a view is shown to be self-refuting, that is a cogent reply to the case. The discredit that attaches to someone who insists on clinging to absurdity to reject foundational self-evident truths -- here distinct identity and its immediate corollaries LOI, LNC, LEM -- is a secondary effect. And, if the root problem (having chased back step by step) is that the very foundations of rational discourse are being insistently rejected by the evolutionary materialism advocates and fellow travellers, that is highly relevant to understanding the longstanding pattern of selectively hyperskeptical dismissal of the only vera causa plausible, demonstrated empirically reliable cause of say functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, FSCO/I. KFkairosfocus
September 20, 2015
September
09
Sep
20
20
2015
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
F/N: There is a gap in KH's rhetoric that needs to be explained, as I noted in the follow-up thread: ___________ >>Why is it that
a: invidious comparison of the peaceful witness of early Christians sealed with their blood because of judicial murder or riotous lynching with 9-11 terrorist hostage takers and murderers was tagged by KH "The comparison, although crass and emotional, I think is a valid one. The only difference is perspective . . . " whilst b: concerns on longstanding and sometimes trollish selective hyperskepticism and intransigence in the face of self-evident truth (as the OP notes [--> cf 157 above]) are met with "the tone in which you berate them I’d not going to do anything to convince them that you are right"?
Why is there such "friendly fire" whilst there is oh we must be willing to effectively equate peaceful martyrdom and murderous suicide terrorism? (Given the glaring disproportion in response, is this Stockholm Syndrome or the like? Or, just the notorious tactic of the "I'm on your side but endorse the other side's agenda" enemy- in- the- gates trollish tactic?) I think this calls for some explanation.>> ____________ One of the well known trollish rhetorical tactics is to mimic the power of a damaging admission against interest, by popping up in a discussion and saying I am on your side, BUT, and proceeding to undermine and oppose. When we see the sort of utter disproportion to the point of double-standard as shown above, that is a strong hint that something is wrong. KH has already had a day to respond, let us see if this more direct challenge to deal with the gap will bring forth a reasonable answer. KFkairosfocus
September 20, 2015
September
09
Sep
20
20
2015
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
LH
Sophomoric. I’ve written dozens of comments outlining my position, thinking and arguing it through. To take one sentence, cut it out of context and hold it up as a complete and total summary of my position is absurd. The tautological reading of “A=A” wasn’t on my mind when I wrote that, as I’ve explained, but as is typical for your lazy and shallow arguments, you simply ignore anything that would require more thought than you’re willing to put into the process.
Oh, please, LH. You are absolutely certain that tautologies are true affirmations, aren't you?StephenB
September 19, 2015
September
09
Sep
19
19
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
There really is no debate. That the speaker changed his position is not in question.
Of course it's in question. Are you taking the position that I haven't been arguing with you about it? Are you taking the position that the speaker himself has not been telling you that you are wrong? What's not in question is that despite the fact that both LH and myself have pointed it out to you, you still don't want to understand. I bolded want because you are obviously intelligent enough to understand so it is clearly a tactic of yours to claim that you don't . Discrediting the messenger is the strongest weapon IDists have. If evidence of biological ID was available, you would concentrate on that instead of useless character attacks like this one.Carpathian
September 19, 2015
September
09
Sep
19
19
2015
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
KH, 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 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 hen 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. KFkairosfocus
September 19, 2015
September
09
Sep
19
19
2015
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
LH:
To take one sentence, cut it out of context and hold it up as a complete and total summary of my position is absurd.
You really are quite shameless. I quote this statement from one of your comments: “I cannot therefore be logically, absolutely certain of anything—not even that A=A.” Then you suggest that the radical falliblism on display is an unfair summary of the arguments you had been making. The truth, of course (as is often the case when you speak) is exactly the opposite. Far from being a distortion of your argument, radical falliblism WAS YOUR ARGUMENT, as is easily demonstrated by several more quotes:
I think that in practice I’m perfectly safe making some assumptions, and that I can’t really do much of anything without making assumptions like “A=A.” But I don’t know how I can be infallibly certain in the abstract.
And I have no way to check whether a slice can be greater than the whole other than by testing it, which can never prove absolutely as a logical matter that the proposition is true.
I cannot therefore be logically, absolutely certain of anything—not even that A=A.
I think the trickiest question here is whether I can be certain that “I think, therefore I am.” But even there, is the fact that I cannot imagine any reason to doubt it because it’s perfectly true, or because I have an imperfect and limited mind?
I reiterate that in practice I’d never doubt the basic mathematical principles at issue. The possibility of error is a logical formality
I cannot be certain about anything other than uncertainty.
I was sloppy when I wrote “I’m perfectly comfortable agreeing…”, because that can be read as a statement that I agree that I can be absolutely certain that p/slice can’t exceed p/whole. I didn’t mean that
That doesn’t mean that I expect future physicists to upset the “A=A” cart. But what’s the objective, infallible principle dividing “A=A” from “particle=particle”
I take the formal position that one cannot be logically certain of anything without an infallible perspective from which to assess it
This presupposes, for example, that the law of identity would be broken on a human scale if it weren’t absolute. It could be violated in ways that aren’t apparent to you, and thus not absurd.
You can’t measure all cases, to see whether A is literally always A
What we’re really talking about here are whether things like “A=A” are proven concepts or axioms that we just assume are true. I think most people take the latter approach, stymied by the obvious impossibility of a human being logically proving themselves to be infallible
I’ve never doubted that A=A in the real world, and I would never expect to find (nor can I conceive of) a counter-example. But to say that I’m infallibly certain would require taking the position that I’m infallible, and I can’t do that.
[LOI, LNC and LEM] are very effective axioms. . . .we assume they are true because we cannot imagine any way in which they could be false. But to say that our failure to imagine a counterexample means there cannot be a counterexample is to arrogate to ourselves infallibility.
Now that we've dispensed with that attempted misdirection, on to your change of position. After all of the above quotes, you said:
Defining A as equal to A is defining A as equal to A; the proposition is not fallible if the only metric is its own definition.
You have explained the reasons you moved off of your radical falliblism. Fine, but the point is that you did indeed move away from radical falliblism. HeKS’s summary is perfectly apt:
It’s plain as day that first holding the position that there is absolutely nothing we can know for certain and then holding the position that there’s at least one thing we can know for certain, however supposedly trivial, constitutes a change of position.
Now you say you did not change at all. You make the absurd assertion that your present non-radical falliblism is merely a “clarification” of your prior radical falliblism. Astounding. Really, how do you live with yourself? Your antics over the last few weeks have confirmed yet again an observation I have made many times over the years. 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.Barry Arrington
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PDT
KF: "Carpathian, it is not formal definitions, it is acknowledging self evident first principles that we are concerned with..." I agree. But I can also see their point. 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.Ken Helicostomella
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
LH should be commended for simply recognizing that he had overlooked something in his initial formulation of his position. Thank you. But this reading is probably not going to be accepted here; BA needs to win the conversation. Every conversation. He will do it by banning--I mean, moderating--or by insulting or by any other method, except perhaps engaging with the ideas on the table. But points must be awarded, and awarded only to BA. Blog rules. (Speaking of which, whatever happened to Zachriel? I thought he was "in moderation," temporarily, as opposed to having been banned outright. Yet he seems not to be commenting lately.)Learned Hand
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
Sophomoric. I've written dozens of comments outlining my position, thinking and arguing it through. To take one sentence, cut it out of context and hold it up as a complete and total summary of my position is absurd. The tautological reading of "A=A" wasn't on my mind when I wrote that, as I've explained, but as is typical for your lazy and shallow arguments, you simply ignore anything that would require more thought than you're willing to put into the process. And if I may say so, you are not willing to put very much thought into any argument that is inconsistent with your beliefs. As Carpathian suggests, this is an extended effort to destroy a conversation in which you are unable to participate in any meaningful way.Learned Hand
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
@Barry #153 It's plain as day that first holding the position that there is absolutely nothing we can know for certain and then holding the position that there's at least one thing we can know for certain, however supposedly trivial, constitutes a change of position. LH should be commended for simply recognizing that he had overlooked something in his initial formulation of his position. The problem stems from the subsequent fact that everyone wants to insist that the positions are identical ... though I suppose this shouldn't surprise us coming from people who deny the necessarily self-evident truth described by the LOI.HeKS
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
Just to keep this matter in perspective, the exchange between Carpathian and myself involves whether a speaker has changed his position when he says at first that he cannot be certain about absolutely anything and then later says he can be certain about at least one thing. Carpathian says the speaker has not changed his position. I say he has change his position, i.e, he has moved from being certain of nothing to being certain of something. There really is no debate. That the speaker changed his position is not in question. The only issue is whether Carpathian will continue his insane denial indefinitely (which is my bet) or whether he will eventually give up and admit what everyone (including himself) knows. Barry Arrington
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Carpathian,
If this keeps up, debate is going to get impossible.
If you continue to insist on propositions such as "P is equal to or greater than 1" means the same thing as "P is equal to 0" then, yes, debate becomes nearly impossible. I am not actually debating you now. I am merely pointing out your insane denial as many times as you continue it. BTW, pointing to LH's insane denial to validate your own insane denial does not change the fact that you are both engaging in insane denial. Barry Arrington
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT
Carpathian, 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. KFkairosfocus
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
"Your side has a fixation on discussing logic rather than improving on your ability to use it ." I'm afraid that I must disagree with you.Ken Helicostomella
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
And if there is a whole side that is resisting such self evident first principles, we need to generally recognise that.
Knowing what the formal definitions for logic are is not a requirement for reasoning any more than a formal education in music is required in order to write songs. My daughter's logic kicked in before she started school and I never taught her anything about LOI, LNC, LEM, etc. Your side has a fixation on discussing logic rather than improving on your ability to use it .Carpathian
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
Carpathian 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. KFkairosfocus
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Which is what your ilk has spent days upon days fighting against tooth and nail.
This argument about logic is simply a distraction from the key debate, that being, did an intelligent conscious designer successfully create life in all its forms and insert them into local and global ecosystems? Your side has spent years fighting off requests from ours to show such a designer could actually exist. Every single ID argument avoids the designer(s) even though he/she/they are a necessary part of the argument. If there is no designer with the capabilities to create the complex biological configurations we see, then biological ID is highly improbable and biological ID should be abandoned as a possible answer.Carpathian
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington, Looks like I won before I started.
Learned Hand: So, in order to clarify my position on that pure, tautological level, I made the second statement above. I thought I was clarifying; BA thought I was giving him yet another way to delay advancing any serious thoughts of his own. I guess we were both right. You were right, Carpathian. BA seems bankrupt of actual ideas to support his alleged infallibility (in the non-tautological way , for the avoidance of uncertainty.) But why does that matter, if the mission is to attack the messenger? Ideas would just get in the way.
I was also right that clarification is off limits for our side in this debate. Do you notice that Learned Hand is now starting to qualify his statements beforehand? If this keeps up, debate is going to get impossible. Is that your goal?Carpathian
September 18, 2015
September
09
Sep
18
18
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Barry They are shaped for fitness not for truth, and I think they have taken Darwin's Horrid Doubt to heart..... "But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" Darwin, C. R. to Graham, William 3 July 1881 http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-13230 Since they all believe that they are the product of some monkey business its not that hard to realize they also know that monkey minds have no convictions thus they can't be certain about anything only their certainty that they are uncertain. Which of course refutes their uncertainty, but who cares the moral of the story is; You can't trust the convictions of a monkey's mind...... They get it!Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PDT
LH at 143 engages in yet more insane denial. In the first statement he said he cannot be certain about absolutely any proposition in the entire universe without a single exception. P equals 0 In the second statement he said he was certain about at least one statement: A=A is true if the only metric is its own definition. P is greater than or equal to 1. Now he says “P is greater than or equal to 1” is not a change from “P = 0”. It really is astounding. At this point people might ask why do I keep goading them into making one insane denial after another. It is a fair question. And the answer is I have a (possibly perverse) curiosity about whether there is any limit to how many times they will deny a truth in bad faith all the while knowing that everyone knows exactly what they are doing. Is there any limit to the earth they are willing to scorch? Will they go on saying the red pen is a flower pot forever? Will LH ever admit that “P is greater than or equal to 1” is not the same as “P = 0”? I have to admit that I find the spectacle simultaneously revolting and fascinating. Like a train wreck one just can't look away from.Barry Arrington
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Sophomoric. Eigenstate helped clarify this already. And I've explained several times. If you go to the comment BA is thrashing into the ground, you can read in context that I'm not distinguishing between the purely tautological use of "A=A" and the broader way BA has used these "principles of right reason" for a long time now. See, for example, his prior uses of these "self-referential truths" as applicable to the planet Jupiter and abortion. This limitation he now wants to impose was not on my mind. Later, Eigenstate helped clarify that BA had pulled his own position back into this nook and wanted to stand on "A=A" as a pure tautology. So, in order to clarify my position on that pure, tautological level, I made the second statement above. I thought I was clarifying; BA thought I was giving him yet another way to delay advancing any serious thoughts of his own. I guess we were both right. You were right, Carpathian. BA seems bankrupt of actual ideas to support his alleged infallibility (in the non-tautological way, for the avoidance of uncertainty.) But why does that matter, if the mission is to attack the messenger? Ideas would just get in the way.Learned Hand
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Is it your position that a statement in which a person says he cannot do a particular thing means the same thing as a statement in which he says he can indeed do that very thing? Yes or no?.
Carpathian:
No.
Good for you. Here is an example of the law of noncontradiction in action. LH cannot simultaneously affirm and deny a proposition. And C picked up on it. Progress. Carpathian:
Here’s a simple one for you. Do you think you’re actually winning this argument? Yes or no.
The answer is “no,” because of the tense of the verb. I am not winning. I won a long time ago. The only thing I’m trying to do is help you understand that. Let’s see if I can shed some light on it using symbols. Let “P” be the proposition “Propositions about which I am certain.” LH before:
I cannot therefore be logically, absolutely certain of anything—not even that A=A.
In this statement LH is saying that he cannot be certain of anything whatsoever. Symbolically: P equals 0 LH today:
Defining A as equal to A is defining A as equal to A; the proposition is not fallible if the only metric is its own definition.
LH is saying that he can be certain of at least one thing, to wit, the proposition A=A is true if the only metric is its own definition. LH may or may not be certain about other things, but at the very least he affirms that he is certain about that one thing, that A=A is true if the only metric is its own definition. Symbolically: P is greater than or equal to 1. The issue is whether LH changed his position about whether he could be certain about anything. “P is greater than or equal to 1” is a change from “P = 0”. Do you understand now that LH changed his position?Barry Arrington
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Andre, Every indication I've seen so far is that they don't understand it. If they did, it's hard to believe they would be trying to use the arguments against it that they are. HeKSHeKS
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Can it be that people truly don't understand the law of identity? I'm struggling to accept that they do.Andre
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
Carpathian, deflection. Tell me did you or did you not rely on distinct identities of letters and keys in order to comment. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
kairosfocus:
Carpathian, that is your key blunder, you are operating on debate tactics and who is wining/losing an exchange, that wicked art of making the worse appear the better case through rhetoric, the art of typically manipulative persuasion.
LOL!! I am pointing out that that is exactly what Barry is doing!
The real issue on the table is to access warranted credibly true conclusions and convictions, which pivots on credible facts and proper logic.
Try to convince Barry to do exactly that; i.e, focus on the issue instead of debating tactics like parsing sentences.Carpathian
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
Carpathian, that is your key blunder, you are operating on debate tactics and who is wining/losing an exchange, that wicked art of making the worse appear the better case through rhetoric, the art of typically manipulative persuasion. The real issue on the table is to access warranted credibly true conclusions and convictions, which pivots on credible facts and proper logic. Which gets us to the pivotal issue, first principles of right reason. So, do tell us, when you typed your comment, did you rely on the distinct identity of letters, keys and so forth? Patently. To do so, you were necessarily using first principles of reason such as LOI, LNC and LEM. Which are self-evident. That is, certain. Which is what your ilk has spent days upon days fighting against tooth and nail. So, we can start from that self-defeating stance at the outset, which is what leads to the sort of have the cake and eat it expectation nailed in the OP. KFkairosfocus
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:57 PM
12
12
57
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
Is it your position that a statement in which a person says he cannot do a particular thing means the same thing as a statement in which he says he can indeed do that very thing? Yes or no?.
No. Here's a simple one for you. Do you think you're actually winning this argument? Yes or no.Carpathian
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
12:21 PM
12
12
21
PM
PDT
Carpathian, The question is very simple. Allow me to repeat it: Is it your position that a statement in which a person says he cannot do a particular thing means the same thing as a statement in which he says he can indeed do that very thing? Yes or no?Barry Arrington
September 17, 2015
September
09
Sep
17
17
2015
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
1 2 3 6

Leave a Reply