Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

What if its True?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Warning:  This post is intended for those who have an open mind regarding the design hypothesis.  If your mind is clamped so tightly shut that you are unable to even consider alternatives to your received dogma, it is probably better for you to just move along to the echo chamber of your choice.

 Today, for the sake of argument only, let us make two assumptions:

 1.  First, let us assume that the design hypothesis is correct, i.e., that living things appear to be designed for a purpose because they were in fact designed for a purpose.

 2.  Second, let us assume that the design hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis, which means that ID proponents are not engaged in a scientific endeavor, or, as our opponents so often say, “ID is not science.”

From these assumptions, the following conclusion follows:  If the design hypothesis is correct and at the same time the design hypothesis may not be advanced as a valid scientific hypothesis, then the structure of science prohibits it from discovering the truth about the origin of living things, and no matter how long and hard researchers operating within the confines of the scientific method work, they will forever fail to find the truth about the matter.

Now let us set all assumptions aside.  Where does this leave us?  No one can know with absolute certainty that the design hypothesis is false.  It follows from the absence of absolute knowledge, that each person should be willing to accept at least the possibility that the design hypothesis is correct, however remote that possibility might seem to him.  Once a person makes that concession, as every honest person must, the game is up.  The question is no longer whether ID is science or non-science.  The question is whether the search for the truth of the matter about the natural world should be structurally biased against a possibly true hypothesis.  When the question is put this way, most people correctly conclude that we should not place ideological blinkers on when we set out to search for truth.  Therefore, even if it is true that ID is not science (and I am not saying that it is), it follows that this is a problem not with ID, but with science.  And if the problem is with science, this means that the way we conceive of the scientific enterprise should be changed.  In other words, if our search for truth excludes a possibly true answer, then we should re-conceive our search for truth.

Comments
Indeed you did!! I'm a very sloow learner... :-)tgpeeler
August 18, 2010
August
08
Aug
18
18
2010
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
MF "Now the words fail to mean anything. Language has stopped functioning. There is no situation which it can be describing. This is what I mean when I say the law is not so much wrong as meaningless." MF in the statement above uses the LNC in order to say the LNC is meaningless. However if the LNC is meaningless his argument is meaningless. If his argument is meaningless...oh well you all get the point. tgp "With that unhappy thought I give up." I tred to warn you :) You cant have a rational discussion with one who has abandoned rationality. On the other hand since every argument put forth by MF was meaningless MF has failed miserably in defending his position. I guess you can say that MF has not given one REASON to accept anything he has to say. Vividvividbleau
August 17, 2010
August
08
Aug
17
17
2010
07:58 PM
7
07
58
PM
PDT
mf @280 "“There is a cooker in the kitchen” and the next moment “There is no cooker in the kitchen” Are they failing to apply the law of non-contradiction?" Here's how the LNC works, My Friend. There cannot both be and not be a cooker in the kitchen at the same time and in the same way. So one of the claims is true and the other is false. This isn't that hard. Some freshman philosophy class really messed with your head, I fear. With that unhappy thought I give up.tgpeeler
August 17, 2010
August
08
Aug
17
17
2010
07:38 PM
7
07
38
PM
PDT
Onlookers: Above, MF continues to implicitly use the validity of the first principles of right reason, even as he tries to dispute or dismiss their foundational undeniability. Self-reference . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 17, 2010
August
08
Aug
17
17
2010
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
tgpeeler @279 markf @ 276 “We generally take spatio-temporal continuity as the most important criterion for physical objects.” Yes. So tell me where mathematics is located spatio-temporally. Or the laws of physics? I don't understand your point. I only said that spatio-temporal continuity was a criterion for identity for physical objects. Abstractions such as maths and law have different types of criteria. “What would it be like to fail to apply the law of non-contradiction?” I’m not sure you aren’t joking but I’ll play along. Hmmm. What WOULD it be like to fail to apply the LNC?? Oh, I know, when a materialist professes materialism on the one hand – when it suits him, and yet acknowledges the existence of mathematics or the laws of physics or the laws of reason on the other hand, that’s it. That’s what it looks like. It is of course controversial as to whether mathematics is incompatible with materialism. So rather than get into another discussion why not keep it simple. Suppose someone says at one moment: "There is a cooker in the kitchen" and the next moment "There is no cooker in the kitchen" Are they failing to apply the law of non-contradiction? Well they might just have changed their mind or be suffering from severe amnesia. Distressing but not I think a failure to apply the law. But suppose you push them and say something like: "Either there is a cooker in the kitchen or there isn't - make up your mind" Now they might respond by explaining that there is something in the kitchen that has some of the characteristics of a cooker and some that are not e.g. it is an old cooker that could not possibly be used for cooking. But suppose that is not the situation and they reassure us that it is literally the case that there is a cooker and there is not. Now the words fail to mean anything. Language has stopped functioning. There is no situation which it can be describing. This is what I mean when I say the law is not so much wrong as meaningless. Here’s another one. Even as you type words denying the laws of logic you are relying on those laws for your words to mean anything. Every time you speak or write and deny the laws of logic you are violating the LNC because to communicate is to USE THE LAWS OF LOGIC. It’s a pretty easy system once you get the hang of it. Seems hard for some though. Don’t know why, exactly. Mystery I was asking what it means not to apply the laws of logic. You respond by giving examples when I must be applying them (although I don't see how). Mystery!markf
August 17, 2010
August
08
Aug
17
17
2010
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
markf @ 276 "We generally take spatio-temporal continuity as the most important criterion for physical objects." Yes. So tell me where mathematics is located spatio-temporally. Or the laws of physics? "What would it be like to fail to apply the law of non-contradiction?" I'm not sure you aren't joking but I'll play along. Hmmm. What WOULD it be like to fail to apply the LNC?? Oh, I know, when a materialist professes materialism on the one hand - when it suits him, and yet acknowledges the existence of mathematics or the laws of physics or the laws of reason on the other hand, that's it. That's what it looks like. Well maybe not the laws of reason. I take that back. Never seen one acknowledge those yet. No, really. Here's another one. Even as you type words denying the laws of logic you are relying on those laws for your words to mean anything. Every time you speak or write and deny the laws of logic you are violating the LNC because to communicate is to USE THE LAWS OF LOGIC. It's a pretty easy system once you get the hang of it. Seems hard for some though. Don't know why, exactly. Mystery.tgpeeler
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT
F/N: In modern symbolic Boolean Logic there are 17 base axioms, some of which are by no means obvious, e.g. the De Morgan Law that is ever so useful to convert things to clusters of fast-switching NAND or NOR gates. (In electronics, NAND, NOT and NOR are electronically simpler and faster -- one amplifier stage -- than AND, OR, NOT and X-OR. As well NAND and NOR with cross coupled feedback is the foundation of the flipflop, which allows us to create synchronous circuits to count, store and much more. If you dismiss the axioms as mere tautologies, you are despising he foundations of the PC technology you are using.) But, the classic three laws of thought are obviously where the confusions arise and where we are not just analytically true but self-evidently true. (We can show the tautology on a truth table for all, but to get to the level where such a TT is meaningful is not at all a case of the obvious. And, in constructing the TT we are using the classical three laws all through.) Going beyond this, we see the reason why there is that notorious unreasonable efficacy of mathematics in science and practical life. Namely: where it is right, mathematics is about reality and the logical structure of reality. So, when we start right and deduce a conclusion, however subtly, providing our steps are valid, the conclusion will be true. Even, astonishingly true. One semi-famous case was where the mathematics of Young's double slit interference experiment implied that at the centre of the shadow of a small sphere [under relevant conditions], there should be a tiny spot of light. This was raised as a challenge. Then, on testing, lo and behold, there was the little dot of light.kairosfocus
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
05:41 AM
5
05
41
AM
PDT
MF: It is not just categorisation, we are dealing with identity, the binary nature of IS/IS NOT -- no middle ground on this once we have a definable collection -- and non-contradiction. In CY's example, the distinction that drives protest crying is Mommy/Not-Mommy, plus the preference for mommy. Symbolising, using A for the relevant proposition (and NOT implying this symbolism means I am declaring certain "empty" tautologies . . . those who say things like that should be condemned never to use a calculator or a computer or a digital cell phone):
Identity: Mommy is Mommy, not someone else: [A => A] = 1. Non-contradiction: "This IS Not-Mommy" is not going to be true when "This IS Mommy" is true: [A and NOT-A] = 0. Excluded middle: there is not an alternative to This is Mommy or else this is not-Mommy: [A OR NOT-A] = 1. [NB: Identity may endure through change; and where change is material, specifying the point of time can resolve ambiguity. Contradictions are distinct from conflicts: “not-white” (as opposed to “black”) is the true contradiction of “white.” Thirdly, white/ not-white is not at all the same as “white”/ “black” – any shade of grey, green or red will do: so, the excluded middle does not force us into “two-value thinking” in the rhetorically dismissive sense.]
Or, citing Aristotle in metaphysics 1011b: ____________________ >> That the most certain of all beliefs is that opposite statements are not both true at the same time [i.e. LNC], and what follows for those who maintain that they are true, and why these thinkers maintain this, may be regarded as adequately stated. And since the contradiction of a statement cannot be true at the same time of the same thing, it is obvious that contraries cannot apply at the same time to the same thing [LNC] . . . . Nor indeed can there be any intermediate between contrary statements, but of one thing we must either assert or deny one thing, whatever it may be [excluded middle]. This will be plain if we first define truth and falsehood. To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true [defines truth]; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false. But neither what is nor what is not is said not to be or to be. Further, an intermediate between contraries will be intermediate either as grey is between black and white, or as "neither man nor horse" is between man and horse. [anticipates Zahedian continuum logic] >> ____________________ The basic laws of thought are laws of reality before ever they were formalised. And, the stability of identity in the same context,the distinction between what is and what is not, the necessary falsity of asserting that a thing both is and is not in the same sense, and the failure of an alternative to being or non-being are laws of reality, not just rules of thought on certain schemes. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
It has everything to do with it, because we know by it that one thing is not another. Categorization is done through reason. When we categorize, we are essentially saying (for example) bears are not platapus’, and eagles are not flies. We do this because we distinguish, and as KF pointed out earlier from a line from Sesame St., “one of these things is not like the other.” We are not merely categorizing for no purpose, but we are categorizing to distinguish one object from the other, with the recognition that one object is not the other We are in danger of confusing questions of identity with questions of categorisation. There is an interesting debate to be had about what links two phenomena so that we regard them as the same object. What are the criteria for "being the same". The fact they share many of the same categories/features will help but is not conclusive. We generally take spatio-temporal continuity as the most important criterion for physical objects. To stop this confusing the issue consider weather conditions. We learn to categorise the weather into sunny, rainy etc. but I don't think we bother ourselves too much about the identity of weather conditions. Even simple single-celled animals are able to categorise in this sense e.g. travel towards light or away. Are they also applying the law of non-contradiction? Are they rational creatures? What would it be like to fail to apply the law of non-contradiction? It is not just a failure to categorise our perceptions. Reputably Eskimos can recognise many more categories of snow than most people. Presumably that doesn't constitute a failure to apply the law of non-contradiction to snow.markf
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
"Well no – it was acquired empirical knowledge. No amount of logic alone will produce this conclusion. Nor is it 100% certain to be true – one day we may have the technology to avoid it." I think what you're not understanding is that logic is required to assimilate knowledge - even empirical knowledge. We may use such reason incorrectly, but we still use it. Nash's observation was true for his particular situation. He knew through reason that people age. Whether this is not true in future times may require an adjustment to the assumption that people age, but it doesn't require an adjustment to how he reasons. It would require a new assimilation of knowledge using his reason. Let's assume for argument's sake that in the future we have learned how to stop the aging process, and another guy; let's call him Nash2. Nash2 has hallucinations of a little girl talking to him. For all his knowledge, she is as real as you or me, yet she is an illusion. Nash2 would not be able to use his observation that people in general age to escape the illusion. But he could appeal to other experiences, such as maybe the girl never changes her clothes, and she never goes to school, and she never talks to anyone else but Nash2. He could use his experience with other little girls, and surmise that no other girls are like her. Other girls either change their clothing, or go to school, or talk to others besides himself. You could come up with other examples if you reject these, but no matter what examples you use, he would still have to appeal to a particular distinction, which would determine that the hallucination is not like what is real, in order to escape the illusion. I agree with you that logic alone can't do this, but neither does observation alone. We require a combination of our experiences and observation with the laws of reason to make determinations of what is real and what is illusory. The particulars may not always be the same, but the methods, which allow us to come to correct conclusions are always an appeal to reason. We are really in an elementary stage here. Even babies appeal to laws of reason when they reject a person who is not their mother to hold and comfort them. They've made the determination Based on their experience with Mommy that this other person is not Mommy. They've also made the determination that they prefer Mommy to others. This requires that they know the difference between Mommy and not Mommy. So it's a very basic part of human reasoning.CannuckianYankee
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
"Well no – it was acquired empirical knowledge. No amount of logic alone will produce this conclusion. Nor is it 100% certain to be true – one day we may have the technology to avoid it." I don't think you were paying attention to what I said. He knows that there's a distinction between what is real and what is illusion. This distinction is in essence, "one thing is not the other." That is using the law of non-contradiction. Real things age, illusions do not; in this particular situation. Also, this may be a fact only in reference to the one situation, and may not necessarily be true for all similar situations. In this particular situation, Nash recognized that a girl that he sees and senses is an illusion. This is not to say that he would conclude that all girls whom he sees and senses are also illusions. He knows that in this particular case it is so, because of his long-term experience with this illusion, and also with his long-term experience with real girls who grow up and age. He's distinguishing that one thing is not the other. "Suppose it is one person who sometimes has one face and sometimes another? Or a mask? My built-in tendency to allocate my perceptions to patterns may deceive me. Two things may appear to be different at different times when they are the same and vice versa. What has the law of non-contradiction contributed?" While this is an excellent point, it serves to illustrate my position more than yours. Without the law of non-contradiction, we would not be able to make the determination if the person is wearing his/her real face or a mask, because we have not made the logical determination that masks are not real faces. We have not determined that one thing is not the other.CannuckianYankee
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
"We place things into categories – woman, human, animal etc. That’s something people do. What role is the law of non-contradiction playing in this activity?" It has everything to do with it, because we know by it that one thing is not another. Categorization is done through reason. When we categorize, we are essentially saying (for example) bears are not platapus', and eagles are not flies. We do this because we distinguish, and as KF pointed out earlier from a line from Sesame St., "one of these things is not like the other." We are not merely categorizing for no purpose, but we are categorizing to distinguish one object from the other, with the recognition that one object is not the other.CannuckianYankee
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
CY #269 Sorry - I didn't do justice to your second paragraph. What strikes me here is that even if we reason that Jennifer and Samantha are both women, and so are the same, we still appeal to the law of non-contradiction. We do this by determining what are the features, which distinguish a woman from what is not a woman. Samantha and John are not the same because one is a woman, and one is a man. But both are human, so we can still surmise that they are the same. We are now left with using the law of non-contradiction in distinguishing a human from a non-human; again, using the law of non-contradiction. We place things into categories - woman, human, animal etc. That's something people do. What role is the law of non-contradiction playing in this activity?markf
August 16, 2010
August
08
Aug
16
16
2010
12:12 AM
12
12
12
AM
PDT
CY #268 and #269 Right reason told him that real people age. Well no - it was acquired empirical knowledge. No amount of logic alone will produce this conclusion. Nor is it 100% certain to be true - one day we may have the technology to avoid it. A particular face represents Jennifer. We know that by seeing Jennifer’s face, she is not Samantha, and by seeing Samantha’s face, she is not Jennifer. If we did not appeal to the law of non-contradiction, we wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between Jennifer and Samantha. Suppose it is one person who sometimes has one face and sometimes another? Or a mask? My built-in tendency to allocate my perceptions to patterns may deceive me. Two things may appear to be different at different times when they are the same and vice versa. What has the law of non-contradiction contributed?markf
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT
StephenB @ 259 :-)tgpeeler
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
"(a)Interpret sensory information by, for example, picking out faces and giving them names" Mark, We place names to faces precisely because we trust in the law of non-contradiction. Let me give you an example of this: A particular face represents Jennifer. We know that by seeing Jennifer's face, she is not Samantha, and by seeing Samantha's face, she is not Jennifer. If we did not appeal to the law of non-contradiction, we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Jennifer and Samantha. What strikes me here is that even if we reason that Jennifer and Samantha are both women, and so are the same, we still appeal to the law of non-contradiction. We do this by determining what are the features, which distinguish a woman from what is not a woman. Samantha and John are not the same because one is a woman, and one is a man. But both are human, so we can still surmise that they are the same. We are now left with using the law of non-contradiction in distinguishing a human from a non-human; again, using the law of non-contradiction. No matter how you look at it, observation and categorization requires an appeal to the laws of reason; whether you acknowledge such laws or not.CannuckianYankee
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
"In fact, our knowledge comes both from the intellectual faculty and the sense faculty–a formulation called “realism.” It is in this fashion that we can distinguish between our hallucinations, our perceptions, and reality." I'm reminded here of a scene from the movie "A Beautiful Mind," (which as someone with experience in mental health, presented some inaccuracies). Notwithstanding, this scene illustrates how a man experiencing hallucinations is able to differentiate what is real from what is illusory. In the scene, Nash (played by Russell Crowe), the main character sees the young girl of his hallucination, which he has just surmised, has been a part of his collective experience for several years, and in conclusion, he ascertains that she "never ages." This knowledge allows him to surmise that she is not a part of reality, but is in fact an hallucination. If his rationality came only from his senses, he would not have been able to come to this conclusion. His senses told him that she is real. It was a combination of the senses and his appeal to right reason, which allowed him to come to the correct conclusion. Right reason told him that real people age. The passage of time requires that a young girl will eventually be a young woman, and then an older woman. While this is observational and experiential, it is also founded on principles of reason. Even if a collective of the same or similar experiences occurs, without reason as our guide, we cannot presume that what typically occurs as the result of similar causes, will likely occur again. We could accept that while people generally age according to our experience and observation, an example of someone not aging, could in fact negate our observations and experience. What is interesting here is that Nash was using his reason even with regard to believing the hallucination. He concluded at one time that what he was seeing was real, because he could sense it. This required his reasoning, however faulty. But when he was able to use his reasoning based on other observations in his experience, he was able to see the difference. But it wasn't his observation alone that allowed him to come to this conclusion. It was his reasoning when faced with conflicting observations, which allowed this. He knew that the observations were conflicting, based on rules of reason.CannuckianYankee
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
MF: Pardon, but a few notes. We both know that to make the above post, you used the relevant three laws all the way. Every time you relied on a stable identity, every time you asserted something was the case, and every time that you implied that denial is the alternative to assertion. Yes, we can play with empty sets [or propose variants on Lord Russell's barber paradox, which is why sets are now seen as definable collections . . . ], and end up in modified squares of opposition and we can discuss Zahedian cases (useful in controls . . . when precisely is one hot, warm or cold: we can do a weighted sum blending properties of each to trigger crisp control actions) but even to discuss such cases is riddled with the implicit assumptions of the relevant principles. Those who (especially in recent decades) expended foot-tons of intellectual energy, forests of trees and rivers of ink to make it seem that that is dubious, only succeeded in showing that hey are implicitly assuming what they wish to doubt. Like that fellow who asked was it Socrates to prove that logic was necessary in proof. Soc [or whoever] pointed out that to prove required -- logic. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
#265 Stephenb I started to respond to your post bit by bit - but realised this would only lead to trivial disagreements and misunderstandings. I will try a different tack. I believe there is a quite a lot we have in common. Like you (I think) I hold that rational creatures: Learn about the world through their senses but also have some processes and assumptions built-in to their mind (I am sure we differ about how they got there!). So in that sense they learn through a combination of intellect and perception. For example, normally functioning humans: (a)Interpret sensory information by, for example, picking out faces and giving them names (b) Have some built-in beliefs/assumptions e.g. I am fairly sure that we are born assuming that anything that looks like a person also experiences the world in a similar way to us - we don't deduce this. Both of these are part of being rational. Neither of them are 100% reliable. (a) is more like a process than knowledge. (b) could be called built in knowledge. It is an assumption that turns out to be right (pending androids). Where we differ big-time is in the role of "rules of reason". Take the Aristotelean candidates that Vivid suggested: a] A thing is what it is (the law of identity); [b] A thing cannot at once be and not-be (the law of non-contradiction); [c] A thing cannot neither be nor not-be (the law of the excluded middle The trouble here is not so much that I doubt them but I wonder what they mean. Philosophers have argued about this for centuries. If an irrational creature is defined as a creature that does not conform to them how does it behave? They don't seem to add to my concept of rationality because I can't understand what they add.markf
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
02:23 PM
2
02
23
PM
PDT
---"Part of rationality is believing what you see, hear etc. -I only believe other people’s perceptions to the degree that I believe what they report. This is an important thread in the concept of rationality." So, what you meant to say was that rationality consists, in large part, in believing one's one's own perceptions. That means of course a person can be rational if he believes his hallucinations. Indeed, by your philosophy, a hallucination is indistinguishable from a perception. You do know that, don't you? ----"A key part of the enlightenment was moving from coming to conclusions about the world by pure thought to observation. Someone who refuses to believe their eyes is well on the way to being irrational." You are right to a point. However, the knowledge arrived at by your senses tells only part of the story. The other part comes from the intellect, which interprets the knowledge provided by the senses. The error of rationalism [NOT RATIONALITY] is to affirm knowledge gained by the mind and deny knowledge gained by sense experience; the error of empiricism is to affirm knowledge gained by sense experience and deny knowledge gained through the intellect. In fact, our knowledge comes both from the intellectual faculty and the sense faculty--a formulation called "realism." It is in this fashion that we can distinguish between our hallucinations, our perceptions, and reality. It is precisely for this reason that evidence provided by the senses must be interpreted through the rules of right reason provided by the intellect. Our sense experience tells us only that a planet is moving. It is through both our sense experience and our intellect that we can know that it orbits a star. The enlightenment fell into the opposite errors of rationalism and empiricism, ignoring the realistic epistemology that informs true knowledge. If I were to meet you in person, for example, I would know you through the particulars provided by the sense faculty [that which distinguishes you from all other humans (height, weight, hair color, features, etc)] and through the universal provided by the intellectual faculty [that which we all have in common (our humanity etc.)] Further, the enlightenment fell into the most deadly error of all, the destructive impulse to believe that we cannot know anything about reality. Nothing could be more devastating to reason, and nothing could be more false. We can, and do, know reality, not PERFECTLY, but RELIABLY, through our sense knowledge and our intellect. To know from one faculty and not not from the other is not to have complete knowledge. Indeed, the rules of right reason constitute the intellectual mediating quality that helps us interpret the meaning and nature of that which we sense. If I know all Mark's features [particulars] but do not know his essensce [universal], I do not know him. By contrast, if I know his essence, but do not know his features, I do not know him. ---It is an important thread – basically rational people tend to learn from the patterns they observe." Again, one cannot learn from sense experience without the help of the intellect. ---"Logic and maths are rules and can be very useful. I don’t understand your assumption. I don’t define them in terms of anything." If logic has rules and math has rules, then reason has rules. Do you not see that? You defined rationality as "perceptions." Since logic and math are integral to rationality, I assumed that you also understood them in terms of perception. That is why I raised the issue of logic and math in the first place--to see if you would reduce them to perception as well. ---As I said following your perceptions is an important part of rationality but not definitive." I asked you to "define" rationality and explain the conditions that must be present in order for a person to be rational. Since you stated that my clear defintion was wrong, it was only fair that you provide another definition. Further, you stated that you had not "left" rationality, as I claim is the case, so I wanted to find out if you could define that which claim that you didn't leave. Your answer was to say that rationality consists in following perceptions, which have no rules, and applying logic and math, which do have rules. As you must be able to discern, those two formulations are not compatible. To be sure, reason consists of more than math and logic, including such things as intuition. However, reason, while surpassing even logic and math in nobility, cannot, in any way, abandon the rules of logic and math. Put another way, reason can and should transcend math and logic, but it cannot by pass their rules. There are two kinds of insanity: One which lives solely by logic, and the other which abandons logic.StephenB
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
F/N 2: See why I think that intelligence is broader than just us, and why I suspect that it may well have diverse ontological bases? (Cf my discussion on the architecture of mind and its origin, here [esp Section C, including Fig G.19], based on the Derek Smith two-tier MIMO servocontroller system model.) I think AI is a feasible exercise and may actually succeed in creating a software mind on Silicon hardware [and I think say dogs, chimps, dolphins and parrots have a case on wetware]. That does not prevent us from having minds of an immaterial essence that can interact with matter-energy entities in space-time. Nor does it prevent there from being a necessary being of great intelligence that designed and implemented the observable matter energy space time cosmos we inhabit as a fit habitat for C-chemistry cell based, intelligent life. (I infer this on fine-tuning of a complex functional system as a strong and empirically warranted sign of directed contingency. Just like how, generally speaking, radios are not on hard to tune stations by accident and just as complex control systems are not tuned to work by accident.) The perceived contradiction between the possible architectures is a conceptual error. BOTH designs can potentially be true, if only we did not make materialism confuse us to think they are inherently opposed.kairosfocus
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
03:08 AM
3
03
08
AM
PDT
F/N: On Wittgenstein . . . MF provides a link to a Wiki discussion that starts with an exercise on definition:
Wittgenstein first asks the reader to perform a thought experiment: to come up with a definition of the word "game".[6] While this may at first seem a simple task, he then goes on to lead us through the problems with each of the possible definitions of the word "game". Any definition which focuses on amusement leaves us unsatisfied since the feelings experienced by a world class chess player are very different from those of a circle of children playing Duck Duck Goose. Any definition which focuses on competition will fail to explain the game of catch, or the game of solitaire. And a definition of the word "game" which focuses on rules will fall on similar difficulties. The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that we don't have a definition, and we don't need one, because even without the definition, we use the word successfully.[7] Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game . . . . Wittgenstein argues that definitions emerge from what he termed "forms of life", roughly the culture and society in which they are used. Wittgenstein stresses the social aspects of cognition; to see how language works, we have to see how it functions in a specific social situation. It is this emphasis on becoming attentive to the social backdrop against which language is rendered intelligible that explains Wittgenstein's elliptical comment that "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."[9] Wittgenstein rejects the idea that ostensive definitions can provide us with the meaning of a word. For Wittgenstein, the thing that the word stands for does not give the meaning of the word. Wittgenstein argues for this making a series of moves to show that to understand an ostensive definition presupposes an understanding of the way the word being defined is used.[10] So, for instance, there is no difference between pointing to a piece of paper, to its colour, or to its shape; but understanding the difference is crucial to using the paper in an ostensive definition of a shape or of a colour . . .
1 --> W has spotlighted a common enough problem: "definitionitis" often fails, so we are forced to rely on forming a concept through use-cases and family resemblance. 2 --> But, you see, educators have had to address this for many decades. By structured exercises with examples carefully arranged so that there is only one key factor in common, they allow abstracting the key concept from the examples, through an informal inference to best explanation on common factors. 3 --> Then, to clarify borders, carefully selected counter-examples and examples are contrasted: "which one of these is not like the others, which one of these is not the same . . . " 4 --> Thus, we form concepts and structure sets that delineate boundaries that allow us to distinguish members and non-members [identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle appear implicitly again . . . ] 5 --> So, yes, understanding of word meanings comes from interaction with environments and communities in which learning happens, formally or informally. (Recall, MF: I am a self-confessed Richard Skempian moderate constructivist as an educator.) 6 --> But, equally plainly, that does not remove the fact that we can assign membership to sets, and that we can observe or verbalise accurate facts on how set memberships interact, i.e. how syllogisms work. (Including the modern elaboration to the empty set case, but especially in the classic logical context where it is implicit that sets are formed because they have actual recognised members in them.) 7 --> Such facts can then be elaborated in rules, and voila we have in hand certain laws of thought. Laws of reality before they ever are stated laws of correct reasoning. 8 --> To then refuse to articulate such laws, and to refuse to acknowledge that some of them just happen to be self-evident on pain of absurdity on attempted denial, even while implicitly using them is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too. 9 --> And, guess which laws of thought just happen to underlie this classic little proverb? ________________ So, we might as well be willing to take the faith-step risk of explicit commitment. We are doing so implicitly anyway, but at least being explicit allows us to so clarify our thoughts that we can see where we make a mistake and correct ourselves. By contrast, "there is nothing more to truth than it SEEMS true to you or me," is itself an objective truth claim; which it was trying to undermine. That is, this subtle form of radical relativism -- and radical relativism and amorality stem from evolutionary materialism, as was exposed by Plato in The Laws Bk X so long ago -- is self-refuting by being self referential and self-contradictory. Reductio ad absurdum, per modus tollens. Of course, one may elect to be selectively hyperskeptical, accepting MT based reductios in mathematics and other "serious" contexts, while scanting it in cases where it points where one would rather not go. But that self-serving inconsistency simply exposes what Simon Greenleaf ever so long ago called "the error of the skeptic." (Just look at the red text in the highlighted cite. Then, please read the context.) _________ Onlookers: Do we not now ever so painfully but plainly see how -- after vaunting itself on its scientific rationality, "professing itself to be wise . . . " -- evolutionary materialism in fact self-destructs in ever widening circles of self-referential incoherence and contradictions leading to utter irrationality? It's 1979 II, and another vaunted ideology of man defying Rom 1:19 ff and Eph 4: 17 ff is beginning to crack at its base . . . The much despised old apostle to the nations nailed it, 2000 years ago. Check . . . mate within 20 years. GEMkairosfocus
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
02:46 AM
2
02
46
AM
PDT
Onlookers (& Vivid & MF, + SB): Pardon one of those KF essays that MF is so eager not to "wade through." The following excerpt of 254 and response from 261 is ever so revealing: ______________________ MF in 261: >>[VB, 254, Excerpt:] Wrong. The only way to work out what we KNOW can only come from employing the rules of right reason. If you disagree then give us one example of how you KNOW something without using one of rules of right reason set forth by KF. [OMITTED: from KF at 248 and 237 - 8, cf. 216 -7:][a] A thing is what it is (the law of identity); [b] A thing cannot at once be and not-be (the law of non-contradiction); [c] A thing cannot neither be nor not-be (the law of the excluded middle Vivid] [MF, 261:] (I am not going to wade through a KF essay). I know that it is daylight by looking out of the window. My dog knows that we have another dog in the house because he can smell it. Which rules is he using? How is he using them?>> ______________________ 1 --> Observe how by cutting off just what particular rules of right reason were cited from my comment at 248 (and onward to Aristotle), MF was artfully able to begin by dismissively attacking the man and poisoning the well by subtle suggestion, instead of addressing the issue. 2 --> Now, of course, in so attacking the undersigned, he recognised that my identity is stable, and that a comment by me is a comment by me. So, he used the Law of Identity. 3 --> He speaks of knowing it is daylight by looking our the window. This means he distinguishes daylight from not-daylight, windows from not windows, and recognises knowledge as warranted, credibly true belief, as opposed to the opposite. So, while refusing to acknowledge that he is doing that, he is using the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle. 4 --> Let's syllogise:
In all cases in Daylight my window will be illuminated from the sun. My window is illuminated from the sun ____________________________ It is daylignt
5 --> Without elaborating the sets and intersections [which is what syllogisms are about; try reducing them to Venn Diagrams sometime], we can see that MF has here used the law of he excluded middle, as well as identity and non-contradiction. As, he must if he is to reason coherently. 6 --> Now, too, MF plainly thinks that citing his dog smelling someone in the house is a dismissal. this reveals how he has overlooked that the point made in 255: "[First principles of right reason are] Laws of reality, long before they were ever formally expressed as laws of logic." 7 --> To survive, dogs have to conform to reality, so even without verbalising -- there is BTW some debate that dogs may conceptualise and recognise words [though they cannot imitate and utter them, unlike parrots] as labels for concepts -- the dog has to respond to the reality of identity, the contrast between a state of affairs and its opposite [and pick which is the case], and know that either such a state is or its denial is. 7 --> So, dogs are pre-programmed to act on the laws of thought. 8 --> And even those who would dismiss their foundational nature and the point that to deny them lands one in hopeless absurdities, are in practice forced to use them routinely. (Also, evasiveness simply means unwillingness to acknowledge the patent fact.) 9 --> So, by attending to facts in evidence [even though they are not acknowledged explicitly] we may easily discern the actual balance on the merits. _________________ If it were not so sad, and so sadly revealing of the peril our civilisation faces at the hands of evolutionary materialism-supported irrationality, the above would be funny. But, it is far too tragic and portentous of harm, to be funny. Let us pray and work for eyes to be opened before it is too late. GEM of TKI PS: cf Plato in The Laws Bk X [cited here in summary point u towards the end, and discussed here in point a of the Origins Sci in Society module of the IOSE beta, in details] on how Evo Mat leads to this sort of breakdown, known since 360 BC. Yes, 2300+ years ago.kairosfocus
August 15, 2010
August
08
Aug
15
15
2010
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT
#254 vividbleau Wrong. The only way to work out what we KNOW can only come from employing the rules of right reason. If you disagree then give us one example of how you KNOW something without using one of rules of right reason set forth by KF. (I am not going to wade through a KF essay). I know that it is daylight by looking out of the window. My dog knows that we have another dog in the house because he can smell it. Which rules is he using? How is he using them?markf
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT
#253 Stephenb As I said, don't look for a neat definition - like so many concepts rationality has overlapping threads none of which are necessary or sufficient but all of which contribute to the concept. See Wittgenstein on games. Thank you for your answer. So, by your definition, I am rational if I “believe YOUR perceptions” (allowing that they could be wrong?) Or, did you mean to say that rationality consists in everyone following his/her own perceptions? Part of rationality is believing what you see, hear etc. -I only believe other people's perceptions to the degree that I believe what they report. This is an important thread in the concept of rationality. A key part of the enlightenment was moving from coming to conclusions about the world by pure thought to observation. Someone who refuses to believe their eyes is well on the way to being irrational. Once again, perhaps you didn’t mean exactly what you said. Are you trying to say that rationatity consists in everyone believing the patterns he or she observes. It is an important thread - basically rational people tend to learn from the patterns they observe. Does your definition of logic and math include rules? You have already stated that reason need not have any rules, defining it in terms of your own perceptions. So, I assume that, since logic and math are important elements in rationality, you also define them in terms of your own perception and believe that you are being rational if you follow those perceptions, (allowing that they may be wrong.) Logic and maths are rules and can be very useful. I don't understand your assumption. I don't define them in terms of anything. As I said following your perceptions is an important part of rationality but not definitive. Does this mean that, in order for me to apply logic and mathematics properly, I must follow your perceptions [or my perceptions] about them? No. How did you get here?markf
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
10:58 PM
10
10
58
PM
PDT
tg, music to my ears.StephenB
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
And Hebrews 3:4 concerning cause and effect. For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God. But G and V nailed it. See Matthew 12 also... Matt. 12:9 And departing from there, He went into their synagogue. Matt. 12:10 And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they questioned Him, saying, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” — in order that they might accuse Him. Matt. 12:11 And He said to them, “What man shall there be among you, who shall have one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will he not take hold of it, and lift it out? Matt. 12:12 “Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep! So then, it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.” Matt. 12:13 Then He said to the man, “Stretch out your hand!” And he stretched it out, and it was restored to normal, like the other. Matt. 12:14 But the Pharisees went out, and counseled together against Him, as to how they might destroy Him. The Creator of the universe performed a miracle in front of them and their response was to plot murder. I'd say that's not an intellectual problem, that's some other kind of problem altogether. Great thread. No one who is genuinely seeking to understand could go through this discussion without "getting it." Regards to all who spoke so eloquently in defense of R/reason. Only a willfully obstinate person could fail to grasp this truth - that reason's rules inform evidence (perceptions for markf), evidence does not inform reason's rules. p.s. SB, did I get that right? :-)tgpeeler
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
Vivid: Rom 1:19 ff (and Don't forget Eph 4:17 - 24) -- talk about being "in de nile." Yup. Sad, though. Gkairosfocus
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
KF This explains it for me. "since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" We must never forget that mankind left to him or herself hates and suppresses the truth. How much does mankind hate the truth? Here is how much. When it came we killed it. Vividvividbleau
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
Vivid:: Laws of reality, long before they were ever formally expressed as laws of logic. Or, citing Isaiah [NET Bible, download here]:
Is 5:20 Those who call evil good and good evil are as good as dead,50 who turn darkness into light and light into darkness, who turn bitter into sweet and sweet into bitter.51 5:21 Those who think they are wise are as good as dead,52 those who think they possess understanding.53
(Notice how being evil is strongly identified with confusing categories . . . ) Then, there is that pesky law of cause-effect (with a little IF-THEN Modus Ponens tossed in]:
Gal 6:7 Do not be deceived. God will not be made a fool.12 For a person13 will reap what he sows, 6:8 because the person who sows to his own flesh14 will reap corruption15 from the flesh,16 but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit. 6:9 So we must not grow weary17 in doing good, for in due time we will reap, if we do not give up.18 6:10 So then,19 whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith.20
H'mm, so those "dummy fundies" were getting a bit of a Basic Logic 101 with their Bible readings all along? Whoda thunkit? Well, mebbe that wise old fella from 3,000 years ago, Solomon:
Prov 3:5 Trust12 in the Lord with all your heart,13 and do not rely14 on your own understanding.15 3:6 Acknowledge16 him in all your ways,17 and he will make your paths straight.18 3:7 Do not be wise in your own estimation;19 fear the Lord and turn away from evil.20 3:8 This will bring21 healing to your body,22 and refreshment23 to your inner self.24
Food for thought . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 14, 2010
August
08
Aug
14
14
2010
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
1 2 3 10

Leave a Reply