Aranfan tangent

[Aranfan]

I don't mean to muddy the waters but one can learn vast quantities of material concerning religion - in the same way that one can learn vast quantities of information concerning baseball stats, Harry Potter trivia, folk tales, Paris Hilton biographical data, etc etc etc.

The question is, what's the value of what's being learned? What's the truth-content as it relates to the real world?

Thomas Aquinas was certainly a learned man, at least, by the standards of his day. But his learning was mostly-if-not-entirely learning rooted in a gigantic inventory of superstition and bullshit.

If I'm just being a semantics-whore without realizing it, I'm sorry. But it seems like a worthwhile distinction.

Kanastrous, would the Liar Paradox be enough to make you abandon the law of non-contradiction? I very much doubt it, since paraconsistent logics have their own versions of the liar paradox, but the Liar Paradox shows that the LNC is not followed because it's true, but because without it we'd be up shit creek without a paddle. Science requires faith as well, for instance in the assumption that causality holds, and that we are able to comprehend reality rationally. I follow science even though I haven't been convinced of the truth of those assumptions simply because the scientific method is more effective than religion in getting useful info, indeed it's the most effective such method I've yet been presented with. But I don't care about Truth, Godel showed that there are unprovable truths in any consistent system that can handle arithmetic, and that's too useful to abandon.

[Kanastrous]

Kanastrous, would the Liar Paradox be enough to make you abandon the law of non-contradiction? I very much doubt it, since paraconsistent logics have their own versions of the liar paradox, but the Liar Paradox shows that the LNC is not followed because it's true, but because without it we'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

I'm not too proud to admit that I will have to do some outside reading before I understand your post well enough to respond to it. Sorry about that.

Zinegata, the phrase Wall of Ignorance describes a debating tactic in which one's interlocutor basically ignores any information or construct that undermines their argument, and proceeds to repeat themselves as though nothing had been presented to them that requires a response.

While it's not exactly an insult, it's not exactly a compliment, either.

[Aranfan]

Kanastrous, would the Liar Paradox be enough to make you abandon the law of non-contradiction? I very much doubt it, since paraconsistent logics have their own versions of the liar paradox, but the Liar Paradox shows that the LNC is not followed because it's true, but because without it we'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

I'm not too proud to admit that I will have to do some outside reading before I understand your post well enough to respond to it. Sorry about that.

No problem. My position is that we might be able to know truths, but we probably won't have a way to be sure they are true. The Law of Non Contradiction, for example, is the principle that the evaluations of truth and falsehood cannot apply to the same thing at the same time in the same sense. If I didn't hold to this, then it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for me to do any thinking at all. Yet the Liar Paradox shows the LNC to have problems if it is true. Belief in the Law of Non Contradiction, then, requires just as much faith (def 2b1) as belief in god.

[Simon_Jester]

And yet we routinely observe binary states in nature: the cave does or does not contain a bear, there is or is not food to eat, the enemy army is or is not on the other side of the hill, I will or will not keep my job.

We observe the law of non-contradiction in action far more often than we see clear evidence of God in action. Indeed, even if the law of non-contradiction were not a strictly formally verified concept, we'd still be justified in using it on a day to day basis, and we still would. And it would still work: we could infer from the absence of bears that we are not about to be eaten by a bear, from the fact that we have not been fired that we have a job, and so on.

The physical universe provides ample empirical evidence to use the law of non-contradiction inductively; it requires far less faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. Only by ignoring the universe could you have come to the conclusion that they require the same amount of faith.

As for the Liar Paradox, I don't think it really does prove that the law of non-contradiction is false; it proves that it is possible to construct statements to which the concept of a truth-value is inapplicable. "This statement is false" contains no information beyond its own self-negation; it cannot be tested against an external reality. Other versions of the paradox do not present this problem: "All Cretans are liars" can be resolved by finding an honest Cretan, for instance.

Only a statement of no content can fall prey to the Liar Paradox, and it's inevitable that a statement with no content will have an indeterminate truth value.

[Aranfan]

And yet we routinely observe binary states in nature: the cave does or does not contain a bear, there is or is not food to eat, the enemy army is or is not on the other side of the hill, I will or will not keep my job.

We observe the law of non-contradiction in action far more often than we see clear evidence of God in action. Indeed, even if the law of non-contradiction were not a strictly formally verified concept, we'd still be justified in using it on a day to day basis, and we still would. And it would still work: we could infer from the absence of bears that we are not about to be eaten by a bear, from the fact that we have not been fired that we have a job, and so on.

The physical universe provides ample empirical evidence to use the law of non-contradiction inductively; it requires far less faith to believe in that than it does to believe in God. Only by ignoring the universe could you have come to the conclusion that they require the same amount of faith.

As for the Liar Paradox, I don't think it really does prove that the law of non-contradiction is false; it proves that it is possible to construct statements to which the concept of a truth-value is inapplicable. "This statement is false" contains no information beyond its own self-negation; it cannot be tested against an external reality. Other versions of the paradox do not present this problem: "All Cretans are liars" can be resolved by finding an honest Cretan, for instance.

Only a statement of no content can fall prey to the Liar Paradox, and it's inevitable that a statement with no content will have an indeterminate truth value.

Is nonselfdescriptive a nonselfdescriptive word? Trying to deal with this self-reference wrecks the entire English language. The Liar is also vital to Godel's incompleteness proofs (G=G is unprovable).

And empirical data is only proof if we are are able to trust our senses, which is only so if the Cartesian Daemon isn't fucking with us. But the data required to make that arbitration is not available to our senses.

Utility is not grounds for Truth.

[Simon_Jester]

Why not? It seems satisfactory for me.

[Kanastrous]

I guess it betrays a certain lack of sophistication on my part but whenever I'm presented with some variation on the theme of everything might just be deceptive sensory illusion and maya and therefore we can't ever form convictions based upon 'real' sensory data my first impulse is to suggest that my interlocutor step in front of a speeding bus, then get back to me with a report on the illusory, sense-dependent and ultimately unreliable and meaningless illusion of 'reality' of which that bus is a perhaps-nonexistent component.

The impact of that imaginary, illusory, can't trust-our-senses-that-it's-there no-certain-reality-to-it speeding bus won't hurt one bit. Really. I promise. But if you discover otherwise, let me know and we'll revise the hypothesis.

[Aranfan]

I guess it betrays a certain lack of sophistication on my part but whenever I'm presented with some variation on the theme of everything might just be deceptive sensory illusion and maya and therefore we can't ever form convictions based upon 'real' sensory data my first impulse is to suggest that my interlocutor step in front of a speeding bus, then get back to me with a report on the illusory, sense-dependent and ultimately unreliable and meaningless illusion of 'reality' of which that bus is a perhaps-nonexistent component.

The impact of that imaginary, illusory, can't trust-our-senses-that-it's-there no-certain-reality-to-it speeding bus won't hurt one bit. Really. I promise. But if you discover otherwise, let me know and we'll revise the hypothesis.

Yeah, but that'll still seem to hurt, even if it was just an illusion. Our belief in our senses have no logical justification, it's just the only way we can operate.

[Kanastrous]

Why do quantifiable measurements - even if mediated through a nervous system - require logical justification?

*EDIT*

Further, it seems to me that the we don't know if our sensory inputs are purely illusory or not, and we have no way to tell approach leaves us in the position of Hawking's Man in the Elevator: it's not possible to determine from inside the box if it is accelerating through open space at 1g acceleration, or whether the box is relatively stationary on the Earth's surface because either way the Man experiences the same 1g acceleration. Well, fine; if the man's purpose is to measure the g-force acting upon him it's irrelevant whether the box is in space or at the planet's surface. That 1g is there, and is a real force acting upon him. The nature and position of the box do not matter for the purpose of his measurements.

[Aranfan]

Why do quantifiable measurements - even if mediated through a nervous system - require logical justification?

I can make quantifiable measurements of dreamscapes. And pain is qualitative, not quantitative.

[Kanastrous]

What units of measurement are standardized, for dreamscapes? Is there a platinum 1-dream-meter rod sitting in a vault, in Paris...?

And the perception of pain is qualitative (although patients are offered quantitative scales by which to report it...) but the mechanisms by which pain is transmitted through the nervous system are indeed quantfiable.

[Metahive]

And empirical data is only proof if we are are able to trust our senses, which is only so if the Cartesian Daemon isn't fucking with us. But the data required to make that arbitration is not available to our senses.

I must say that if someone introduces both post-modern relativism and solipsism into a debate it just means he doesn't really want to debate since both are complete dead-ends from an argumentative view.
You use a lot of jargon in your posts, but your message doesn't really go beyond "Everything's relative and we can't know right from wrong anyway". No, that doesn't make for a useful discussion.

[Aranfan]

And empirical data is only proof if we are are able to trust our senses, which is only so if the Cartesian Daemon isn't fucking with us. But the data required to make that arbitration is not available to our senses.

I must say that if someone introduces both post-modern relativism and solipsism into a debate it just means he doesn't really want to debate since both are complete dead-ends from an argumentative view.
You use a lot of jargon in your posts, but your message doesn't really go beyond "Everything's relative and we can't know right from wrong anyway". No, that doesn't make for a useful discussion.

I would add, "so go have fun" to that.

[Metahive]

OK, I must ask if you really believe in what you're saying...why are you even participating in any sort of debate?

[Aranfan]

OK, I must ask if you really believe in what you're saying...why are you even participating in any sort of debate?

It's fun.

Edit: Rather, I subjectively consider it to be fun.

[ray245]

OK, I must ask if you really believe in what you're saying...why are you even participating in any sort of debate?

It's fun.

Edit: Rather, I subjectively consider it to be fun.

So you are trolling everyone all along?

[Aranfan]

OK, I must ask if you really believe in what you're saying...why are you even participating in any sort of debate?

It's fun.

Edit: Rather, I subjectively consider it to be fun.

So you are trolling everyone all along?

If "having fun" = "trolling" under all conditions, then yes. But I would dispute that equation. Would you be here if you didn't have fun here?

[Simon_Jester]

I for one have fun by supporting things I believe to be defensible and true.

Can you say the same? While you might well be entertained by spouting indefensible lies, or statements so nonsensical that they might as well be lies, I see no reason why anyone else would want to have you around in that case.

[Metahive]

It's fun.

Edit: Rather, I subjectively consider it to be fun.

Since the only fun to be had by spouting post-modern relativism/solipsism is the fun of aggravating people (considering the inherent vapidness of it), I say that it is really just the fun of a troll.

[Sela]

With all due respect, I suspect Aranfan's becoming a bit flippant here thanks to the dogpile.

@OP: I must say I find your argument fun and compelling as well. It's worth remembering every now and then that - like ANY empirical method based on induction - science isn't about knowing the "One True Truth (tm)".

Further, thank god that we're all fully capable of operating without constantly analyzing those inherent assumptions that we have to make to get by. Can you imagine how much it would suck to be stuck wondering whether or not you really existed all the time? Our brains help reinforce the 'reality' that our best scientific predictions tell us about the world constantly on a day-to-day basis. And that's just the way I like it.