tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post6013321652230139561..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: A short version of Plantinga's EAANVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38366092042294540192014-07-07T09:38:14.163-07:002014-07-07T09:38:14.163-07:00In the article it is saying that if Evolution and ...In the article it is saying that if Evolution and naturalism are true then we should be able to observe a capacity in people to hold false beliefs. I would say we certainly do see such a capacity for people to have false beliefs, hence this proves that this naturalistic and evolutionist view is consistent with the world as we know it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11544921547335446088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43681866631917284052012-07-28T15:03:56.937-07:002012-07-28T15:03:56.937-07:00William,
Since some eliminative naturalists maint...William,<br /><br /><i>Since some eliminative naturalists maintain there are no beliefs, I think that there is some question begging in your definition. So, metaphysical beliefs are in a sense what we are talking about, since "able to have beliefs" contains metaphysical assumptions?</i><br /><br />For one thing, as I said with Matt - if the response to the EAAN is to embrace Eliminative Materialism, I think Plantinga has already done incredible damage to the naturalist case. Talk about a nuclear bomb - the EM is toxic to most materialists, and certainly is so in a popular argument sense. Even Matt insisted you didn't need to embrace EM to reply to Plantinga - I think there's an obvious reason for that.<br /><br /><i>I return thus to my point: the EAAN is about doubt regarding metaphysics, not ordinary knowledge of the sort one uses to find one's way home:).</i><br /><br />You can say this, but read what Plantinga himself writes. I think you're giving a very reasonable argument to a completely different line of questioning. Remember, EMs are an utter minority even among materialists - if the EAAN is treated as an argument that forces naturalists to embrace EM, I think it still comes out looking like an extremely powerful argument.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14173292618170479022012-07-28T14:57:36.619-07:002012-07-28T14:57:36.619-07:00cl,
The thing I hate about the blog format is tha...cl,<br /><br /><i>The thing I hate about the blog format is that it's not very conducive to intellectual conflict resolution.</i><br /><br />Well, my faith in any kind of conflict resolution in this vein is pretty low. And in Matt's defense, I don't expect him to keep up with this or any comment thread - I can see these things being damn low on the priority list. Frankly, sometimes I go "Ugh, this is dull" and go do something else myself.<br /><br />That said, I'm standing by what I've said in this thread - I think the EAAN is one of the most misunderstood popular arguments, since if people aren't assuming it's an anti-evolutionary argument, they're assuming it's a challenge to sketch some kind, any kind, of way for there to be true beliefs in principle given E&N. I also think the effects of the argument are more powerful than even Plantinga realizes, since he'd apparently take an argument for high reliability given E&N to be a way for the naturalist to emerge from the argument victoriously - and I think any argument that leads to that is going to be a pyrrhic victory.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80420182514606964842012-07-28T14:47:36.389-07:002012-07-28T14:47:36.389-07:00quote:
If it helps, consider intelligent to mean &...quote:<br />If it helps, consider intelligent to mean "capable of having beliefs".<br /><br />--<br /><br />Since some eliminative naturalists maintain there are no beliefs, I think that there is some question begging in your definition. So, metaphysical beliefs are in a sense what we are talking about, since "able to have beliefs" contains metaphysical assumptions?<br /><br />And yes, I would also say that to claim there is no belief means we cannot believe naturalism either. That type of self refutation does not require many words to argue :)<br /><br />I return thus to my point: the EAAN is about doubt regarding metaphysics, not ordinary knowledge of the sort one uses to find one's way home:).Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88182794894640506982012-07-28T08:52:48.021-07:002012-07-28T08:52:48.021-07:00The thing I hate about the blog format is that it&...The thing I hate about the blog format is that it's not very conducive to intellectual conflict resolution. The same pattern usually repeats: we get into with Matt (or other atheist <i>du jour</i>), go a few rounds, then he bails, and nobody ends up any better than they were before.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29177243350862812072012-07-27T21:54:59.155-07:002012-07-27T21:54:59.155-07:00William,
I have trouble with the question as phra...William,<br /><br /><i>I have trouble with the question as phrased. I don't think that I understand what it would look like for a species to be _intelligent_ but highly unreliable in its cognition. I can only see such a species as limited in some way compared to us, such as perhaps having no concept of shape or number.<br /><br />Sorry, cannot answer you.</i><br /><br />No trouble at all. But this is the essential question (or in the ballpark of the question) that Plantinga is asking in the EAAN. And I think, given that, any response to Plantinga that doesn't involve giving an answer to his question isn't really dealing with the EAAN as a result.<br /><br />If it helps, consider intelligent to mean "capable of having beliefs".Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66608687843345721882012-07-27T21:27:31.525-07:002012-07-27T21:27:31.525-07:00--quote
Given E&N for a hypothetical intellige...--quote<br />Given E&N for a hypothetical intelligent species, what probability would you assign to their cognitive faculties being reliable with regards to truth?<br />--<br /><br />Crude:<br /><br />I have trouble with the question as phrased. I don't think that I understand what it would look like for a species to be _intelligent_ but highly unreliable in its cognition. I can only see such a species as limited in some way compared to us, such as perhaps having no concept of shape or number.<br /><br />Sorry, cannot answer you.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-55148553858316790632012-07-27T17:47:57.125-07:002012-07-27T17:47:57.125-07:00"So I think that the EAAN shows that an philo...<i>"So I think that the EAAN shows that an philosophically consistent naturalist should doubt all metaphysics including his own, but he does not have to doubt that water is H2O, for example."</i><br /><br />It is science that informed us that water is H2O not theology. And it is science that is informing us [for those wishing and choosing to be informed, that is] that references and attributes to a supernatural and putatively live spectral entity, is superfluous to any reasonable proposition. The 'goddidit' suffix is humanity's temporary placemarker for those things yet in need of a good explanation. And history has been very clear on the singularly one-way nature of this trend. The 'goddidit' maneuvre is strongly analogous to a child's universal declarative response, 'because'. e.g.<br /><br />'Why is the sun hot?" "Because."<br />"Why is the sun hot?" "God made it so."<br />"What is the reason zebras have stripes?" "Because"<br />"What is the reason zebras have stripes?" 'God did it"<br /><br />Spot the difference, anyone?<br /><br />And the EEAN is a contemporary temporary placemarker chiefly because Plantinga opportunely defines 'naturalism' as theistic modality, from which the argument then proceeds to refute as antithetical to religious belief. <br /><br />There are innumerable arguments contra Plantinga's EEAN. A fully fledged refutation is at: <br />http://utoronto.academia.edu/AlexDjedovic/Papers/905690/Examining_Plantingas_Evolutionary_Argument_against_Naturalism<br /><br />Djedovic begins, <i>"Alvin Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) has undergone<br />significant modification over the years, and as such it is somewhat amorphous."</i><br /><br />and concludes:<br /><br /> <i>"EAAN, it turns out, is not an evolutionary argument at all. It is an argument underwritten by skepticism about naturalized content. This variety of skepticism is well-known. But in this stripped-down form EAAN begins to look similar to other arguments from the present inadequacy of naturalistic explanations, most relevantly the argument from design for biological forms. While induction is necessarily fallible, and therefore prevents a stronger conclusion, the track record of such arguments should not give much comfort to the anti-naturalist."</i>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21488757873247834122012-07-27T17:39:55.454-07:002012-07-27T17:39:55.454-07:00Matt K,
But if you look at the cognitive system a...Matt K,<br /><br /><i>But if you look at the cognitive system as a whole it seems a cognitive system that accurately perceives reality is more likely to produce useful beliefs than one that does not. What's more likely, that humanity has survived with broken clock that was right twice a day which was enough to perpetuate our species or that our clock works well enough that we can form true beliefs?</i><br /><br />I can name a few extremely (to me) big problems with this attitude, but here's one.<br /><br />Do bacteria have beliefs? How about beetles? How about many, many animals that are estimated to be non-sentient?<br /><br />Because given those, it looks like the natural world is swarming with successful species that can do without beliefs entirely. And if they can do without beliefs, why should it be a surprise that they can get by with wrong beliefs that happen to be matched with beneficial behavior?<br /><br />Again, you have Churchland saying "Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism's way of life and enhances the organism's chances of survival [Churchland's emphasis]. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost." That should give someone pause, at least enough to realize that it's not clearly obvious (given N&E) that evolution favors true beliefs.<br /><br />William,<br /><br /><i>So I think that the EAAN shows that an philosophically consistent naturalist should doubt all metaphysics including his own, but he does not have to doubt that water is H2O, for example.</i><br /><br />While I think your argument has some serious merit, I also think it's misplaced with regards to Plantinga. I'd ask you what I asked Matt - given E&N for a hypothetical intelligent species, what probability would you assign to their cognitive faculties being reliable with regards to truth?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86078687358457688892012-07-27T15:13:06.099-07:002012-07-27T15:13:06.099-07:00I agree that the web of what we know and do is str...I agree that the web of what we know and do is stronger than global skepticism in general. Our metaphysical beliefs are not so well supported, though, and this includes naturalistic metaphysics, even if he believes physicalism to be just a minimalist metaphysical extension of existing knowledge. So I think that the EAAN shows that an philosophically consistent naturalist should doubt all metaphysics including his own, but he does not have to doubt that water is H2O, for example.Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53846934243477576792012-07-27T14:44:53.507-07:002012-07-27T14:44:53.507-07:00It seems that if you isolate each belief then it s...It seems that if you isolate each belief then it seems more likely that each useful belief we have, we have for the wrong reasons than for the right reasons. But if you look at the cognitive system as a whole it seems a cognitive system that accurately perceives reality is more likely to produce useful beliefs than one that does not. What's more likely, that humanity has survived with broken clock that was right twice a day which was enough to perpetuate our species or that our clock works well enough that we can form true beliefs?<br /><br />It's been awhile since I've read Plantinga's argument (and i only read it in the paper where he defended it against critics) but I remember wondering about this after reading it and thinking that he had not addressed it very well.Matt Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05947081596759328950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82949801886703704112012-07-27T14:02:25.236-07:002012-07-27T14:02:25.236-07:00Neither BI nor Paps has anything intelligent to sa...Neither BI nor Paps has anything intelligent to say here as per usual.<br /><br />Matt OTOH is at least attempting to put up a philosophical argument against EAAN. <br /><br />I am bias as to his success so far but at least he is seriously trying.<br /><br />OTOH to be fair it is four to one against Matt but that wouldn't be the case if BI & or Paps would get off their lazy Gnu Atheist arses & actually learn some philosophy so they can at least lend a proper assist.<br /><br />But they somehow think recycling there "If you are religious you believe in Faeries & superstition" trope will this time have a positive effect on the rest of us by destroying our beliefs.<br /><br />Gnus man! Geez!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47724841850635254572012-07-27T13:35:30.205-07:002012-07-27T13:35:30.205-07:00Hi Matt,
I don't have the PDF of Plantinga&#...Hi Matt, <br /><br />I don't have the PDF of Plantinga's reply to Churchland, and I don't know how I would be able to get it. Does it come with my subscription?Bilbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06231440026059820600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54242116062579087172012-07-27T11:08:18.523-07:002012-07-27T11:08:18.523-07:00rank,
Yeah, you're probably right. At least P...<b>rank</b>,<br /><br />Yeah, you're probably right. At least Paps occasionally tries to grapple with the arguments. I should know better than to even attempt being reasonable with somebody like BI, who never makes any substantive points or arguments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60256986154370282362012-07-27T10:52:45.249-07:002012-07-27T10:52:45.249-07:00As far as apologetic arguments go, I suppose it...<i>As far as apologetic arguments go, I suppose it's OK. But that's like being king of the rats.</i><br /><br />Hey, look. It's a troll. Should we give in to his desperate cry for attention? Or should we ignore it, since, as usual, it is neither an argument nor a substantive claim? I'm thinking the latter.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-7232315634248631772012-07-27T10:20:26.310-07:002012-07-27T10:20:26.310-07:00cl,
Science provides a veneer of respectability t...cl,<br /><br />Science provides a veneer of respectability to otherwise absurd beliefs?BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53254052208020768512012-07-27T09:38:28.813-07:002012-07-27T09:38:28.813-07:00"Apologists and apologetic arguments only ser...<i>"Apologists and apologetic arguments only serve to provide a veneer of respectability to otherwise absurd beliefs."</i><br /><br />Something tells me the fact that science does the same won't phase an intellectual chauvinist like yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18106417193676548722012-07-27T05:38:56.309-07:002012-07-27T05:38:56.309-07:00"I prefer other arguments to the EAAN. But I ..."I prefer other arguments to the EAAN. But I think the EAAN has more going for it than people think."<br /><br />As far as apologetic arguments go, I suppose it's OK. But that's like being king of the rats.<br /><br />Apologists and apologetic arguments only serve to provide a veneer of respectability to otherwise absurd beliefs. They help the believer keep believing the superstitious nonsense they were taught as children.<br /><br />Rarely, if ever, do apologetic arguments actually persuade.BeingItselfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13196126096999779200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87832370024812457932012-07-26T21:08:48.720-07:002012-07-26T21:08:48.720-07:00"But it is a statistical fact that most peopl...<i>"But it is a statistical fact that most people (about 80%) believe in God. Their belief in God is part of their cognitive faculties, which we have assumed are reliable. Therefore the conclusion that God exists is a reliable conclusion."</i><br /><br />No. Not at all. It is a statistical fact that most people's belief in a god is the product of socialisation and enculturation. Left to their own learning strategy, I doubt that any person would arrive at a jesus figure. Just ask a Muslim or a Hindu or a Wikken why that is. So a belief in a god cannot be part of their cognitive faculty. The highlanders of the Papua New Guinea developed an 'ancestor worship' spiritual memeplex, analogous to our christian saviour-hero archetypal memeplex. The Hindus developed an elephant named 'Ganesha'. Therefore that a god exists is not a reliable conclusion; indeed it is no conclusion at all. Teleological speculation is perhaps a clearer descriptor.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39380489969547104072012-07-26T21:03:40.804-07:002012-07-26T21:03:40.804-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86614612231855399152012-07-26T19:46:48.271-07:002012-07-26T19:46:48.271-07:00Rank Sophist,
If we reject Churchland's elimi...Rank Sophist,<br /><br /><i>If we reject Churchland's eliminative materialism, then Platinga's attack becomes far more damaging. Even if science is based on something aside from our beliefs, we must believe or disbelieve in science itself. Yet, as Platinga says, the likelihood that our beliefs are true is stunningly low. So why do we trust science? It certainly can't be a pre-programmed belief, because many don't believe in it. Or is everyone deterministically pre-programmed to believe what they believe? In that case, then how can we say that a belief in science is better than a lack of belief in science?</i><br /><br />One thing I'd add here is this: "Science" is just yet another instance of human cognitive activity. We form hypotheses, we imagine tests, we perform these tests, we record data, we analyze it, we draw conclusions, and so on. At every stage of the process, you're relying on human minds to conceive, analyze, and report.<br /><br />The same goes for instruments we create. We conceive them, we imagine how they'll be used, what information they'll give us, how to interpret that information, etc.<br /><br />Even if someone could imagine a brute hypothetical scenario (There are humans and their cognitive faculties are largely truth tracking, somehow), the probability question is a major focus with Plantinga: what are the odds, given E&N, that this will be the situation that results?<br /><br />I agree with you - I prefer other arguments to the EAAN. But I think the EAAN has more going for it than people think.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26427793426689507532012-07-26T19:16:06.894-07:002012-07-26T19:16:06.894-07:00Matt,
The fact that you believe the bolded part i...Matt,<br /><br /><i>The fact that you believe the bolded part is representative of Churchland's position is precisely the problem. Churchland isn't arguing that science proves our faculties are reliable, he's arguing that science gives us faculties above and beyond our native ones that allow us to have reliable beliefs that aren't dependent upon our native cognitive faculties which are riddled with problems which call into question our reliability. </i><br /><br />First, "above and beyond our native ones". Alright - if this means "more reliable" or "largely reliable", then here comes the obvious followup question: How does Churchland know this? The answer had better not be "because the instruments we made or the scientific processes we adhere to show this", because then the same question gets asked about THOSE instruments and processes. The answer had also better not be "because we can tell without using those", because now we're directly back to asking how we can trust our cognitive faculties to make this decision.<br /><br />Second, "science" is intimately attached to our native faculties - science *requires* those native faculties. When someone does science, he does not stop using his native faculties and instead use something completely different. The very fact that it's rightly called an extension, not a replacement, helps show the problem.<br /><br />Here's a great way to illustrate whether or not you get at least some of what Plantinga is driving at with his argument: consider intelligent beings on another planet, even another universe. They are the product of evolution in a naturalistic universe.<br /><br />What is the probability of their cognitive faculties being reliable with regards to truth? High? Low? Inscrutable? And why do you conclude whatever you do?<br /><br />If you have no answer here, chances are you're not engaging Plantinga's argument.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26944431097602883372012-07-26T17:11:05.324-07:002012-07-26T17:11:05.324-07:00Martin
"You said that Dennet took care of the...Martin<br /><i>"You said that Dennet took care of the EAAN, but I'm not seeing any substance to the paragraph you quoted. Where exactly did he refute the argument?"</i><br /><br />You are right. The paragraph I quoted doesn't provide the refutation. I implied it in the totality of the debate in the book. The quote I chose is simply an encapsulation of the tenor of Plantinga's perspective. The booklet is just 70 pages. Pick it up. It's a good read.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50846187048153422022012-07-26T16:57:58.188-07:002012-07-26T16:57:58.188-07:00Matt,
I never presented the facile "they bel...Matt,<br /><br />I never presented the facile "they believe that there are no beliefs" objection. I'm familiar with their attacks against that argument. Rather, I was merely pointing out that eliminativism denies intentionality and meaning, which in turn tells us that Churchland's logical deductions have no more meaning than "6U#FG6tBKO*?~". Churchland would likely agree, but he would then inform us that "meaning" is folk psychology. How would he cash out his argument's "meaning", then? As with all eliminativists, he would here be reduced to handwaving.rank sophisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01644531454383207175noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69417795063351054542012-07-26T16:56:46.477-07:002012-07-26T16:56:46.477-07:00Papalinton,
You said that Dennet took care of the...Papalinton,<br /><br />You said that Dennet took care of the EAAN, but I'm not seeing any substance to the paragraph you quoted. Where exactly did he refute the argument?Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06038086497147379685noreply@blogger.com