tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3081108271459723161..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Tuggy's intellectual shortcutsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-41059674727366398552011-07-04T16:46:32.974-04:002011-07-04T16:46:32.974-04:00"It's based on a trust in the goodness of..."It's based on a trust in the goodness of God, and viewing our basic epistemic faculties as made by his hand,"<br /><br />This could mislead; let me clarify. The view is that it is self-evident that our epistemic (belief-forming) faculties are *generally* reliable. This is consistent with, and arguably buttressed by our trust in God, but it is in their (and my) view something people reasonably believe on autopilot even if they've never thought about God. It's a very subtle epistemology.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7922044286341998562011-07-04T16:43:24.644-04:002011-07-04T16:43:24.644-04:00You said your position was "self-evident.&quo...<i>You said your position was "self-evident."</i><br /><br />Which position... that there's such thing as =, or that some truths are necessary (true to matter what, such that they can't be false)? <br /><br />Either way, yes, I think both are self-evident. i.e. when a normal adult human carefully considers it, it strongly seems true.<br /><br />Yes, it is a sad fact for humanity that for any truth, no matter how strongly it seems to us, we can find, if we search hard, some very smart person who has denied it.<br /><br />People will deny just about anything to save a pet theory. Philosophers call this "biting the bullet" - a case like: it seems obvious that P. But, if my theory is right, -P. So, I say -P!<br /><br />Again, sometimes it isn't clear that the person is saving a pet theory. Sometimes we just don't know why the intuitions differ.<br /><br />In general, it is very hard to argue for something which is self-evident, because there's nothing which is *more* clearly so. <br /><br />And it's also hard to argue *that* some claim is self-evident. One in most cases has to just invite the opponent to consider the matter for himself. Or if he sees some error that would explain the false appearance, he should say what it is.<br /><br />All of this procedure I'm explaining, by the way, comes from two great Reformed Christian philosophers: Thomas Reid (d. 1796) and Alvin Plantinga. It's based on a trust in the goodness of God, and viewing our basic epistemic faculties as made by his hand, and it is consciously opposed to "rationalist" methodology like Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza (long story why) as well as any extreme empiricist view (e.g. Hume).<br /><br />In any case, be clear that I'm not taking this shortcut: claiming that my whole theology is self-evident, or that my reading of, e.g. Isaiah is so. I don't think that; I do have arguments for those views. Of course, whenever you argue, you pretty quickly run into claims which seems true, and which seem that they don't need to be argued for, and would be hard to argue for.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-71294469046731014202011-07-04T13:02:38.465-04:002011-07-04T13:02:38.465-04:00DALE SAID:
"I view this is a desperate defen...DALE SAID:<br /><br />"I view this is a desperate defense, Steve. What you're saying is that somebody out there, somebody smart, believes something which, somehow, would keep my argument from going through. Sure the odd logician like Quine, or your common confused postmodernist, may deny that any truths are necessary. Well, some have denied that sense-perception is basically reliable, or that there is a real physical cosmos. But the existence of such doesn't much diminish your confidence in e.g. sight, or that there is a real cosmos. And rightly so!"<br /><br />And attempting to keep you honest, which isn't easy. You said your position was "self-evident."<br /><br />Is that claim philosophically true or false? I cited two counterexamples from Quine and psychologism. <br /><br />And I notice that you're not presenting an actual counterargument.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37289585874929298082011-07-04T07:31:51.306-04:002011-07-04T07:31:51.306-04:00Ah, yes, now I'm a bully. Nice. Your constant ...Ah, yes, now I'm a bully. Nice. Your constant abuse (e.g. the title of this post) shows that you're not entire secure in your position.<br /><br />No, the point about Geach was not a red herring. He's pretty much the only one who's seriously thought about it, who thinks there's no such things as =. The point was: yes, it really it self-evident. <br /><br />IF I understand you, you think enantiomorphism is some sort of relation which is a kind of numerical identity which falls short of =. You should be very worried, I think, that no logician takes this view. Most hold that numerical identity has no degrees or kinds.<br /><br />"Since your unitarian god doesn’t exist"<br /><br />Steve, the point I was making holds of any God - unitarian or trinitarian. <br /><br />"Does Isaian monotheism contradict the Trinity?"<br /><br />Steve, as you want to read those chapters, the prophet's points are about *divinity* (godhood, deity) - the property of being a god. He is, I think, making a point about true godhood (vs. the old, polytheistic conception), but as you summarize things, he's left the door wide open to others also being divine - so long as they have the sort of deity he spells out. (all provident creator, able to predict future, etc.) But this is an odd reading, for he roundly insists that Yahweh is the only deity, so defined! So, the reader infers, no one other than YHWH is also a deity. You can call that a facile appeal, and you'd like to think there's some undue philosophizing going on there, but that's just common sense. You just refuse to yield, because you're wedded to a theory with three deities - and of course, logically, none of them can be the only true God. <br /><br />About necessary truths, no, my point was conditional. IF it's true, then it would have to be a nec truth. But of course, I don't think it is true. The evidence for it largely melts away on close examination. If you're in the grip of a trinitarian reading, then yes, you may find yourself thinking that there's a Trinity (however you define that) and also, there's something about as obvious as 2+2=4 and which seems inconsistent with the Trinity. Then, you'd better read Anderson's book - he's the only trinitarian who really addresses this situation. Yes, it's about comparing degrees of warrant, but also about the notion of "defeaters," which James well explains.<br /><br />"he hasn’t actually demonstrated the relevance of Leibniz law to his unitarian prooftexts."<br /><br />L's Law, if true, applies to any entity. This, for it to be applicable to Is. all we have to presuppose is that "Yahweh" there refers to an entity. And, it seems to. You'd have to argue that it's what logicians call a "plural referring term" to get out of this.<br /><br />"status of necessary truths is worldview-dependent"<br /><br />I view this is a desperate defense, Steve. What you're saying is that somebody out there, somebody smart, believes something which, somehow, would keep my argument from going through. Sure the odd logician like Quine, or your common confused postmodernist, may deny that any truths are necessary. Well, some have denied that sense-perception is basically reliable, or that there is a real physical cosmos. But the existence of such doesn't much diminish your confidence in e.g. sight, or that there is a real cosmos. And rightly so! <br /><br />So I've emphasized once or twice in this discussion, that you too assume the truth of L's Law, as you must, having common sense. What's trouble for you is not what the dastardly Tuggy asserts, but rather what logically follows from what you're already committed to.Dalehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04601885187182140821noreply@blogger.com