|
the more religious you are, the less intelligent you are. (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
|
Excellent!
But your assesment of my position is wrong in this thread and countless others. Don't you remember, I told you to fire the guy at your waterfall station a long time ago!
You see traits in my argument and then match those to existing arguments that you are familiar with, and proceed as a chess game (tangent coming up... I'll identify the tangent parts so that you can ignore them easily :) )
[tangent parallel]a Chess player might say "ah a classic baroque opening, no doubt you will counter with a blah blah blah", these conversations are reduced to that: "ah a non-corporeal dragon in your garage how classic... I will counter with the Sicilian defense"[end tangent]
My position as you see it:
| quote: | | you're attempting to argue that there is no absolute epistemological foundation from which truth about the noumenal world can be obtained |
[Chess tangent=on]We'll call this the "Foundationless Position"; looking it up in the great books of ESTABLISHED wisdom the preffered attack on such a position is the "Absolutist Absurdity Attack"[Chess tangeon=off]
| quote: | | In essense, if a statement cannot be shown to be absolutely true or false, you're just lumping it all into the same "indeterminate" category |
But that's not my position. Obviously if you can't identify my position then you can't attack it.
Here is my position (in order to illustrate see how I must include all positions...)
Position 1: a,b,c
Position 2: d,e,f
Position 3: g,h,i
Bold points represent Truth.
The Holy Grail of Logic is to find a means of mining the truth.
Here is what the Grail says about Positional Logic:
Positional logic's purpose is to advance its current position. And the means by which it does that is to expose itself to attack.
Each succesful attack doesn't change the conclusion. But the subconscious mind sees the hole and rushes to fill it in. The conscious mind is of course never the wiser...
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
And finally, if we hadn't pressed this debate over and over, we never would have gotten to that hilarious ionized hydrogen explanation. When I read that it really made my day :) |
The irony is that the issue isn't what you think consciously about anything I say. Rush to fill in the holes. It's all good from where i'm watching because the conclusion never changes...
That's why a poem that is over a 100 years has more to say about reality than the smartest empirical wizard.
Emily Dickinson - This World is not Conclusion
This World is not Conclusion.
A Species stands beyond --
Invisible, as Music --
But positive, as Sound --
It beckons, and it baffles --
Philosophy -- don't know --
And through a Riddle, at the last --
Sagacity, must go --
To guess it, puzzles scholars --
To gain it, Men have borne
Contempt of Generations
And Crucifixion, shown --
Faith slips -- and laughs, and rallies --
Blushes, if any see --
Plucks at a twig of Evidence --
And asks a Vane, the way --
Much Gesture, from the Pulpit --
Strong Hallelujahs roll --
Narcotics cannot still the Tooth
That nibbles at the soul --
are you any the wiser? |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
are you any the wiser? |
Definitely. Now I can say I finally understand why LSD and ego trips are a bad combinaion. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
christ subey :rolleyes:
the beauty of *real* intellectuals is their ability to condense and deconstruct complex ideas and put make them readily available to all those interested.
you rant and rave and make yourself look like a try-hard idiot. give up. you didnt make any headway into what renegade said. any person with any academic experience finds your \'thoughts\' ludicrous. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Freeing you.
But first you have see the prison before you can conceive of escaping it.
I'll use a simplistic example to illustrate the nature of the prison.
**
You need to make a choice. Your cursory examination of the choice suggests 3 potential conclusions. Thinking 3 heads are better than one, you enlist the aid of 3 people to help you.
The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.
[key question] How do you choose between the three then?
[Classic answer] *you* evaluate them.
[Deflection] *you* already have, you are one of the three people, yours is b.
[Classic action] *you* you choose b.
[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.
The point of this example.
1) Recognize the Personal Bias Fallacy 2) Once you recognize it then you can figure out ways to escape it.
**
To hammer in the point in an example that doesn't *threaten* personal bias imagine the following example: Jerry Seinfeld, Donald Trump and Ralph Nader walk into a room. Each is asked what is the first thing that they see?
JS: Isn't it funny how...
DT: I could make money here if I...
RN: That's a dangerous use of...
Everyone sees different things. Old School Logic is a war where you argue "what I see is the most accurate because...", Prison Break Logic is "What do you see that I can't?" |
Wow, thanks for freeing me man. Everything makes so much sense ... except for one nagging tidbit: your argument seems to be getting bogged down with the details. Why don't we take a broader prospective towards your prison break argument? And to simplify this for you, I'll use a pedantic example to help you understand:
**
You need to make a choice. Your cursory examination of the choice suggests 3 potential conclusions. Thinking 3 heads are better than one, you enlist the aid of 3 people to help you.
The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.
[key question] How do you choose between the three then?
[Classic answer] *you* evaluate them.
[Deflection] *you* already have, you are one of the three people, yours is b.
[Classic action] *you* you choose b.
[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.
The point of this example.
1) Recognize the Personal Bias Fallacy 2) Once you recognize it then you can figure out ways to escape it.
**
To hammer in the point in an example that doesn't *threaten* personal bias imagine the following example: Jerry Seinfeld, Donald Trump and Ralph Nader walk into a room. Each is asked what is the first thing that they see?
JS: Isn't it funny how...
DT: I could make money here if I...
RN: That's a dangerous use of...
Everyone sees different things. Old School Logic is a war where you argue "what I see is the most accurate because...", Prison Break Logic is "What do you see that I can't?"
So as you can see, what true value can we take from your argument when you and your arguments are inherently subjected to personal bias fallacies? Clearly you have chosen "b" and your arguments are as meritous as my misguided attempts to direct my piss into the center of the toilet bowl.
Not that I'm not enamored with your subjective analysis. As a matter of fact, I've created a template, so to speak, modelled upon your logic to refute any argument known to man:
Person A: (Makes any statement whatsever supported by everything or nothing.)
The logician: "Your statement is fallacious because you are human ... because you are human, it is unfeasible and impossible that your statement is not subject to personal bias fallacy. In conclusion your claims MUST be rejected." (Note: Be sure to avoid specifics such as what exact statement that they are making is guilty of personal bias fallacy. That would require subject matter knowledge which is a big no-no that requires effort.)
Person A: "But I provided credible evidence that maintains some semblance of logical and intellectual integrity ... my opponent just gave you a McDonalds napkin that he claims is the legitimate narrative on everything in life. "
The logician: "Ahhh but what do the believers in the napkin see that you can't??? What do the believers in everything but your own argument see that you can't?? The fact that you can't see what they see proves that you cannot comprehend EVERY single possiblity (be sure to avoid specifics at this point, that would only complicate things) ... and because of this, your argument is null and void."
Person A: "Wow you're right! Logic is only applicable at the general level! Because logic at the detailed level simply violates the philosophical paradoxes inherent in human nature. But when there are no details, the human nature magically leaves the equation which makes your entire argument sensical and logically valid unlike my argument! Thanks!" |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Not that I'm not enamored with your subjective analysis. As a matter of fact, I've created a template, so to speak, modelled upon your logic to refute any argument known to man:
|
I'll edit it down so that Raistlin will understand it more clearly.
Square One.
Problem - Individual logic is flawed (Creationists the Crown Jewel Evidence of this)
My Solution - Mine individual perspectives for truth and arrive at new collective perspective.
Square Two.
Problem - My solution can only be expressed as individual logic, therefore we must return to Square One.
Your Solution (implied)- Delete Square One in order to escape the loop and proceed on the assumption that the individual logic we possess will take us forward.
I'm happy to end on your note...
marching my personal interpretation of the collective perspective forward.
because My Solution to Square Two is that it's kinda like the difference between a guy standing on Go and one arriving on it. The position may look the same, but I've got an extra $200 worth of perspective in my pocket that I've gathered from the 4 corners of the world.
And I'm gonna keep going round and round till I save up enough for a Hotel on Boardwalk for my dearest lady friend.
If you need to find me, i'll be where MONO theism meets POLY theism... sipping on a cola in the Kaaba. |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
You see traits in my argument and then match those to existing arguments that you are familiar with, and proceed as a chess game (tangent coming up... I'll identify the tangent parts so that you can ignore them easily :) )
[...]
Obviously if you can't identify my position then you can't attack it. |
I'm not seeing "traits" in your argument, I'm seeing a series of tangential claims that you aren't making any attempt to justify or link together coherently. My responses so far have been attempts to tap into what may be the central tennets of your "world-view" and proceed to question the legitimacy of its foundation. If I've misrepresented your world-view in my posts, it's not because I'm deliberately misrepresenting your position to make my task of "attacking" it easier, it's because your not articulating your position clearly enough.
| quote: | My position as you see it:
| quote: | | you're attempting to argue that there is no absolute epistemological foundation from which truth about the noumenal world can be obtained |
But that's not my position. |
It isn't?
From your earlier posts:
| quote: | The 3 logical people conclude 3 different things. We will label these conclusions a,b and c.
[key question] How do you choose between the three then?
[...]
[Personal Bias Fallacy] There is no reason to choose b over a and c. The fact that *you* came to that conclusion in no way makes it more valid than the other ones. If anything your conclusion 66% likely the wrong one.
[...]
Everyone sees different things. |
Your assertion here is that, as a result of our inherent perceptory biases, "there is no reason to choose" one conclusion (about the nature of an object or a subject) over another. Regardless of what we "perceive", our perceptions are congenitally clouded by personal bias, therefore our perceptions are not worth much when deciding to reach one conclusion over another. This, whether you want to call it something else or not, is the same denial of an anthropic espistemological foundation posited by Descartes about 500 years ago. While you'll be happy to know that Western Philosophy has never absolutely solved the ontological rift created by Descartes' bifurcation of body and mind, your qualms about the fallibility of the senses in determining the nature of the "noumenal world" are nothing new.
Do my arguments seem justified now, or will you just move the goalposts again?
| quote: | | [Chess tangent=on]We'll call this the "Foundationless Position"; looking it up in the great books of ESTABLISHED wisdom the preffered attack on such a position is the "Absolutist Absurdity Attack"[Chess tangeon=off] |
I'm not treating this an exercise in intellectual masturbation, trying to "win" the argument by trotting out everything I've very cleverly read until I've cornered your king (see, I actually understand your tangential metaphor this time ;)), I'm treating this as an exercise where you and I can discuss epistemology with the hope of learning something new about ourselves and about human nature. Fact is, though, you've got to meet me half-way on this if we're actually going to get anywhere. It's hard to play a good, genial game of chess if you keep on moving the pieces round while claiming we're actually playing checkers.
| quote: | Here is my position (in order to illustrate see how I must include all positions...)
Position 1: a,b,c
Position 2: d,e,f
Position 3: g,h,i
Bold points represent Truth. |
Position with regards to what? Truth of what? When you post something like this can you please explain clearly and precisely what it is you're trying to say, so that poor students of "established wisdom" like me stand a chance of knowing what you're talking about?
| quote: | | The Holy Grail of Logic is to find a means of mining the truth. |
I think I can agree with that.
| quote: | Here is what the Grail says about Positional Logic:
Positional logic's purpose is to advance its current position. And the means by which it does that is to expose itself to attack. |
Sorry, but what exactly is "positional logic"? Are you referring to the fact that we each hold a "position" on a certain argument and use post-hoc logic to rationalise that position? By "exposing itself to attack" are you referring to the use of skepticism and doubt in forming and assessing our "positions"?
| quote: | Each succesful attack doesn't change the conclusion. But the subconscious mind sees the hole and rushes to fill it in. The conscious mind is of course never the wiser...
The irony is that the issue isn't what you think consciously about anything I say. Rush to fill in the holes. It's all good from where i'm watching because the conclusion never changes... |
See, again, you're talking in esoteric riddles and I have no idea what you're trying to say. Neitzsche said "Good writers [...] prefer being understood to being admired" and that's a maxim that you could probably benefit from understanding. Even if you are the most skilled writer on these boards, espousing the most enlightened philosophy this world has ever seen, all these fantastic metaphors and platitudes count for nothing if people don't know what the hell you're going on about. Rather than gazing contempuously down upon us like an ubermensch from your lofty pedestal of enlightenment, condescendingly suggesting that we're all living in "intellectual prisons", could you try articulating your stance a little more clearly so that us poor denizens may some day, in the distant future, be able to embrace your ideas and rise up towards your transcendent, alogical glory?
If you want to communicate your ideas to us, do it properly. If you aren't interested in communicating your ideas to other people, then what are you doing here?
| quote: | | are you any the wiser? |
Not yet, but I hold out great hope. :) |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Neitzsche said \"Good writers [...] prefer being understood to being admired\" and that's a maxim that you could probably benefit from understanding. Even if you are the most skilled writer on these boards, espousing the most enlightened philosophy this world has ever seen, all these fantastic metaphors and platitudes count for nothing if people don't know what the hell you're going on about. |
exactly right. the whole role of academia is to put forward a world view, how things are, how they were, how they should/could be.. if youre unable to influence anybody coz youre rambling, then whats the point?
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
I'll edit it down so that Raistlin will understand it more clearly. |
im not stupid, but i still have no idea what youre banging on about. renegade's posts are a whole lot more complicated yet infinitely easier to understand.
the philosphers have merely interpreted the world; the point is to change it -karl marx ;) |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not stupid, but i still have no idea what youre banging on about. renegade's posts are a whole lot more complicated yet infinitely easier to understand.
the philosphers have merely interpreted the world; the point is to change it -karl marx ;) |
I accept the criticisms. I am aware that the "style" of the presentation of my logic is *messy*. That within it I embbed other things which make it more difficult to comprehend.
Given the somewhat abraisiveness of that style the resistance it has received has been surprisingly pleasant :D |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
This, whether you want to call it something else or not, is the same denial of an anthropic espistemological foundation posited by Descartes about 500 years ago. While you'll be happy to know that Western Philosophy has never absolutely solved the ontological rift created by Descartes' bifurcation of body and mind, your qualms about the fallibility of the senses in determining the nature of the "noumenal world" are nothing new.
|
Ah XIlus tis you. (yes this is the last obvertly obnoxious tangent I will insert... I hope, explanation of such tangents is included later in this post :D)
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I'm not treating this an exercise in intellectual masturbation, trying to "win" the argument by trotting out everything I've very cleverly read until I've cornered your king (see, I actually understand your tangential metaphor this time ;))
|
Would you agree that there is a certain elegance to them that is not available without their use? I think your extension of the tangent illustrates this, that's part of why I use them, and I do realize that their success is based on the reader's knowledge of the tangential subject and that that limits their effectiveness and utility.
| quote: |
Position with regards to what? Truth of what? When you post something like this can you please explain clearly and precisely what it is you're trying to say, so that poor students of "established wisdom" like me stand a chance of knowing what you're talking about?
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
See, again, you're talking in esoteric riddles and I have no idea what you're trying to say.
Not yet, but I hold out great hope. :) |
I will try to be more clear now.
I will explain 2 foundations of my position, the first of which will which explain the method in my tangential madness.
1) I suspect you are aware of all the psychologists who give variations on the following:
"90% of all communication is subconscious". Where they refer to things like body language etc.
Having watched/participated in many debates I have come to believe that the subconscious is not limited to the conscious mind's conclusions. That the subconcious receives the information, analyzes it correctly, and then "recasts" it so that it doesn't damage the conscious mind's existing position. (the reason for this I will add at the end)
The method to my madness then. Is that up to this point in this thread, my primary desire wasn't to communicate my ideas to your conscious mind, but rather to communicate ideas to your subconscious.
2)
As for my own template for the holy grail of logic. It exists somewhere between the following two poles.
Pole 1: The Ancient parrable of the blind men and the Elephant as template to explain the various perceptions of reality.
and
Pole 2: The Movie Cube as a matching pair to the elephant parable.
Simple explanation of recasting
It's the best way of advancing knowledge.
If an atheist and an agnostic meet, and the atheist wins the argument then the next time they meet the agnostic cause will not have advanced.
Say atheist identifies Hole X in agnostics logic. During the actual argument the Agnostic will respond with a stop gap fix "that's not logical for reason Y". He will then return home and his subconscious mind will instruct him to "Fix that hole damnit". Once that hole is fixed then the research into agnostic logic will be stronger.
In effect the job of an atheist (substitute any perspective) is to improve his own perspective, and improve the perspective of others by finding holes for them. It may be war on the surface, but subconsiously its a mutually reinforcing team effort.
Objection: "But what about people who DO change their opinions"
Just enough do to make it not obvious. If no one ever changed their opinion this process would be too obvious. Instead the fact that most people don't allows us to ascribe other reasons "People are Republicans because their parents are". "Jimmy's a democrat because he's rebelling against his parents values" etc.
I hope that was more straightforward... |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Ah, so I suppose you're trying to say that arguing is usually useless because when we present a hole in someone's logic, that person still clinges to the original idea and only tries to circumnavigate that hole, am I right?
Well, yea, that's largely the case, and that's not always a bad thing. Most researches are never absolutely correct in the beginning but often do have a general idea that's not wrong, so abandoning an idea should only be done after it becomes impossible or unreasonable to keep covering up those holes. In the beginning of the theory of evolution, although with its own faults, creationism still had some merit. Evolution, on the other hand, although promising, did have some holes. But as the time passed, especially with the development of genetics, evolution filled up most of those holes, while the theory of creationism started getting really big ones without being able to fix them. Ultimately most people did switch from believing creationism to believing in evolution. You can only clinge to an idea for as long as it does not portray itself to be a total nonsense. Smart people realized that. A few uneducated and fairly unintelligent people haven't, but hey, there will always be idiots around.
But you see, the thing with TvD is that he doesn't respond and fill the holes we mentioned. He just quiets down for 2 months and then presents the same argument we've found holes in 100 times before, and no, he does not have any better ways of covering up those holes than he had in our previous discussion about the same subject. And that's what makes it fun! :) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| good post tito.:) The comments at the end were funny cuz they're so true!:p |
|
|
| Zombie0915 |
tito sounding like kuhn and popper, fun stuff. I am curious which widely accepted beleifs are gonna be ran full of holes and abandoned in the future, wondering what incorrect beleifs are prevalant today. I am not so snobby to beleive that we do not have any, and it will be fun to see which people end up being wrong, muahahaha.
It is really funny how evolution debates spin off into talk about the rules of logic and the meaning of truth, and bias accusations. It is very fun reading to pass the hours by at work because there is no grunt scripting to be done at the moment while the new release is coming through.
So maybe back to the topic about religion making a berson less intelligent, that was the peice that had me interested. Does intelligence require secularity? I dont think so, although some religions seem to be conducive to making people ignorant of the world around them.
I would like to know more of the details about evolution theory, we have heard the basics so many times, the small details are where most of us seem to have problems I think. We see some feature about ourselves and have trouble comprehending how that feature could have possibly came to be through random mutation/natural selection cycles.
One example would be eyes, it is hard for lotsa people to understand how an eye could gradually develop all its intracate co-operating components over a large period of time, many would argue that something so specific could not be possible without intelligent design. I can imagine how to explain this one. Analogies in technology halp me come up with ways to explain it. Like an animal that had a cell that developed the ability to be sensitive to light. The light responsive creatures could avoid frying in the sun. After light sensing other capabilities could gradually develop to separate frequencies into colors, adjust for different brightness levels, much like cameras have evolved over time.
Those are the kind of explanations I find that I need in order to understand evolution. A big Christian apologetics guy calls it "The mouse trap problem" and explains it like this: You take some cheese, a block of wood, a spring, a hook, a smashing device, and a small metal rod, but those peices do not catch mice unless they are PUT TOGETHER. Evolution includes no explanation as to how the mouse trap is put together except to say that it exists because it fits with the environment. A mouse trap is completely useless before it is fully assembled, so how can it come to exist in its present working form by first spending an incredible amount of time surviving in a form that is completely useless and unfit for any purpose? Something that consists of intricate parts cooperating, much like a mouse trap, is hard to imagine developing gradually because people think that such things need to be put together and can't picture how they can be built out of random occurances filtered by natural selection.
That part of evolution theory is unclear to me, and most people that I know. People can imagine ways that such things could gradually develop but there really needs to be a generic explanation instead of supplying some fabricated story for how the system in question could have gradually developed.
I get over this by thinking of things like computers and cars and things like that, and how they didn't start in their complex forms that we see today, they too developed gradually. But the technology analogies cannot explain everything that has evolved, some things are hard to understand how they could be made possible by evolution.
I am not trying to say evolution is wrong, but I would like to understand this part of it better. |
|
|
|
|
