> "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china > teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be > able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the > teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. > But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be > disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human > reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. > If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient > books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the > minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would > become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of
> the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier > time." >--Bertrand Russell, 1952 [Krimel]: > Russell's statements don't impugn the character or ideas of anyone > in particular. How is it ad hominem? [snip] > Rather than ad hominem you might be referring to Russell's account > of the logical fallacy of argument from authority. [Ham] He is impugning the intellectual capacity of believers by characterizing their faith as "nonsense". Those who speak with authority should exercise caution about what they call nonsense, especially when they have no proof to the contrary. [Krimel] He is saying that it is pretty safe to disregard as absurd, improbable statements that cannot be tested. If you claim there is a teapot orbiting the sun, the burden of proof is on you. If you feel impugned, that's your problem. If on the other hand absurd ideas are backed by tradition and society, we may be compelled to believe them; but it is not reason or evidence that compels us. Since reason and evidence are not on your side and since there is no social pressure operating on your behalf, you are probably right to feel impugned. [Ham] It is a given in philosophy that metaphysical hypotheses are not provable. The "nonsense" is believing that they ought to be, or that objective knowledge reveals ultimate truth. A transcendent source is by definition beyond the bounds of relational (space/time) logic. [Krimel] This is just plain mistaken. Throughout history philosophical claims, untestable in one age, have been thoroughly tested in a later age. Within philosophy speculation has always yielded to evidence or reason. The areas ripe for philosophical discourse have shriveled as a result. Nonsense is making a big deal out of something that is inaccessible to rhyme or reason. [Ham] Again, we cannot reason our way to ultimate truth. [Krimel] Then why do you persist? [Ham] Experiential truth is relative. [Krimel] Experience is relevant. Talking out of your ass is not. [Ham] Do you really want to engage me in a debate about a primary cause? [Krimel] Not really, I have the same allergy Will Smith mentions in I, Robot. [Ham] If so, then let's start with your creation theory: Your theory makes probability the primary cause, which is illogical. Probability cannot be a first cause. Rather, it is a deterministic approximation of relational events, such as the probability that A will cause B. [Krimel] I do not have a theory about a primary cause. Nothing I have heard about such a thing strikes me as compelling. [Ham] It is contingent upon the existence of A. In the absence of an existent (A) there can be no event, and in the absence of events, nothing happens. Without potentiality there can be nothing. Therefore, the series of events that we call existence is initiated by Potentiality--specifically, the potential to actualize existence. This is how I define Essence. [Krimel] First of all I see no distinction between "potentiality" and probability beyond your attempt to obfuscate. Neither of them 'causes' or initiates anything. They are statements of likelihood. They enable us to makes statements about the chain of cause and effect but they are not part of it, certainly not the first link. [Ham] Just as Pirsig theorized that Quality is pre-intellectual, I've theorized that Essence is pre-existential. [Krimel] Lots of things are pre-intellectual, sensation, emotion and reflex, to name a few. Pre-existential just is a meaningless term. [Ham] By that I mean Essence is neither a contingency of something else nor it is subject to the conditions of relational cause-and-effects. [Krimel] If it is outside of and does not enter into cause and effect then it is not part of the chain, period. It is irrelevant. [Ham] I posit Essence as absolute and uncreated. [Krimel] Beyond the mounds of fanciful terms you have piled on this, there remains nothing credible at the bottom of the pile. [Ham] While that may be only a tempest over a teapot to you, it is a reasonable hypothesis to support a differentiated universe in transition. For me, it is 100% probable that absolute potentiality is the "primary cause". [Krimel] This really is the heart of the matter. Your conclusion drives your reasoning. You have a conviction. You feel the need to support that conviction with reason. You admit that it is inaccessible to reason but you persist. Your conviction is not derived from reason. Rather, it is primary cause of your attempts to use reason. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
