tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5473023411166887988..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Original Intentionality and IndexicalsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger203125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9296258041701514212012-02-24T23:31:32.082-07:002012-02-24T23:31:32.082-07:00Do these posts go over 200?Do these posts go over 200?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77228117739985054932012-02-24T22:05:31.675-07:002012-02-24T22:05:31.675-07:00William
"Only if the category of the question...William<br />"Only if the category of the question is one which requires a scientific explanation, which, I would suggest, your anti-religious philosophical issues do not require."<br /><br />And who determines whether the question should be answered with or not a scientific explanation? Where is the cut-off demarcation?<br /><br />I am not, per se, anti-religion. if religion was kept a private matter I have no issue. When religion wishes to influence public policy, it had better come up with better than scriptural answers and reasons a little more substantial than 'because the bible says so". The underlying universal secular values that transcend all religions are those that most need protecting. Scientific understanding is closet to secular understanding of the world.<br /><br />Theological reasons are notoriously indiscriminate, with reasoning based on little more than expressed opinion. An example of the paucity of theological reasoning is that of distinguishing the sacred from the profane, the mind-body dualism, god-man dualism etc. However such reasoning does not hold true in all circumstances. What is holy and sacred to one member of the community, another member is quite happy to trash, no less so christians; eg, Koran burning. Theology operates on boundaries that are not universally acknowledged nor accepted. Science on the other hand, trespasses on the boundary of the sacred not because it is opposed to the sacred but because it has no concept of sacred at all. <i>Sacred</i> is a religious concept, not a scientific one and <b><i>not</i></b> a natural one. To science nothing is sacred, because 'sacred' is not a part of its vocabulary. So when science ignores religious boundaries, it handles religion roughly - like any pithed frog or pinned butterfly. And when science finds facts that refute religious claims - about man, about society, about the universe, or about god[s] - it comes as a tear of the skin that no religion welcomes or can withstand. <br /><br />In summation, theology, like all adult activities, should remain in the privacy of one's own home.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56446427292027473412012-02-24T21:24:40.477-07:002012-02-24T21:24:40.477-07:00grod
"Your concern about my mental health is ...grod<br />"Your concern about my mental health is endearing. As you say, psychosis is very common, but alas, I am afraid I am already too far gone. I mean, the voices inside my head, they just won't shut up! Oh wait, it is just the radio (turns radio off -- now, that is better). "<br /><br />I made no mention of concern for your mental health. I am sorry you have taken it this way. I was explicit in making the distinction between the pejorative colloquial sense of the word, psychosis, and its clinical sense. And judging by the tenor of your response, it seems you have no knowledge or understanding of the word 'pejorative'. <br /><br />And you are right, we all suffer from varying degrees of psychosis, as do I. Anxiety is a classic example of psychosis that we all experience from time to time throughout our lives. And generally, we can govern ourselves to mitigate anxiety in many different ways. For those that can't some form of medical remediation is required, usually temporary. <br />But what I am getting at is that a belief, say for example, Aquinas's five-ways as the one true perspective for living one's life, such a statement is clearly without foundation as billions of people have not even heard of Aquinas let alone read his writings. And they and their families live just as well as you or I do. So clearly Aquinas's five-ways are not a measure of reality of the world. It is when people begin to fervently believe that the five-ways is <i>the</i> one way, that a psychosis manifests.<br /><br />I am saddened by your misplaced show of indignation.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69703616281362908682012-02-24T21:04:02.647-07:002012-02-24T21:04:02.647-07:00"There are innumerable forms of explanations...."There are innumerable forms of explanations. And every individual is entitled to an explanation that best suits their proclivity or personal bias. <br />"<br /><br />I would say that yes, explanations are to answer our questions,and we have different questions that need explanation in either scientific or non scientific ways in different settings, with or without bias.<br /><br />"But to deem them as an alternative to or a substitute for scientific explanation is a grievous error of category. <br />"<br /><br />Only if the category of the question is one which requires a <em> scientific </em> explanation, which, I would suggest, your anti-religious philosophical issues do not require.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77577190066679153332012-02-24T20:34:54.858-07:002012-02-24T20:34:54.858-07:00@Papalinton:
"I do perfectly understand your...@Papalinton:<br /><br />"I do perfectly understand your position but it is not a position of any merit or worth outside the theistic mindframe. You see, you must firstly ground reason on naturalism and the physical as a basis for keeping one's feet on the floor so to speak. Because without this referent, and as we know from psychiatry and psychology research findings, a journey of the mind into the unnatural and the metaphysical can seem ever so powerfully real, and we can reach a disassociated state in which one is unable to distinguish reality from fancy. Psychosis, not in its pejorative sense, is a very common condition."<br /><br />Your concern about my mental health is endearing. As you say, psychosis is very common, but alas, I am afraid I am already too far gone. I mean, the voices inside my head, they just won't shut up! Oh wait, it is just the radio (turns radio off -- now, that is better). Anyway, by your words and tone, you seem to be well acquainted with this psychosis condition. What kind of pills do you counsel? I can get my hands on Prozac, Xanax and Zoloft; do you think they are any good? Maybe something stronger? And what about psychotherapy, should I undertake it? What does your personal experience with this condition advise? But before you answer, please make sure to have taken all the meds as I would not want you to be in a state unable to distinguish reality from fancy and give me some raving, incoherent rant as you just did.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38361156006971389312012-02-24T20:25:41.445-07:002012-02-24T20:25:41.445-07:00William
"Don't you think there are any ot...William<br />"Don't you think there are any other explanations outside of the scientific ones, Linton? If I explain to the storekeeper why I am shopping for an item, that is not a scientific explanation, for example, but isn't it still a decent kind of explanation?"<br /><br />Yes of course. There are innumerable forms of explanations. And every individual is entitled to an explanation that best suits their proclivity or personal bias. But to deem them as an alternative to or a substitute for scientific explanation is a grievous error of category. And worse, to tout them as the equivalent to, or the equal of, a scientific explanation is whistling in the wind.<br /><br />Scientific explanation is, " .. the basic structure of the most comprehensive and effective deployment of inductive reasoning in human history. Since its development during the Renaissance, modern science has contributed significantly to our ability to perceive, understand, and manipulate the natural world. Taken generally as a way of acquiring human knowledge, science is a procedure for the invention and evaluation of hypotheses that may be used to explain why things happen as they do. Unlike dogmatic appeals to the absolute, unchallengeable truth of unsupported assertions (as, for example, when a parent tells a child, "Because I say so, that's why."), scientific explanations are always tentative proposals, offered in hopes of capturing the best outlook on the matter but subject to evaluation, modification, or even overturn in light of further evidence.<br /><br />The most productive model for the structure of a scientific explanation is that of a valid deductive argument whose conclusion is the event to be explained. Some of the premises of this argument will be factual statements of the antecedent circumstances, while the others will be the scientific hypotheses offered as a way of linking those circumstances to the outcome stated by the conclusion."<br /><br />William, you might wish to read the rest of this quite short encapsulation of scientific explanation. http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e15.htm<br /><br />I refer to your example, "If I explain to the storekeeper why I am shopping for an item, that is not a scientific explanation, for example, but isn't it still a decent kind of explanation?"<br /><br />Your proposition is sound and is a decent explanation, grounded as it is in the natural. And from it the shopkeeper could conceivably develop a testable hypothesis, even anecdotally, taking into consideration other shoppers who purchased the same item for the same reasons and others that do not for varying and different reasons. That would be a fair proxy, albeit rough and ready, for the scientific method.<br /><br />If however you posited, "If I explain to a professor why I am studying comparative religion to establish that Hinduism is false based on christian findings, that is not a scientific explanation, nor is it a decent kind of explanation?" And yet christian theists have provided multiple attestations even on this site that they have read and studied and researched all the major religions, some even lived them, only to find them all singularly false, except christianity. Now, is that a fair explanation? Or even a reasonable explanation? many people have done it.<br /><br />No, William, the scientific explanation is our best chance of expanding humanity's commonwealth of knowledge and information about man, about the owrld, the universe, and perhaps even about gods. And until more informed information and evidence directs to the contrary, theism is not an explanation, it is an excuse. <br /><br />Victor is yet to provide anything more than a misplaced rationale in the defence of christian theology that does not rely solely on 'conventional wisdom[?] founded on tradition", as the only source.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48381643349627432712012-02-24T19:20:45.218-07:002012-02-24T19:20:45.218-07:00Some quick, passing comments.
PatrickH,
I want t...Some quick, passing comments.<br /><br />PatrickH,<br /><br />I want to stress, and I mentioned this before, that my problem isn't with science, but with metaphysics. Let science revise its language over and over for all I care.<br /><br />Ben,<br /><br />The thing is, I don't think I'm being all that wild here. Bombastic? Sure, a bit. But that's about all. I even complimented BDK. I stated my problems with his replies, including why I thought they were a dodge. He stands in contrast to other contributors.<br /><br />Hope you're well and all. I think Bob has the right idea with his Lenten fast! I admire him for that one, and I recall it really is yearly.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29245182937866254862012-02-24T18:04:04.460-07:002012-02-24T18:04:04.460-07:00Hi grod
Sorry if it seemed I was impertinent.
I di...Hi grod<br />Sorry if it seemed I was impertinent.<br />I did respond to your statement re the 'goddidit' explanation, but the response was more openly directed to all commenters on this site.<br /><br />I do perfectly understand your position but it is not a position of any merit or worth outside the theistic mindframe. You see, you must firstly ground reason on naturalism and the physical as a basis for keeping one's feet on the floor so to speak. Because without this referent, and as we know from psychiatry and psychology research findings, a journey of the mind into the unnatural and the metaphysical can seem ever so powerfully real, and we can reach a disassociated state in which one is unable to distinguish reality from fancy. Psychosis, not in its pejorative sense, is a very common condition. [It is also important to note that psychosis usually refers to negative expressions, that is paranoia, stereotypy etc. rather than ecstatic experience such as religious ecstasy, though with such a broad term, there are no hard and fast rules. From the All reference Libraries dictionary] Personal experiences, the almost unlimited capacity of the mind to conjure cathartic personal experiences that seem real and can be viscerally felt, at both the transcendently exhilarating and the gruesomely bloody ends of the continuum, are legion. The one common thread that determines whether such ideation is real or otherwise is when it is able to be referred back to the natural and physical world. We all live, theists and atheists alike, in what is generally acknowledged as the natural world. But I do not live in a Thomist world. Nor do 6.5 billion other people on this planet. You must concede your Thomist world is a metaphysical conception, one of a myriad such conceptions known to human kind, but one that cannot ever be considered as a fundamental elemental of the natural world. It explains the world from your perspective. It does not explain the world from my perspective.<br /><br />This is the very crux of misplaced conflation that theists unfortunately subscribe to. The catholics imagine the Thomist 5 ways as fundamental realities. I'm not sure Hindus would concede the Thomist perspective as fundamental to their reality of the natural world.<br /><br />Grod, try not to join some of the other commenters on this site on a race to the bottom, in terms of ad hominems and personal attacks, and character assassinations. Just because I present a robust case against the perceived 'wisdom' of religious tradition, this shouldn't be construed as a personal attack. I know it is sometimes difficult not to when one's raison d'ĂȘtre is vigorously challenged, and although it feels like a personal attack, it is not. Some commenters on this site are incapable of understanding the distinction. The personalizing of the attacks is the only commenting style of the Yachovs, cls, and crudes, a strategy of last resort when they know their cupboard of theist ideas is bare.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56398726835613869982012-02-24T18:02:16.900-07:002012-02-24T18:02:16.900-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31473979115667000132012-02-24T17:58:20.220-07:002012-02-24T17:58:20.220-07:00Grod,
I will respond to any substantive point you...Grod,<br /><br /><i>I will respond to any substantive point you make once you show that you have even a minimum of understanding of what I am talking about instead of peddling ignorant, idiotic rants.</i><br /><br />Well, you just guaranteed yourself some saved time! One arguable definition of nothingness is 'What is left once you remove the ignorant, idiotic rants from Linton's comments.'<br /><br />I think William is seriously overestimating the guy by suggesting Linton has an 'efficient causes only' view of the world. Barring a quick google search, he probably thinks an efficient cause has something to do with cars and gas mileage.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6943003359493248172012-02-24T16:00:23.910-07:002012-02-24T16:00:23.910-07:00Pap, as a Thomist, grod would not share your effic...Pap, as a Thomist, grod would not share your efficient-causes-only approach to explanation :)<br /><br />Don't you think there are any other explanations outside of the scientific ones, Linton? If I explain to the storekeeper why I am shopping for an item, that is not a scientific explanation, for example, but isn't it still a decent kind of explanation?Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77786957794131163702012-02-24T14:40:34.095-07:002012-02-24T14:40:34.095-07:00@Papalinton:
"Saying "God did it" ...@Papalinton:<br /><br />"<i>Saying "God did it" may be a good or a bad explanation, but it is an explanation nonetheless...</i><br /><br />No it is not an explanation. Indeed it is a genuine conversation stopper. Assigning 'goddidit' is an indolent and slovenly way of explaining nothing." <br /><br />Are you talking to me? (in a Robert de Niro pose) I will respond to any substantive point you make once you show that you have even a minimum of understanding of what I am talking about instead of peddling ignorant, idiotic rants.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72189006973785747682012-02-24T14:15:20.181-07:002012-02-24T14:15:20.181-07:00http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/
...http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/<br />god.htmlPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-46415156463209314202012-02-24T14:13:47.872-07:002012-02-24T14:13:47.872-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10275889890847607862012-02-24T14:10:40.924-07:002012-02-24T14:10:40.924-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12909941492196796722012-02-24T14:02:25.647-07:002012-02-24T14:02:25.647-07:00"Saying "God did it" may be a good ..."Saying "God did it" may be a good or a bad explanation, but it is an explanation nonetheless..."<br /><br />No it is not an explanation. Indeed it is a genuine conversation stopper. Assigning 'goddidit' is an indolent and slovenly way of explaining nothing. <br /><br />A list of philosophically sound reasons for why 'goddidit' is a deficit in terms of explanatory power:<br />http://www.philosophylounge.com/reasons-avoiding-god-answers-scientific-questions/<br /><br />For a humorous and light-hearted look at the 'goddidit' avowal:<br />http://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/god.htmlPapalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-56454137116991855232012-02-24T12:49:09.043-07:002012-02-24T12:49:09.043-07:00@William:
"There are realism considerations ...@William:<br /><br />"There are realism considerations here of the sort that folks argue about in the discovery of theorems in mathematics, and I was just questioning your realism assumptions since you seemed unaware of them: note that I do share your realistic intuitions."<br /><br />Since my training is in mathematics I am not completely unaware of such debates, or even of my own assumptions. But if any doubts there are, I hereby confess I am a realist through and through (of the Aritotelian-Thomistic variety).grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-31806916857874714872012-02-24T12:45:50.476-07:002012-02-24T12:45:50.476-07:00matt,
I think that in general, if you are partiti...matt,<br /><br />I think that in general, if you are partitioning a set into two subsets, where every element in the original set will be placed into either subset, but never both, that a negative definition is quite useful.<br /><br />Where we run into a problem is when we want to allow an element in both sets, such as when certain sophisticated naturalists make a claim that a certain mental property is ALSO a physical property. <br /><br />I think Victor's and Lewis' argument works perfectly against the reductive physicalists, but does not work so well on others who do the both-and, not just the either-or-not-both move with consciousness.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26380806082938838222012-02-24T11:50:14.536-07:002012-02-24T11:50:14.536-07:00William (and others), so what's the problem wi...William (and others), so what's the problem with a negative definition?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75654964583277639462012-02-24T11:42:47.564-07:002012-02-24T11:42:47.564-07:00"If it is a causal regularity, then it is not..."If it is a causal regularity, then it is not just a "mere" regularity, is it? If you have a different understanding of what a regularity is, then please enlighten me, but a regularity is just a correlation, e.g. given A, B obtains.<br />"<br /><br />To me, a regularity is a pattern in the evidence. A theory is is an explanation for that regularity. A law is, at very least, a theory that is consistently successful in making predictions about future data. There are also aesthetic considerations for laws, perhaps?<br /><br />There are realism considerations here of the sort that folks argue about in the discovery of theorems in mathematics, and I was just questioning your realism assumptions since you seemed unaware of them: note that I do share your realistic intuitions.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70075805907197251192012-02-24T10:22:42.602-07:002012-02-24T10:22:42.602-07:00Considering my own disposition I acknowledge I am ...Considering my own disposition I acknowledge I am a complete hypocrite for what I am about to say.<br /><br />Crude I love you but chill.<br /><br />I absolutely grant this is like Frank Costanza telling Ralf from the Honeymooners to Chill. <br /><br />(Ralf you see is far more calm than Frank by an order of magnitude) <br /><br />I'm not taking sides. Maybe BDK is or is not being a little dense. I don't know enough to judge.<br /><br />But because you two are the alpha dogs here who for the most part know what you are talking about I care.<br /><br />BDK chile.<br /><br />Yeh I'm hypocrite since I am a Sith Lord in my anger compared to you Dark Jedi amateurs. But what I do?<br /><br />Peace.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41352877866042443562012-02-24T09:20:13.923-07:002012-02-24T09:20:13.923-07:00I'm surprised no one has referred to Bas van F...I'm surprised no one has referred to Bas van Fraasen on how science reinterprets what it is to be "material" as an essential part of the enterprise. When a metaphysical presupposition enters science, it forgets its origins, and may lead to a redefinition of the material to include the new element, but not as a metaphysical principle, as an empirical and therefore revisable scientific position. Forces were called occult by Cartesians when Newton imported them into physics, but force simply became a component of the material, or natural world. There's nothing dishonest or unscientific or sneaky about this. If something becomes amenable to scientific methods, then it becomes natural, without any necessity of spending thousands of hours trying to define the natural.<br /><br />The key is that in becoming scientific, the latest "meaning" of natural is capable of revision through empirical investigation. If the latest meaning of "natural" is acommpanied by a completeness claim (or a permanency claim), that is the sign its metaphysics masquerading as science. <br /><br />I don't see any difficulty in scientists redefining the natural or material as they go along, provided they don't start yelling about how they've got it right this time for all time. Revise away, scientists. Just don't think you've finally arrived at a place where no more revision is possible.PatrickHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864910409538457529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36810952689716520452012-02-24T09:08:04.107-07:002012-02-24T09:08:04.107-07:00@William:
"Trying to cash laws as regulariti...@William:<br /><br />"<i>Trying to cash laws as regularities commits one to a jumble of incoherences. Laws are not regularities just as causation is not correlation.</i><br /><br />Are you claiming that a regularity cannot be a causal regularity? Can't we define a law as an orderly, causally related but, ultimately, "mere" regularity? This would not be incoherent."<br /><br />If it is a causal regularity, then it is not just a "mere" regularity, is it? If you have a different understanding of what a regularity is, then please enlighten me, but a regularity is just a correlation, e.g. given A, B obtains. It is not an explanation of a state of affairs, e.g. *why* given A, B obtains. If you do say that there is a causal relation between A and B (and not C or D or any other among a myriad of possibilities) then you are indeed offering an explanation and doing science in the broad Aristotelian sense. But then it is a perfectly legitimate question to ask what is the nature of the causal relationship between A and B, whence the relationship.<br /><br />Given the metaphysical commitments of a naturalist, physical laws do not, and cannot, exist apart from that on which they operate, e.g. matter, space-time, etc. so a broadly Platonic account is not on the table -- and if it was, the label naturalist would loose all meaning anyway. Another possibility is a return to an Aristotelian-Thomistic essentialist account, but this is likewise impossible for a naturalist. For one, he could hardly escape falling prey to Aquinas' Five Ways. So how can a naturalist account for causal laws? They do not belong to the matter, energy, space-time or any other naturalist ontological categories. They are an essential piece in the explanatory framework of a naturalist. Are they necessary? Are they contingent? Either way, an account is needed. Whence the order? Maybe it is just my ignorance speaking, but I do not see any coherent way for a naturalist to explain it. A physicist can perfectly well ignore such questions and settle on an operational definition of physical laws as briefly sketched by BDK. But if you are going to make sweeping statements with metaphysical import ("everything is matter!") it is perfectly legitimate to ask for a rational justification for such a claim. Saying "God did it" may be a good or a bad explanation, but it is an explanation nonetheless; saying "no one and nothing did it" is to refuse to play the explanatory game. A naturalist can of course, resort to such a cop out, but then he should drop any rational pretenses or claim any explanatory superiority.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73588209630384530262012-02-24T02:47:33.376-07:002012-02-24T02:47:33.376-07:00matt,
Victor in the reference you gave defines th...matt,<br /><br />Victor in the reference you gave defines the physical as what it is not (by what it does not include), rather than by what the physical is (what it does include).<br /><br />Given the problems defining the physical outlined in the controversies above,I think that was a wise move, Victor.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36130224768009396172012-02-24T02:03:28.793-07:002012-02-24T02:03:28.793-07:00What about the definition of 'physical' th...What about the definition of 'physical' that Victor <a href="http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-it-is-to-be-physical.html" rel="nofollow">uses</a>?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07342391408412861663noreply@blogger.com