RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (444) < ... 427 428 429 430 431 [432] 433 434 435 436 437 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 5, Return To Teh Dingbat Buffet< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
stevestory



Posts: 12280
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2019,15:54   

Quote
368
Ed GeorgeOctober 21, 2019 at 2:32 pm
Hazel
Quote


Ed, do you sometimes get the sense that kf doesn’t even read what you write, much less think about it?

Only on days that end in a “y”. 🙂

But seriously, I get the feeling that we are not speaking the same language. His responses do nothing to address my points (as you have seen) and I assume that he doesn’t think that mine address his. I have performed operational audits of foreign companies using translators and have never had as much difficulty having a meaningful discussion as I do with KF.

   
stevestory



Posts: 12280
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2019,18:54   

Quote
PragerU’s new vid explains science-based doubts about evolution

“In November 2016, I attended a conference in London attended by some of the world’s leading evolutionary biologists. The purpose? To address growing doubts about the modern version of Darwin’s theory,”

Posted on October 21, 2019 AuthorNews Comment(0)


Such an esteemed organisation.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5462
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2019,19:24   

Modern version of Darwin's theory? The modern version has far more detail. Darwin's version was a prototype.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12280
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2019,19:35   

If you check out the video it's some Stephen Meyer bullshit about how evolution can't explain DNA, or the Cambrian explosion.

Same Shit, Different Decade.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5462
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2019,20:10   

Here's my three cents on those two things.

As for the Cambrian explosion, I figure that was when life acquired parts that can fossilize.

As for DNA, so what if science doesn't yet have the exact sequence of events. It does have the overall concept, and nothing it implies breaks the laws of physics or chemistry.

  
stevestory



Posts: 12280
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2019,07:42   

KF has repeated his "self evident moral truth" stuff 21 times in this thread. WTF. linky

   
khan



Posts: 1547
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2019,08:20   

He's still carrying on about his breakfast cereal (ungrounded oughts).

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2274
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2019,18:02   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 21 2019,20:10)
Here's my three cents on those two things.

As for the Cambrian explosion, I figure that was when life acquired parts that can fossilize.

As for DNA, so what if science doesn't yet have the exact sequence of events. It does have the overall concept, and nothing it implies breaks the laws of physics or chemistry.

If you read the UD threads, it's an article of faith with them that ONLY an intelligent designer can add information to DNA.  I saw BS77 or KF start an argument with that "fact" a few weeks ago.

But then, none of them has the faintest idea what information actually is, what mutations actually produce (new information) or what natural selection actually does (tests new information by trying to run an organism with it - thus sorting out the "noise" of mutation while keeping the useful information).

The Cambrian Explosion is even more interesting.  Blue-green algae had been dumping oxygen into the sea and air for billions of years and oxygen levels had gradually risen until new types of organisms could actually use oxygen to extract energy from food.  And they got a lot for energy from the food than the older non-aerobic critters could do.  We find fossil worm-like creatures of appreciable size just before the CE.  We also find the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion here because burning food for energy opened up a huge number of new environmental niches that older non-aerobic critters couldn't get to.

Then the O2 levels got high enough for calcium to precipitate from sea water and all of a sudden,  organisms could form shells,  protecting themselves from predators.  

Can you image the evolutionary free for all this must have set off?  Suddenly, you and your offspring were invulnerable to all predators!  And if your offspring were born with mutations, even those wouldn't stop them because they were invulnerable to predators and  all of their noninvulnerable competitors were being eaten by starving predators.  They didn't have to compete, just survive while evolution worked on the new mutations.  Talk about grist for evolution!

Then the predators started developing teeth and the glory days were over, but the ones who developed thicker shells still had a chance ... until the predators developed sharper, harder teeth ...

This may have been history's first arms race and a look back at the speed with which both sides innovated in WWII and the Cold War will show you how much that speeds things up.

Add to all this, there is increasing evidence that the earth experienced a "Snowball Earth" event just before the Cambrian Explosion which froze the oceans all the way down to the equator and killed off almost every organism on earth, opening up myriads of environmental niches for the newly evolving creatures to fill.

Given all that, it would have been astonishing if there had not been a Cambrian Explosion.  

Good luck explaining that to BS77 and KF.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5462
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2019,22:32   

So it's an article of faith with them that their so-called designer is unable to make use of genetic algorithms even as well as human engineers do?

One thing I don't get at all is why a creator entity would be required to design the details, rather than making a system that would be self producing of stuff. Oh, that and who exactly it is that's imposing that requirement on the assumed creator.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5350
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2019,00:01   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 23 2019,06:32)
So it's an article of faith with them that their so-called designer is unable to make use of genetic algorithms even as well as human engineers do?

One thing I don't get at all is why a creator entity would be required to design the details, rather than making a system that would be self producing of stuff. Oh, that and who exactly it is that's imposing that requirement on the assumed creator.



Capricious God Violently Shakes Ant Farm Day After Bestowing Orange Slices on Colony.

The good news though is Poll: Fewer Americans Identifying As Religious

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2274
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2019,22:54   

Flash!  Bio-Complexity lives!  Ann Gauger and a Swedish mathematician kill Darwin.  Dennis Venima and S. Joshua Swamidass bow before the Lord.

The whole sordid story starts here.

All is lost.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3283
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2019,23:32   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 23 2019,20:54)
Ann Gauger and a Swedish mathematician kill Darwin.

Again?

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2274
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,03:14   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 23 2019,23:32)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 23 2019,20:54)
Ann Gauger and a Swedish mathematician kill Darwin.

Again?

They don't actually claim a kill.  They actually claim that a single pair of humans who lived two million years ago could be the ancestors of every human alive today.  I don't understand the math involved, but the pictures are pretty and two million years is a long time, so it might have been.

Except it would have actually been one man.  Assume a population of proto-humans who differ from modern humans in only one tiny bit.  Say all the protos have a green fingernail on their left little finger.  Suddenly, a man is born with a modern fingernail.  Shazam, he's the very first human.  Call him Adam.

Unfortunately, there are no female humans yet - they've all got green fingernails on their left little fingers.  So, being a man, he goes into a comely greenie, they have children and eventually a girl is born with Daddy's pink pinky.  Shazam again!  She's the very first human female.

At this point some sort of incest occurs, either with Daddy or a pink pinkied brother and the human race is off to the races.  

Why this matters to Ann and company is a little harder to figure out.  Assuming for the sake of argument that they're right, none of it makes any difference.  Genesis is still dead, which means there was never an original sin which means the human race doesn't have to be forgiven for anything in particular which leaves Jesus wondering why he had to get nailed to a cross.

I think that Dennis Venema may have started this off by pointing out that modern genetics shows that a single pair is very very unlikely to have parented modern humanity.  Venema is a Christian who believes in evolution.  This makes him about as popular with the ID crowd as the People's Front of Judea, so he HAD to be disproven to protect the honor of ID.  S. Joshua Swamidass has just recently written a similar book, so you can see how bad things are getting.  It's time to start running around like a headless chicken for a while.  They may even have to unfire Dr. Dr. Demsky!

But to me, the high point of all this is to go to the BIO-Complexity web site, click on "Current Issue" and "Articles" and see that this single article is all that they've published in over a year.

  
sparc



Posts: 2031
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,07:14   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 24 2019,03:14)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 23 2019,23:32)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 23 2019,20:54)
Ann Gauger and a Swedish mathematician kill Darwin.

Again?

They don't actually claim a kill.  They actually claim that a single pair of humans who lived two million years ago could be the ancestors of every human alive today.  I don't understand the math involved, but the pictures are pretty and two million years is a long time, so it might have been.

Except it would have actually been one man.  Assume a population of proto-humans who differ from modern humans in only one tiny bit.  Say all the protos have a green fingernail on their left little finger.  Suddenly, a man is born with a modern fingernail.  Shazam, he's the very first human.  Call him Adam.

Unfortunately, there are no female humans yet - they've all got green fingernails on their left little fingers.  So, being a man, he goes into a comely greenie, they have children and eventually a girl is born with Daddy's pink pinky.  Shazam again!  She's the very first human female.

At this point some sort of incest occurs, either with Daddy or a pink pinkied brother and the human race is off to the races.  

Why this matters to Ann and company is a little harder to figure out.  Assuming for the sake of argument that they're right, none of it makes any difference.  Genesis is still dead, which means there was never an original sin which means the human race doesn't have to be forgiven for anything in particular which leaves Jesus wondering why he had to get nailed to a cross.

I think that Dennis Venema may have started this off by pointing out that modern genetics shows that a single pair is very very unlikely to have parented modern humanity.  Venema is a Christian who believes in evolution.  This makes him about as popular with the ID crowd as the People's Front of Judea, so he HAD to be disproven to protect the honor of ID.  S. Joshua Swamidass has just recently written a similar book, so you can see how bad things are getting.  It's time to start running around like a headless chicken for a while.  They may even have to unfire Dr. Dr. Demsky!

But to me, the high point of all this is to go to the BIO-Complexity web site, click on "Current Issue" and "Articles" and see that this single article is all that they've published in over a year.

I wonder if the common UD reader will be really happy that the two they are talking about were likely non-Americans who didn't beleave in a christian god.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
k.e..



Posts: 5350
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,07:38   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 24 2019,15:14)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 24 2019,03:14)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 23 2019,23:32)
   
Quote (CeilingCat @ Oct. 23 2019,20:54)
Ann Gauger and a Swedish mathematician kill Darwin.

Again?

They don't actually claim a kill.  They actually claim that a single pair of humans who lived two million years ago could be the ancestors of every human alive today.  I don't understand the math involved, but the pictures are pretty and two million years is a long time, so it might have been.

Except it would have actually been one man.  Assume a population of proto-humans who differ from modern humans in only one tiny bit.  Say all the protos have a green fingernail on their left little finger.  Suddenly, a man is born with a modern fingernail.  Shazam, he's the very first human.  Call him Adam.

Unfortunately, there are no female humans yet - they've all got green fingernails on their left little fingers.  So, being a man, he goes into a comely greenie, they have children and eventually a girl is born with Daddy's pink pinky.  Shazam again!  She's the very first human female.

At this point some sort of incest occurs, either with Daddy or a pink pinkied brother and the human race is off to the races.  

Why this matters to Ann and company is a little harder to figure out.  Assuming for the sake of argument that they're right, none of it makes any difference.  Genesis is still dead, which means there was never an original sin which means the human race doesn't have to be forgiven for anything in particular which leaves Jesus wondering why he had to get nailed to a cross.

I think that Dennis Venema may have started this off by pointing out that modern genetics shows that a single pair is very very unlikely to have parented modern humanity.  Venema is a Christian who believes in evolution.  This makes him about as popular with the ID crowd as the People's Front of Judea, so he HAD to be disproven to protect the honor of ID.  S. Joshua Swamidass has just recently written a similar book, so you can see how bad things are getting.  It's time to start running around like a headless chicken for a while.  They may even have to unfire Dr. Dr. Demsky!

But to me, the high point of all this is to go to the BIO-Complexity web site, click on "Current Issue" and "Articles" and see that this single article is all that they've published in over a year.

I wonder if the common UD reader will be really happy that the two they are talking about were likely non-Americans who didn't beleave in a christian god.

Or citations for that matter. Their "science" is performed behind a magic curtin, with a lot of hand waving. Speculation amounts to evidence. Long bows are drawn over longer odds, culminating in high jumping conclusions.
Behe would be proud. At least this time no mention of imaginary discussions with 'gord' or palm readers gives them an air of 'doing science' when really they are sitting in a mall kiddies clown car going brmm brrrm.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
sparc



Posts: 2031
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,07:38   

From the paper:
Quote
It is very likely possible to extend our first couple origin model of humanity in order to find more complex scenarios in which the data is compatible with a more recent origin

Obviously, their follow up paper will date the couple back to October 28, 4004 BC.

ETA for spelling mistakes

Edited by sparc on Oct. 24 2019,08:17

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Henry J



Posts: 5462
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,10:08   

October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 525
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,10:25   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,10:08)
October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

Actually, Bishop Usher said October 22, , not October 28, so just a few days ago was the 6023rd birthday of the universe!

Quote
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.

  
khan



Posts: 1547
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,10:28   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,11:08)
October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

That was the date calculated by Bishop Usher.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 5462
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,16:36   

Huh. As I recall, the Bible only gives years between begats. Which would leave a rather large margin of error in the calculations, unless he had some other source with exact birth dates.

  
Jkrebs



Posts: 525
Joined: Sep. 2004

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,18:09   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,16:36)
Huh. As I recall, the Bible only gives years between begats. Which would leave a rather large margin of error in the calculations, unless he had some other source with exact birth dates.

Read all about it here: Wikipedia page on Usher

  
stevestory



Posts: 12280
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2019,20:59   

Quote
425
HazelOctober 24, 2019 at 6:15 pm
kf, write your own posts. It’s not right to interject your comments in my posts.


good luck with that Hazel, KF is an asshole.

   
sparc



Posts: 2031
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,01:10   

Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 24 2019,10:25)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,10:08)
October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

Actually, Bishop Usher said October 22, , not October 28, so just a few days ago was the 6023rd birthday of the universe!

   
Quote
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.

it’s not my
Quote
task to match your pathetic level of detail


--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
KevinB



Posts: 481
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,06:16   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2019,01:10)
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 24 2019,10:25)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,10:08)
October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

Actually, Bishop Usher said October 22, , not October 28, so just a few days ago was the 6023rd birthday of the universe!

     
Quote
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.

it’s not my  
Quote
task to match your pathetic level of detail

Actually, there would be a certain "rightness" to 28 Oct - it's the feast day of St Jude, the patron saint of lost causes.

It's also Bill Gates' birthday (and mine....)

  
k.e..



Posts: 5350
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,10:03   

Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 25 2019,14:16)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2019,01:10)
 
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 24 2019,10:25)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,10:08)
October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

Actually, Bishop Usher said October 22, , not October 28, so just a few days ago was the 6023rd birthday of the universe!

     
Quote
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.

it’s not my    
Quote
task to match your pathetic level of detail

Actually, there would be a certain "rightness" to 28 Oct - it's the feast day of St Jude, the patron saint of lost causes.

It's also Bill Gates' birthday (and mine....)

.... and it's national no homo day

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,12:22   

Hazel
Quote
kf writes, “leading to a disciplinary action by the responsible thread owner.”

And what will that disciplinary action be?

EG
Quote

As long as it doesn’t involve handcuffs, gags and leather.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3283
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,16:49   

(Ahem) That's  Mr. Leathers to you.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
rossum



Posts: 265
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,18:14   

Quote (Acartia_Bogart @ Oct. 25 2019,12:22)
Hazel  
Quote
kf writes, “leading to a disciplinary action by the responsible thread owner.”

And what will that disciplinary action be?

EG  
Quote

As long as it doesn’t involve handcuffs, gags and leather.

What!  No Naugahyde thigh-boots?  :(

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1968
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2019,20:30   

Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 25 2019,06:16)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 25 2019,01:10)
 
Quote (Jkrebs @ Oct. 24 2019,10:25)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2019,10:08)
October 28? Why bother with a specific date in that year?

Actually, Bishop Usher said October 22, , not October 28, so just a few days ago was the 6023rd birthday of the universe!

     
Quote
James Ussher (or Usher; 4 January 1581 – 21 March 1656) was the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland between 1625 and 1656. He was a prolific scholar and church leader, who today is most famous for his identification of the genuine letters of the church father, Ignatius, and for his chronology that sought to establish the time and date of the creation as "the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004"; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC, per the proleptic Julian calendar.

it’s not my    
Quote
task to match your pathetic level of detail

Actually, there would be a certain "rightness" to 28 Oct - it's the feast day of St Jude, the patron saint of lost causes.

It's also Bill Gates' birthday (and mine....)

And mine!

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Acartia_Bogart



Posts: 2595
Joined: Sep. 2014

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2019,07:05   

Quote
Kairosfocus
October 27, 2019 at 2:41 am
Seversky (& attn Hazel and EG et al),

On points of note:

>>That’s right and the very existence of a debate implies that there are at least two sides to the point at issue and that neither side has been able thus far to establish supremacy for their case.>>

1: Already shown as strawman fallacy. Disagreement does not imply that a claim disagreed with is false or undecidable or unknown. Warrant is different from consensus (which latter can be agreement in eror).

2: More directly, even this objection implicitly appeals to first duties of reason and to our recognition of obligation to such. Hence, again, the force of the first two SETs of the 12 which you refuse to acknowledge even while making objections that invariably, inescapably pivot on them. And, reminder with warrant is not empty repetition:

1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.

(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)

2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.)

3: What we are clearly seeing here is refusal to acknowledge a pivotal and manifestly true but ideologically inconvenient truth.

>>There is no self-referential absurdity.>>

4: Denial of what has been actually shown does not change the reality. At every turn you have appealed to the general binding force of what you try to project as emotional or subjective or relative.

>>I have never denied the existence or value of reason and logic but I regard them as human creations.>>

5: No one said you deny that we use reason and logic, or that such have no “value.” What has been at focal stake is how they work in the community of the rational or even in our internal reflection, i.e. we pivot on the first duties of reason as outlined: “our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc.”

6: The quoted assertion is actually a case in point.

>> Like visual and spoken language, logic and mathematics are modeling languages, for want of a better term, which enable us to synthesize models of the objective reality we assume to exist beyond us.>>

7: In short, language, symbols and so forth insofar as they express propositional claims [truth/falsity bearers] are generally structured to “model” — thus, more accurately, represent — reality. In other cases, they are used to mislead others to imagine the same.

8: Why is that? Precisely because we are governed by first duties of reason, starting with truth.

9: Reference to objective reality implies possibilities and undesirability of errors and delusions, again, reflecting duty to truth.

10: Objective also implies warrant leading to credible reliability of the claimed or implied accuracy of description. That is, it pivots on duties to right reason and prudence. Again and again you exemplify what you wish to overturn.

11: I note that objective reality is not equal to the material, physical world but includes abstract realities and relationships, including Mathematics and Logic etc.

>> The greater the fidelity of those models to what we can observe, the greater purchase they give us over that reality.>>

12: I have already pointed out on the case of Mathematical abstracta that reality and the concrete or material are not to be equated.

13: It is a property of a true claim or a sound argument [valid chain of inferences rooted in true premises] that such will be accurate, i.e. speak the truth. So, insofar as they address the empirical as itself accurately observed, they will reliably agree with it.

>>The value of a description can only be gauged by measuring it against what is described.>>

14: That is, implicit appeal to duty to truth

>>Logic and mathematics are valuable precisely because of their descriptive and predictive power in the observable universe.>>

15: Logic and Mathematics are also extremely valuable as opening up for us reliable windows on the world of things that are not physically observable. For example, implication and entailment are abstract relationships. Likewise, the infinitesimal and transfinite quantitative realms are unobservable but per logic of being, real. Moral obligations are also very real as the test case of a kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered child amply demonstrates.

16: Furthermore, logical positivism has collapsed over 50 years past because its verifiability principle is neither analytically true nor subject to empirical observational confirmation. Thus by its own claim it is meaningless.

>>Yes, for some people, deeply-held beliefs are immune to argument or consideration of rational alternatives but by declaring them to be SETs and attempting thereby to preclude any possibility of debate looks too much like trying to win by fiat.>>

17: A strawman and ad hominem. Go look in a mirror, please.

18: Note, again, the point of a self-evident truth: true, seen as necessarily so by one with the experience and insight to understand, where also the attempted denial immediately manifests patent absurdity. That is, there is not a need for an elaborate, complicated reductio argument. (Yes, proof by reduction to self-referential absurdity arrived at after complex technical stages establishes necessary truth but it is not self evident. There are many famous mathematical results in point, starting with discovery of irrationals in the ratio of diagonal of a square to its sides. And all such reductio arguments implicitly rely on the first principles and duties of reason. At every step. That is how pivotal what is on the table is. In the morally governed sphere of action, where we choose among possibilities, complex chains of risk and consequence are relevant and lead to other cogent arguments, but again at every step they rely on the first principles and duties of reason.)

19: As a typical case, try Josiah Royce’s proposition, E = error exists. Generally, readily understood to be true. Not so much seen as necessarily and self evidently true.

20: To see the latter, try the denial, ~E. But ~E MEANS that it would be an error to assert that error exists. Immediately, ~E is absurd and E must be true. E is undeniably true and self-evident. (Amazing, but it seems this has not soaked in after many years.)

21: Self evidence is demonstrably not the fallacy of closed mindedness and refusal to reason. Indeed, that brings up case 2. The first principles of right reason pivoting on distinct identity are unprovable as any attempt to prove will inevitably use these principles. You already saw how Epictetus elaborated this. If you read it.

22: The first duties of reason are inevitably involved in logic and are inescapable just like LOI, LNC, LEM. Taking all of these as inescapably true is not a failure to be rational or a case of closed-mindedness but is instead the first step to reasoning soundly.

23: Nor does this — and recall, this is precisely the focal matter — lock out debate. Just the opposite — your turnabout projection fallacy fails — we are establishing the foundation for sound, reasonable, responsible debate.

24: Nor is this empty “fiat” it is highlighting what is foundational, with a drawing out of why that should be recognised.

>>Moreover, claimed SETs which, by the correspondence theory, depend for their truth value on the extent to which they correspond to what they purport to describe are not true a priori. They are logically contingent in that they are grounded in the context of the observer’s experience and information.>>

25: I notice the unacknowledged retreat from trying to confine reality to the empirical world. I repeat, abstract realities are still realities, whether entities or relationships.

26: Our ability to recognise, understand and acknowledge SET’s will indeed pivot on our background experience and insight but our failure to understand does not entail that SETs are not just that, actually self-evident and true. True meaning, accurately describing relevant aspects of reality.

>>as we have noted before, if you accept the correspondence theory of truth then moral claims are neither true nor false because they are not claims about what is but about what ought to be.>>

27: Your repeating an already corrected error does not transmute it into truth.

28: First, truth describes what is, but what is so, reality, includes not only material tangible or physically observable entities but abstract entities, structures and relationships of many kinds. Such include, mathematical and logical abstracta, thus too the first duties of reason.

29: In short it can be and is true that our intelligent life is governed by known duties to “to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc.” Indeed, it can be and is manifestly true that such are inescapable in reasoning . . . as your own objections repeatedly exemplify.

>>On the question of moral governance,>>

30: Government, not governance as was highlighted earlier tonight.

>> it seems to me the debate is not about its value to a society but its source or warrant.>>

31: Notice, how you here appeal to duties to truth, right reason, prudence and justice? Inescapable, yet again.

32: Here, we have already seen the source: inescapably thus self-evidently true. And at every turn where you headshake, jump, run and turn to try to throw the hook of moral SET’s you simply underscore their inescapability.

>> As an a/mat I have no problem admitting that human societies are stronger, more resilient and more cohesive when guided by moral principles.>>

33: Could this be, shocker, because such core first duties of reason happen to be true and self-evident?

>>On the objection to the consensus theory that, in Nazi Germany, a majority would have voted in favor of the Final Solution, while it’s possible, I doubt it would happen.>>

34: A majority voted in favour of the Nazi regime and its governance structures and principles. Indeed, up until manifest catastrophic defeat was staring them in the face, Hitler remained the most popular leader in German history. He won that popularity by restoring order and breaking the depression in Germany, then delivering a chain of astonishing geostrategic victories, first diplomatically then militarily.

35: And in fact majorities can form or support the worst tyrannies — the terror in France had mass support until people finally woke up to its implications. The manipulated or benighted mob on a march of folly is a clear danger of democratic systems. That’s why there are no pure democracies today.

>>When it comes right down to it, we don’t need concepts like self-evident truths and inescapable moral governance.>>

36: When we turn to first principles and duties of reason, we cannot escape them. The issue is not their self-evidence on that foundational inescapability but our willingness to acknowledge it.

37: At every turn above, you manifest that inescapability but are unwilling to acknowledge manifest truth. The reasons are obvious, such would radically undermine a worldview you have declared commitment to.
Okay, that should be enough to make the issues clearer.

KF

  
  13317 replies since Dec. 29 2013,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (444) < ... 427 428 429 430 431 [432] 433 434 435 436 437 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]