In the Winter 2017 issue of Pro Ecclesia, Baylor University philosopher Thomas M. Ward kindly
reviews my book Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction.
From the review:
This accessible, insightful,
entertaining book introduces and defends Scholastic, mostly Thomistic,
metaphysics in dialogue with important figures from contemporary analytic
metaphysics… Feser is blessed with a clear and entertaining prose style, which
makes it all the more enjoyable to engage his philosophical work. I highly recommend this book…
Feser does a good job at highlighting rival views on disputed points and maintaining a sense that scholastic philosophers despite their differences are allies against common foes…
Feser argues that scientism is
self-refuting, because the scientistic claim… cannot itself be established on
scientific grounds. This alone is decisive
against scientism, but Feser goes on to develop several additional lines of
attack. This section is quite good and
very entertaining…
Feser’s discussion of causal powers
is especially rich and deeply in dialogue with contemporary analytic
philosophers…
This review just scratches the surface
of Feser’s admirable introduction to scholastic metaphysics. It is refreshing, even inspiring, to see
great philosophical work which takes these old medieval thinkers seriously
enough to consider whether they might have got a few things right. After Feser’s book, you might be persuaded
they got more than a few right!
OP"Feser argues that scientism is self-refuting, because the scientistic claim… cannot itself be established on scientific grounds."
ReplyDelete--Science is inherently provisional. A scientific proof is inherently a provisional proof with no claim to absolute certainty.
Therefore, using science to scientifically prove a scientific claim is not at all self defeating, rather, entirely self consistent.
Of course a scientific claim is scientifically proved using science, how else would one expect a scientific claim to be demonstrated to some confidence level?
OP"Feser’s discussion of causal powers is especially rich and deeply in dialogue with contemporary analytic philosophers"
--A-T causality terminology and analysis are simply irrelevant to any serious modern study of causality. Such terms and notions are literally ancient and medieval and long since obsolete.
Causal influences propagate through spacetime no faster than c, classically, in what is called a light cone. The notion of labeling a macro object as a cause or an effect is hopelessly oversimplified.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series, since every series is an "accidental" series. Simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal, inside which no series of multiple events can occur.
On the frontiers of studies in causation are attempts to reconcile the two slit experiment and the Bell inequality. This leads to a consideration of a non-classical superluminal or non-local causation and the idea that spooky action at a distance might somehow be the case after all.
If you wish to seriously learn about causality I suggest you read up on "Against Measurement" by J. S. Bell.
Go away. Shoo! Shoo!
DeleteWard: Feser argues that scientism is self-refuting, because the scientistic claim… cannot itself be established on scientific grounds.
DeleteStardusty: Therefore, using science to scientifically prove a scientific claim is not at all self defeating, rather, entirely self consistent.
It's this kind of sloppiness that explains why few will engage with you, Stardusty. Ward wasn't talking about scientific claims. He said "the scientistic claim" -- which is not itself a scientific claim, but a philosophical one.
So, right out of the gate, you've missed the point. Not a good start.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 10:59 AM
Delete" Ward wasn't talking about scientific claims. He said "the scientistic claim" -- which is not itself a scientific claim, but a philosophical one."
--Interesting...Can you give me the name a scientist who self identifies as a scientismist?
Can you give me the name a scientist who self identifies as a scientismist?
DeleteSure. Lawrence Krauss. He probably wouldn't object to wearing the label, and comes pretty close to being someone who could legitimately be labeled as such, based on his public remarks (e.g. here and here and here).
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 11:46 AM
Delete"Sure. Lawrence Krauss. He probably wouldn't object to wearing the label, "
--Based on what? I have never heard him use the term "scientism". If he has, it is not a prominent aspect of his output.
Linked"Krauss, predictably, will have none of it, categorically stating that as far as he is concerned, it’s all “merely distinguishing between questions that are answerable and those that aren’t. To first approximation, all the answerable ones end up moving into the domain of empirical knowledge, aka science.”
--This is not the theistic strawman of scientism. Krauss merely states that to answer a question we need empirical knowledge, else the question is unanswerable.
This does no resemble a theistic strawman that science can answer all questions or science can verify all truths or all things that are true are scientifically verifiable.
The other links were diffuse general criticisms of Krauss and I could add my own about his absurd claims of something from nothing, but no mention of scientism I could find.
But by all means, give a theist's definition of "scientism" and then find a scientist who actually holds that defined view. I know of none.
Krauss merely states that to answer a question we need empirical knowledge, else the question is unanswerable.
DeleteIs pi an irrational number?
TheOFloinn September 29, 2017 at 1:12 PM
DeleteSP Krauss merely states that to answer a question we need empirical knowledge, else the question is unanswerable.
"Is pi an irrational number? "
--Numbers are abstractions. The term "irrational number" is a technical term when applied to numbers, which ultimately rest upon postulates or axioms, which are themselves not provable and in that sense unanswerable.
We can say that pi is irrational because by definition a decimal number that does not repeat and does not end is irrational, so to deny the irrationality of pi would be to deny the validity of the principle of non contradiction. But that principle is only postulated, not proved, and therefore its truth is ultimately unanswerable.
I don't really care much what Krauss says, although he used to be a significant positive public figure against nonsense, he unfortunately went down the rabbit hole of absurdity himself with his Universe From Nothing garbage.
Jmhenry, Don't feed the trolls.
DeleteSP, go away.
I'm impressed, in 126 words, you managed to completely avoid the challenge.
DeleteThe contention was that a question that cannot be addressed by empirical means is unanswerable.
The question of whether pi is irrational is answerable. (The answer is yes.)
The irrationality of pi cannot be established by empirical means.
A number is not irrational because its decimal expansion is non-repeating. Its decimal expansion is non-repeating because it is irrational. That is, it is a consequence, not a postulate.
Since pi is defined as the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, the claim that it is irrational ("not a ratio") seems contradictory.
Your claim that:
Numbers are abstractions. The term "irrational number" is a technical term when applied to numbers, which ultimately rest upon postulates or axioms, which are themselves not provable and in that sense unanswerable.
Of course, all sciences rest upon assumptions; and no science can demonstrate the truth of its own assumptions. Natural science cannot demonstrate that an objective universe exists.
Numbers are abstractions? Goodness me. And here I was thinking that everything was supposed to be material. I take it you are proposing that the original thesis has previously unspecified exceptions.
TheOFloinnSeptember 29, 2017 at 7:59 PM
Delete"Of course, all sciences rest upon assumptions;"
--Provisional postulates, but close.
"and no science can demonstrate the truth of its own assumptions."
--That's why science doesn't do proof in the absolute sense. Scientists know that.
" Natural science cannot demonstrate that an objective universe exists."
--Ok, so?
"Numbers are abstractions? Goodness me. And here I was thinking that everything was supposed to be material."
--Every thing is material. A number is not an outside realized thing.
" I take it you are proposing that the original thesis has previously unspecified exceptions. "
--Abstractions are not outside realized things, they are artifacts of a brain process, a temporal process of a changing real thing, or set of changing real things.
Stop responding to him, please. I understand the urge, but it just spreads the infection.
DeleteAnonymous September 29, 2017 at 8:17 PM
Delete"Stop responding to him, please. "
--What is it about rational discourse with those who hold differing views that frightens you so much?
"Science is inherently provisional"
DeleteWhere is your evidence?
"Science is inherently provisional"
DeleteIs that provisional?
Delete
DeleteBilly October 2, 2017 at 12:20 PM
SP "Science is inherently provisional"
"Where is your evidence?"
--I am glad you said "evidence" and not "proof".
Science is as science does, to paraphrase a great shrimp magnate family. Evidence, John E. Jones III Dover decision. Also see:
http://wise.fau.edu/~tunick/courses/knowing/gould_fact-and-theory.html
Billy October 2, 2017 at 12:22 PM
DeleteSP "Science is inherently provisional"
"Is that provisional?"
--Yes, I might be God dreaming, with science, you, and all the rest just figments of my divine imagination.
Neither you or I can prove to me that I am not such a God.
using science to scientifically prove a scientific claim is not at all self defeating
ReplyDeleteNo, the statement is that you cannot use the scientific method to demonstrate the claim that scientific methods are the only legitimate means of demonstrating a claim.
Causal influences propagate through spacetime no faster than c...
...spooky action at a distance might somehow be the case after all
So which is it?
What is the delay between action and reaction. How fast does triangularity propogate? A triangle is caused (inter alia) by its three-sidedness. How long after the third side is added does the figure become triangular?
There is no such thing as an "essential" series, since every series is an "accidental" series.
You use these words, but I don't think you know what they mean?
@TheOFloinn,
DeleteHow long after the third side is added does the figure become triangular?
In an instant, but Aristotelians don't believe in instants, AFAIK.
Also, about essential and accidental series:
Since you have great experience with advanced mathematical concepts yourself, is it possible to propose that maybe an essential series could exist with a cardinality of aleph-1, that is, slightly bigger than infinity?
Some might use the existence of cardinalities bigger than classical infinity as an argument to the effect that essential series could have aleph-1 or even aleph-omega members and thus somehow solve the problem of not being inherently endowed with the property they are carrying over by saying that they are bigger than infinity.
The important thing about an essentially ordered causal series is that it has to have a first or maximal member (the initial cause) as well as the last or minimal member (the final result), or it doesn't happen at all. You can conceive of an infinite series of instruments between the first and last members, but not of one that has no limit. And the proofs from such series only need the fact that the limit exists to go through.
DeleteTheOFloinn September 29, 2017 at 9:22 AM
ReplyDelete"No, the statement is that you cannot use the scientific method to demonstrate the claim that scientific methods are the only legitimate means of demonstrating a claim."
--Can you give an example of a specific non-scientific means to legitimately demonstrate a particular claim?
SP Causal influences propagate through spacetime no faster than c...
...spooky action at a distance might somehow be the case after all
"So which is it?"
--I actually said:
Causal influences propagate through spacetime no faster than c, classically,
The qualifier "classically" refers to the some 100 year old ToR, which has been around long enough to be considered classical.
Under the ToR causal effects propagate no faster than c. However, further work in the field of quantum mechanics provides serious reasons to consider some mechanism for superluminal propagation might be the case.
The answer to this question about the true nature of causation will not be found using A-T terminology applied to a book, a table, the earth, a hand, a stick, and a rock.
"What is the delay between action and reaction."
--Action and reaction as modeled in macro objects is a temporal series of "accidental" events at the nano scale.
" How fast does triangularity propogate?"
--Triangularity is an abstraction, not a real existent outside object.
" A triangle is caused (inter alia) by its three-sidedness."
--No. The abstraction of a triangle is the result of a brain process.
" How long after the third side is added does the figure become triangular?"
--You are conflating a series of abstractions with a real outside object.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series, since every series is an "accidental" series.
"You use these words, but I don't think you know what they mean? "
--I have studied them and written on them in significant detail. The notion of an "essential" series arises from the labeling of a collection of nano particles, themselves undergoing a vastly complex temporal process of mutual causation, as a single cause, or as a single effect.
It is then imagined that removing this mislabeled "cause" halts the mislabeled "effect". This is then imagined to be something called an "essential" series.
That sort of ancient or medieval reasoning breaks down immediately and is invalidated by modern causal analysis.
IOW, you are insisting on one specific and limited kind of causation and then insisting that there are no other kinds, thereby proving that there are no other kinds of causation.
DeleteAn essentially ordered series is one in which the causal powers of the elements in the series depend for their powers on the continued action of the preceding causes. For example, when Sharon Kam is playing Mozart's Clarinet Concerto in A, the continuation of the music depends on the continued action of the clarinet and Sharon Kam. That the music would cease being produced if either the clarinet or Ms Kam were to cease working is a consequence, not a definition.
But the clarinet has no power to be producing the music if Sharon Kam were not playing it. That's why the intermediate causes are called "instrumental" causes.
+++
You may be out of date. I thought the current fashion was to deny causation entirely along the lines of Hume and Popper. It's all just correlation, y'know.
TheOFloinn September 29, 2017 at 11:54 AM
Delete"An essentially ordered series is one in which the causal powers of the elements in the series depend for their powers on the continued action of the preceding causes."
--A preceding cause is over and in the past, it is done and can have no further effect and it's effect cannot be undone.
" For example, when Sharon Kam is playing Mozart's Clarinet Concerto in A, the continuation of the music depends on the continued action of the clarinet and Sharon Kam."
--Which is a vastly complex temporal process of mutual causation.
" That the music would cease being produced if either the clarinet or Ms Kam were to cease working."
--Here you engage in the classical A-T conceptual error, labeling entire macro objects as a "cause" or and "effect" and lumping a whole temporal sequence into a single abstract event considered to be in the present. Your view of the present is a human perceptual artifact that breaks down under modern causal analysis.
I think jmhenry might have been right.
DeletePerhaps it is "modern causal analysis" that breaks down. However, it remains true that should Ms Kam cease playing the clarinet, the music will cease being produced, all blatherscap about "macro objects" the present being "a human conceptual artifact" notwithstanding. Give us a counterexample of a performance continuing despite the performer no longer playing. Some empirical data, please.
TheOFloinnSeptember 29, 2017 at 1:18 PM
Delete" all blatherscap about "macro objects" the present being "a human conceptual artifact" notwithstanding. "
--Perhaps one day you will develop the perspective or education needed for modern causal analysis.
"Give us a counterexample of a performance continuing despite the performer no longer playing. Some empirical data, please."
--Systems of mutual causation continue to mutually interact because conservation is itself no change and does not call for any changer, much less an ontological first cause.
Perhaps one day you will develop the perspective or education needed for modern causal analysis.
DeleteAlways it is with the personal insults from you people. I read the Bell article you mentioned and it says nothing about causality. (It discusses the problem of measurement as it applies to quantum things, and presents a range of sectarian disagreements over what the Schrödinger equation means.) The Modern notion of causation is that, per Hume and Popper, it does not exist, and all we have are correlations.
Systems of mutual causation continue to mutually interact because conservation is itself no change and does not call for any changer, much less an ontological first cause.
Apparently you think that addressing a different question somehow answers the one on the floor. I asked for an example of a performance continuing despite the disappearance of the performer.
TheOFloinnSeptember 29, 2017 at 8:07 PM
DeleteSP Perhaps one day you will develop the perspective or education needed for modern causal analysis.
"Always it is with the personal insults from you people."
--You manifestly lack the perspective to understand modern causality. The education I referred to was not a matter of how many degrees you have, rather what you have manifestly not yet learned on this particular subject.
" I read the Bell article you mentioned and it says nothing about causality. (It discusses the problem of measurement as it applies to quantum things, and presents a range of sectarian disagreements over what the Schrödinger equation means.)"
--Yes, that is his approach to causation. He doesn't use the word "cause" very often, preferring to describe how systems interact, how things affect each other.
That is the point of being "against measurement", that there is what we might call mutual causation, or what Bell calls the "experiment".
I actually suggested to read up on the subject. This author addresses Bells views on causation with more explicit language.
http://wase.urz.uni-magdeburg.de/mertens/teaching/seminar/themen/AJP001261.pdf
" The Modern notion of causation is that, per Hume and Popper, it does not exist, and all we have are correlations."
--Those are philosophical notions. I am referring to the modern science of causal propagation and mutual causation.
"Apparently you think that addressing a different question somehow answers the one on the floor. "
--You don't see the relevance, perhaps some day you will.
—You don't see the relevance, perhaps some day you will.
DeleteThat’s deep, man. Did you think the entire macro object[] of that paper on Bell’s theorem would be the cause of such an effect? I mean the whole temporal sequence of his seeing the relevance.
@Stardusty Psyche
ReplyDeletePlease may I ask if you've actually read the book? If you haven't then might I suggest that you do so before criticising the book or the reviews others have published. If you have read the book then comment on the book itself and only refer to the review to show where you think the reviewer was wrong.
@Dr Feser
Thank you for a clear and full throated defence of Scholasticism, it has buttressed my faith no end and sparked a few ideas in this brain of mine. I do think however that you could have expanded the section on universals, but that's a minor problem.
Just another mad Catholic September 29, 2017 at 10:25 AM
Delete@Stardusty Psyche
"Please may I ask if you've actually read the book? "
--No, why do you suppose reading this particular book would be at all important or valuable?
"If you haven't then might I suggest that you do so before criticising the book or the reviews others have published."
--I am well aware of Feser's arguments and A-T arguments more generally. My statements stand in refutation of the core concepts of A-T thought. Reading another statement of them is unnecessary.
" If you have read the book then comment on the book itself and only refer to the review to show where you think the reviewer was wrong."
--A-T notions of causality are deeply erroneous to their core and throughout the terminology employed and the analysis of examples provided.
If you can find a specific error in the statements I made you would be doing me a great favor to point it out to me.
Well if you had read the book then you would be aware that Dr Feser replies to the criticisms of A-T notions of causality, the examples you cited quite frankly sounded like gobbledygook which I can only assume it is a reference to Quantum Mechanics, to which Dr Feser also replies in the book. As my Fiancé is the one who wears the physics trousers (and sees no contradiction between our Faith and her work) I shall have to get her to look over them if I can drag her away from her latest research project.
DeleteIf you had read the book you would also be aware that Dr Feser does not criticise the scientific method itself, namely the idea that science (as thought of the physical sciences alone) is the sole source of knowledge. You would also know Feser has also responded to Rosenburg in the book (and indeed on this blog).
I would also read the book because to criticise a book without reading it is intellectually dishonest, to use an example from literature. If I were to say that "Bleak House" was a formulaic, plodding bore with 2 dimensional characters, then I would be dishonest as I haven't read the book, have only the vaguest idea of the plot or characters from a 5 minute segment on a Dickens Documentary. If however you want my take on the "Cancer Ward", "War and Peace" or " The Karamazov Brothers" then you're in luck as I minored in Russian Literature, spent my gap year in Petersburg, staying with a professor of literature and his family.
Lastly If I can offer a word of advice, you need to moderate your tone; whether or not you are aware of it, you come across as a jerk, manners cost nothing and tend to result in more fruitful conversations.
Just another mad Catholic September 29, 2017 at 11:52 AM
Delete"the examples you cited quite frankly sounded like gobbledygook"
--Sorry, I have no refutation for the assertion of gobbledygook. If you could cite a specific statement I made that seems erroneous perhaps I could expand on it.
" you come across as a jerk, "
--How kind of you to say so. Your manners are indeed beyond reproach.
Perhaps I should have been more specific; I have no idea what you're talking about, and will seek an opinion from Clara whose knowledge exceeds mine in this area. In any case having actually read the book she thought it was very well written and was in conformity with physics. She actually went so far as to say as she sees the distinction between act and potency as foundational for science. I may also show them to her Parish Priest who used to work at CERN before taking Holy Orders.
DeleteAs for my manners they are indeed beyond reproach; Clara says that I am the perfect gentleman. Seriously I was trying to be helpful, you come across (through the admittedly limited perspective of a combox) as someone who is exceptionally angry, condescending and who assumes that all his interlocutors are idiots. Generally speaking that doesn't yield positive results.
Don't feed the trolls. You won't get anything sensible from him and you clog up the combox with his bilge.
Delete--Science is inherently provisional. A scientific proof is inherently a provisional proof with no claim to absolute certainty.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, using science to scientifically prove a scientific claim is not at all self defeating, rather, entirely self consistent.
Of course a scientific claim is scientifically proved using science, how else would one expect a scientific claim to be demonstrated to some confidence level?
It's not an argument against the scientific method, it's an argument against "scientism", which is the belief that all truths are empirically verifiable. However, the claim that "All truths are empirically verifiable through the scientific method" is itself an unfalsifiable truth claim. You can't use the scientific method to run any tests. The scientific method, therefore, can't be used to find knowledge of all truths, but only certain truths which fall within its domain.
--A-T causality terminology and analysis are simply irrelevant to any serious modern study of causality. Such terms and notions are literally ancient and medieval and long since obsolete.
Causal influences propagate through spacetime no faster than c, classically, in what is called a light cone. The notion of labeling a macro object as a cause or an effect is hopelessly oversimplified.
There is no such thing as an "essential" series, since every series is an "accidental" series. Simultaneity of cause and effect do not extend beyond the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal, inside which no series of multiple events can occur.
It's not simultaneity per se which makes an essential series, it's simply that the causal power of the members of an essential series are derivative and if any "prior" member of the series is removed the continuation of the causal power is lost. It follows even upon an examination of the micro level. It's not a matter of going back in time, but simply what is happening in the here and now.
Wesley September 29, 2017 at 10:33 AM
Delete"It's not an argument against the scientific method, it's an argument against "scientism","
--I don't know of anybody who says they are a scientismist. That seems to be a strawman term invented by theists.
" which is the belief that all truths are empirically verifiable. "
--I don't know any scientists who say that so it seems odd to label a view not generally held by scientists to be "scientism".
"It's not simultaneity per se which makes an essential series,"
--It is a necessary but not sufficient aspect in the imagined view of an "essential" series. Since that necessary condition is false the notion of an "essential" series is false.
" it's simply that the causal power of the members of an essential series are derivative and if any "prior" member of the series is removed the continuation of the causal power is lost."
--Here you display the classic A-T error of labeling entire macro objects, which are themselves composed of a vastly complex set of temporal mutual causal processes, as a "cause" somehow having an imagined "causal power".
" It follows even upon an examination of the micro level. It's not a matter of going back in time, but simply what is happening in the here and now."
--This is the classic A-T misapprehension of the present, or the here and now. From a human perspective the present is actually an internal model of memories of the recent past, an abstract prediction of the near future, all linked to our temporal incoming sensory data stream.
A-T thought fails to recognize that this human perceptual model is not the same thing as the present moment. The present moment is only in the limit as t goes to zero, sometimes thought of as the infinitesimal.
No series of multiple events can occur within the limit as t goes to zero.
I don't know of anybody who says they are a scientismist.
DeleteYou haven't met Alex Rosenberg, who would probably describe himself with precisely that label.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 11:12 AM
DeleteI don't know of anybody who says they are a scientismist.
"You haven't met Alex Rosenberg, who would probably describe himself with precisely that label."
--Not by the strawman label of WesleySeptember 29, 2017 at 10:33 AM
"scientism", which is the belief that all truths are empirically verifiable.
Theists use that strawman because they cannot refute the actual definition of Scientism offered by Rosenberg:
In 2011 Rosenberg published a defense of what he called "Scientism"—the claim that "the persistent questions" people ask about the nature of reality, the purpose of things, the foundations of value and morality, the way the mind works, the basis of personal identity, and the course of human history, could all be answered by the resources of science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg
Rosenberg is quite right about the ability of science to do the things he said in the above cited definition. The theistic strawman characterization of his definition is just another theistic misunderstanding.
Theists use that strawman because they cannot refute the actual definition of Scientism offered by Rosenberg
DeleteFeser refutes it in his posts, which I linked to, and in his book Scholastic Metaphysics. That you merely claim it isn't refuted is just that -- a claim that amounts to nothing more than stomping your feet.
Rosenberg is quite right about the ability of science to do the things he said in the above cited definition.
Stardusty: Give me one example of someone who self-identifies as a scientismist.
Me: Sure. Philosopher Alex Rosenberg. And physicist Lawrence Krauss. They would probably wear the label proudly.
Stardusty: Okay, I'll admit, I'm a scientismist, now that I've read Rosenberg's Wikipedia page.
Sigh.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 11:53 AM
DeleteStardusty: Okay, I'll admit, I'm a scientismist, now that I've read Rosenberg's Wikipedia page.
--Not by any definition of scientism I have ever read from a theist.
But by all means, please do provide your definition of scientism.
Not by any definition of scientism I have ever read from a theist.
DeleteFrom Rosenberg's book, quoted in Feser's second post (again, roundup here):
“Scientism”… is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything; that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals; and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today. (pp. 6-7)
If we’re going to be scientistic, then we have to attain our view of reality from what physics tells us about it. Actually, we’ll have to do more than that: we’ll have to embrace physics as the whole truth about reality. (p. 20)
So it's not a strawman. Alex Rosenberg is a scientisimist in precisely the way that theists -- and, it must be said, some atheists -- are critical of.
[Scientism] seems to be a strawman term invented by theists.
DeleteActually, the term "scientism" originated in the critiques of such luminaries as Wittgenstein, Feyerabend, Hayek, and Midgley -- all of them atheists or agnostics -- who saw it as an attack upon the humanities. It is the age-old war between Science and Humanism.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 12:34 PM
Delete.
From Rosenberg's book, quoted in Feser's second post
https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/09/ward-on-scholastic-metaphysics.html
Feser"I would say, then, that one has either to go the whole hog for Rosenberg-style reductionism or chuck out the whole naturalistic framework altogether"
--At last Feser and I agree on something! Reductionsim is the inevitable conclusion of naturalism. Halfway measures of emergence or some sort of compatibilism just won't do.
Here Feser engages in the typical theistic strawman:
"Rosenberg’s argument, then, is essentially this:
1. The predictive power and technological applications of physics are unparalleled by those of any other purported source of knowledge.
2. Therefore what physics reveals to us is all that is real."
Rosenberg never said anything of the sort. Rosenberg actually said this:
"The phenomenal accuracy of its prediction, the unimaginable power of its technological application, and the breathtaking extent and detail of its explanations are powerful reasons to believe that physics is the whole truth about reality."
Feser equivocates between "physics" meaning the true aspects of material reality, versus "physics" meaning the present state of our models of material aspects applied by human beings.
Rosenberg never said "physics reveals to us is all that is real" as Feser claims in his typical theistic strawman. Such a claim would be preposterous, since nothing reveals to us all that is real, as humans are limited beings and cannot possibly receive a revelation of all that is real.
Thus, the theist must attack a strawman version of scientism because the real definition Rosenberg gave for scientism is so easily justified.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 12:34 PM
ReplyDeleteSP Not by any definition of scientism I have ever read from a theist.
"From Rosenberg's book, quoted in Feser's second post (again, roundup here):"
--That is not the definition of a theist, that is an actual definition that is very reasonable and defensible.
Theists, such as on this thread, provide different definitions that are intentionally or negligently worded to contain logical self contradiction. Then the theist will knock down that strawman.
Thanks for an actual quote, allow me to expand on it.
"“Scientism”… is the conviction that the methods of science are the only reliable ways to secure knowledge of anything;"
--To understand the validity of this statement you need to keep in mind the qualifiers "reliable" and "secure" and also to define what knowledge is.
" that science’s description of the world is correct in its fundamentals;"
--Yes, for example Newtonian mechanics is fundamentally correct even though we know it is ultimately incorrect. To a first approximation Newtonian mechanics is correct. But the ToR shows NM to be actually not precisely correct, which is another way of saying incorrect. Still, NM is, in this sense of the word "fundamentally" correct.
" and that when “complete,” what science tells us will not be surprisingly different from what it tells us today. "
--Right, and returning to NM versus ToR when we learned about relativity it did not change how levers work for us, or how we use a screwdriver, or how we kick a soccer ball. In principle, we could calculate relativistic effects even for these slow moving processes, but the deviation from NM is not humanly measurable so there is nothing surprisingly different about levers and screwdrivers now that we know about the ToR.
"If we’re going to be scientistic, then we have to attain our view of reality from what physics tells us about it."
--Yes, but we should not confuse physics as in the true aspects of material existence versus physics as in our presently formulated models we use to describe aspects of material existence.
" Actually, we’ll have to do more than that: we’ll have to embrace physics as the whole truth about reality."
--Yes, in other words, the aspects of material reality are the whole truth of reality, even though our presently formulated models are known to be inaccurate.
"So it's not a strawman. Alex Rosenberg is a scientisimist in precisely the way that theists -- and, it must be said,"
--Wrong. Theists present a grossly mistaken false simplification of Rosenberg and then knock down that strawman.
Not by any definition of scientism I have ever read from a theist.
DeleteIt's the definition Feser (who is a theist) discusses in his book Scholastic Metaphyics, which is what the OP was about and which you would know had you read the book before vomiting all over this thread.
Yes, in other words, the aspects of material reality are the whole truth of reality...
But Stardusty, you keep telling us that such a claim is a strawman! I'm starting to worry about you. You seem to be debating yourself.
Maybe it's a strawman only when it comes from the lips of a theist. But when it comes from the lips of Stardusty, it magically turns into a "very reasonable and defensible" claim. That's the power of having a stardusty psyche!
Also, we can just chop off the part of the quote that referenced Thomas Nagel in order to continue giving the impression that it's only those terrible theists who are -- remember! -- the only ones critical of the scientistic claim, which is simultaneously and mysteriously a strawman and "very reasonable and defensible," depending on who's making it. Or something.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 1:26 PM
DeleteSP Not by any definition of scientism I have ever read from a theist.
--I'll give you an example from this thread:
Wesley September 29, 2017 at 10:33 AM
"scientism", which is the belief that all truths are empirically verifiable.
--That's a typical theistic strawman. That is not what Rosenberg said and that is not what I said and I do not know of any scientist who say that, but the ordinary theistic blog commenter will say that sort of thing.
Wesley expressed a typical theistic strawman.
SP Yes, in other words, the aspects of material reality are the whole truth of reality...
"But Stardusty, you keep telling us that such a claim is a strawman!"
--No, but you think that because you are having difficultly with crucial distinctions of language and concepts.
Yes, in other words, the aspects of material reality are the whole truth of reality...
DeleteWhich, given the context of Rosenberg's comments, amount to the claim: "Yes, in other words, what scientific method tell us (specifically, physics) is the whole truth of reality."
And we're right back where we started, with the original scientistic claim. So your denial amounts to just more foot-stomping, which you're really good at, by the way.
Also, I like how you're now hyper-focused on Wesley's one comment. It's a convenient way to avoid the actual arguments of Feser's book and the refutation he gives in the Rosenberg roundup. Vomiting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about Newtonian mechanics and Relativity doesn't even begin to address them.
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 2:36 PM
DeleteYes, in other words, the aspects of material reality are the whole truth of reality...
Which, given the context of Rosenberg's comments, amount to the claim: "Yes, in other words, what scientific method tell us (specifically, physics) is the whole truth of reality."
--No, you, like Feser and Wesley and every theist I have encountered on this subject use a strawman argument.
The aspects of material reality exist as they do throughout all that exists and we have direct access to only an extremely small fraction of that truth.
Our application of the scientific method is just a tiny subset of the aspects of material reality, which are the whole truth of reality.
Scientists understand the distinction. The typical theist manifestly does not.
"foot-stomping, which you're really good at, by the way."
--They say everybody's good at something...every dog has his day...
"Also, I like how you're now hyper-focused on Wesley's one comment. "
--I prefer to interact with the people on a thread who have been kind enough to take the time to address me directly. Wesley provided the clearest example of the typical theistic strawman.
Please see
Stardusty Psyche September 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM
jmhenry September 29, 2017 at 12:34 PM
above for an example of Feser using a strawman. Feser is a professional philosopher who should, and possibly does, know better.
" Vomiting a bunch of irrelevant nonsense about Newtonian mechanics and Relativity doesn't even begin to address them."
--The OP praises Feser for lending credence to medieval Thomistic ideas. The notion of an "essential" series is false, and my discussions on that subject are thus relevant to that aspect of the OP.
@jmhenry
DeleteYou should know better.
Michael Brazier 12:01 AM (
Delete"The important thing about an essentially ordered causal series is that it has to have a first or maximal member"
--Every causal series is an "accidental" series with a temporal regress extending back to the big bang an perhaps farther.
" (the initial cause) as well as the last or minimal member (the final result), or it doesn't happen at all."
--Every causal series is a process of mutual causation over time. The first member cannot be identified because this process of mutual causation has been going on for as long as there has been a material existence.
Scientism = epistemic + metaphysical position that's in denial about being an epistemic + metaphysical position.
ReplyDeleteDoes any here remember Santi? He was a far more entertaining troll - 10k word long combox rants about how the Holocaust and Camus prove that human existence has no intrinsic value + how Thomists need to adapt Natural Law to account for homosexuality qua homosexuality having intrinsic value. I prefer him to the new guy.
ReplyDeleteHe sounds like fun.
DeleteSanti was that troll than which no greater can be conceived. Every comment implicitly ended with "There's glory for you!"
DeleteI'm surprised you didn't mention the 'hippy bonobos', which Santi would always bring in if the comment thread got long enough. I sometimes almost admired the ingenuity with which he would find a way to start with a topic like (say) determinism and put together a string of ideas from there so as to end up talking about bonobo sex, over and over again.
DeleteSanti was, if anything, even more prolific than this guy. If people stop responding to SP he gets bored and goes away. At most, if he doesn't get a reaction from one response, then he finds another couple of posts and responds to them. This is why it is so important to not feed him. If no one bites, he then gives up. Santi could post and post, even with no replies.
DeletePlease, please, do not recall Santi. Santi is far far worse than this materialist. This guy is entertaining in a Dr Weston's speech kind of way. Santi's jumble of incompatible postmodern modernism is just nauseating: no more talk of means, spectrums, or bonobos, yech.
DeleteYou guys had to remind me, didn't you. According to Santi, being a bonobo meant sex was as great as under Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.
DeleteBut the essential features of trollery are present in both. The unnecessary length of comments, entirely out of proportion to what is actually said, the constant twisting of the argument to be about oneself, and the shifting of language from moment to moment (when not just making the words up).
George LeSauvage October 1, 2017 at 3:39 AM
Delete"... the constant twisting of the argument to be about oneself,.."
--You and the others here are the ones making this about me.
I opened this thread with a post that addressed the OP directly on the subjects of scientism and causality.
Feser employed a strawman of scientism, as did Wesley and as does every theist I have ever encountered on this subject.
The Medieval notions of causality the reviewer finds bolstered by Feser are in fact obsolete and false. The notion of an essential series is an illusory artifact of human perception.
Instead of addressing the merits of the issues related to the content of the OP you and others choose to vapidly post on your judgements of me personally and your perceptions of my posting style.
I don't see why people are saying StardustPsyche is a troll. He is providing content and argumentation, though obviously from an anti A-T perspective. On this and several other recent threads I haven't seen him actually refuted.
ReplyDeleteSP's thesis that a causal series ordered per se collapses into one ordered per accidens is fascinating. So far it looks as though the only counterargument has been something like "we can ignore that micro/nano level stuff."
But I wish SP had dealt more directly, for the benefit of us non-scientists, with The OFloinn's example of a musician who stops playing music.
Anonymous September 30, 2017 at 7:16 AM
Delete"I don't see why people are saying StardustPsyche is a troll."
--Here on the Feser blog a "troll" is defined as any person with a differing view who does not change position within a few posts. The folks here are apparently so convinced they are correct and their arguments are so terrific that in their minds the only explanation for an individual who does not quickly yield to their intellectual magnificence is that the person knows they are wrong but is simply being intentionally disagreeable in order to derive some perverted pleasure from raising a ruckus.
It is fascinating that people arguing from a medieval position are so self righteous about their long ago discounted, antiscientific, logically invalid, and otherwise unsound positions.
" He is providing content and argumentation, though obviously from an anti A-T perspective. On this and several other recent threads I haven't seen him actually refuted."
--Indeed, however, if you can find any errors in my arguments you would be doing me a favor to point them out.
"SP's thesis that a causal series ordered per se collapses into one ordered per accidens is fascinating. So far it looks as though the only counterargument has been something like "we can ignore that micro/nano level stuff.""
--A-T thinkers follow the model of A and T. They look at macro scale objects, think about it a little bit, and jump to the conclusion of a divine first mover. Such individuals seem impervious to deeper scientific and analytical considerations.
"But I wish SP had dealt more directly, for the benefit of us non-scientists, with The OFloinn's example of a musician who stops playing music."
--OK, I thought I had but apparently my words were not effective.
Various physical examples are used by the A-T proponent as supposed cases of an "essential" series. The hand pushes a stick that pushes a rock. A musician keeps playing a musical instrument. And so on.
A key A-T error is the notion of labeling a whole macro object as a single cause, and process over time as a single effect.
Another key A-T error is in thinking the human perception of the present, or the here and now, as truly the present moment. Human beings form an internal model consisting of memories of the recent past, imagined events in the near future, and connect this to the incoming temporal sensory data stream, all in a somewhat timeless perception of the present.
In truth the present is but an instant. In calculus this is sometimes represented as dt, or the limit as t goes to zero, or less favorably the infinitesimal time.
Every causal interaction is accidental in that once it is past its effects cannot be undone even though the actor is gone and its fate is irrelevant to the perceived ongoing process.
There is no such thing as a single sustained effect, only a temporal series of a vast number of effects.
Consider the player of a wind instrument. Each molecule of air is like the grandfather in what an A-T thinker would use as an example of and "accidental" series. A single air molecule passes through the instrument, exits, and is gone. It could disappear from existence but the contribution it made to the playing would not be undone.
What seems to be a single effect, the playing of the instrument, is actually a vast number of smaller effects that come and go.
The same is true for causation. There is no single sustained cause, rather a vast number of sub microscopic causes that in the aggregate we model as a single cause.
Thus, every process is a temporal process. Every causal series is an "accidental" series. The notion of an "essential" series is merely an artifact of human perceptual modeling that does not indicate how the universe is structured or what solves the great existential riddles of the universe.
Thanks for the clarifications.
DeleteClarifications? I’m sorry - what Stardusty Psyche has written is so stupid it’s not even wrong.
DeleteHe tells you - merely asserting, not arguing - that ”labeling a whole macro object as a single cause, and process over time as a single effect” is a key error and you thank him? But whole macro objects are considered real objects by every scientist worthy of the name. Our thinking about the connected ideas of cause, principle, condition, occasion is not limited to the micro-world (or one scientist’s controversial understanding of it.) If the whole macro object Stardusty Psyche could convincingly argue that whole macro objects should not be considered real he would be the cause of many re-examining their prior judgments. Even better he’d have argued himself out of reality and could spare us from any more of his ignorant BS.
But he can’t. So, yes, you can ignore all that micro/nano level stuff because it’s irrelevant. So too any digression on time and human perception. What you shouldn’t ignore is Stardusty Psyche’s inability to engage TheOFloinn’s example of Sharon Kam, her clarinet, and Mozart’s Concerto in A.
David Ezemba October 1, 2017 at 3:45 AM
Delete"what Stardusty Psyche has written is so stupid it’s not even wrong."
---Interesting...
SP ”labeling a whole macro object as a single cause, and process over time as a single effect”
" But whole macro objects are considered real objects by every scientist worthy of the name."
--Whole macro objects are valid models for general functional purposes. Scientists and engineers now realize they are composed of molecules and atoms. To analyze whole macro objects scientists and engineers now use Finite Element Analysis with the old methods of making gross calculations by treating the object as a whole largely obsolete.
Further, you conflated the use of the model of a whole macro object with the notion that such a modeled object is itself a single cause. Scientists who study causality don't think that way any more.
Scientists study causality at the quantum level. Here is a good paper on the subject:
http://wase.urz.uni-magdeburg.de/mertens/teaching/seminar/themen/AJP001261.pdf
"But he can’t. So, yes, you can ignore all that micro/nano level stuff because it’s irrelevant."
--You have it back to front. I suggest you read the link, or other sources on modern study of causality. By that I mean modern scientists who actually study causality.
" So too any digression on time and human perception."
--If you are not willing to consider the effects of human perception in the study of causality you are not willing to study the subject in any meaningful depth.
" What you shouldn’t ignore is Stardusty Psyche’s inability to engage TheOFloinn’s example of Sharon Kam, her clarinet, and Mozart’s Concerto in A."
--Already addressed
Stardusty PsycheSeptember 30, 2017 at 8:39 AM
in reply to
Anonymous September 30, 2017 at 7:16 AM
Yeah. Read your link already. And others that also contradict your assertion that essential series must collapse into accidental on analysis.
DeleteThe linked paper is irrelevant. As are any digressions on human perception of time, FEA, or whatever; just because you drag red herrings across the discussion doesn’t mean I’m obliged to follow the stink.
Look, if you don’t think that a person can be the cause of a thing you’re not competent enough to comment. The OFloinn’s example is simple. But instead of dealing with it you think it’s easier to dispense with macro-reality because you read one paper about a pretty old dispute in the quantum world?
David Ezemba October 1, 2017 at 4:41 PM
Delete"Yeah. Read your link already."
--Ok, then you have an introduction to the irrelevancy of A-T terminology and reasoning wrt modern scientific study of causality.
" And others that also contradict your assertion that essential series must collapse into accidental on analysis."
--Please post some such links here. The notion of an "essential" series is an illusory artifact of human perception. If you have links to arguments that refute the small scale analysis I have provided that would be interesting.
"The linked paper is irrelevant."
--Oh darn, I had hopes you would learn from it. Apparently that has not yet happened.
" As are any digressions on human perception of time, FEA,"
--How unfortunate that you have not yet developed the analytical skills needed to put those considerations in a perspective that would be educational to you.
"Look, if you don’t think that a person can be the cause of a thing you’re not competent enough to comment."
--We have that sense, but for the purpose of analyzing causality in order to arrive at the nature of existence that sort of human perception must be broken down into its constituents, which leads to discarding the illusory notion of an "essential" series.
" The OFloinn’s example is simple. But instead of dealing with it"
--Already addressed:
Stardusty Psyche September 30, 2017 at 8:39 AM
in reply to
Anonymous September 30, 2017 at 7:16 AM
I already gave you that timestamp. Is there something specific in my analysis that you have identified as incorrect?
" you think it’s easier to dispense with macro-reality because you read one paper about a pretty old dispute in the quantum world?"
--I have studied and written significantly on the subject of an "essential" series.
The problems cited in that paper are not "old", rather current, having not been resolved. That paper is just a survey of J.S. Bell's views on causality and related matters. My point in providing that link was just to introduce you to some aspects of modern scientific study of causality, as opposed to the obsolete and grossly erroneous notions of A-T.
Search for Ian Thompson's works on causal powers and dispositions. Or read Wolfgang Smith's "Quantum Enigma."
DeleteNot only do they refute your analysis of essential/accidental causal series, it's remarkable the extent to which an explicitly Thomistic framework (in the case of Smith) or a neo-Aristotelian approach (Thompson) makes sense of quantum theory without throwing up the minefield of paradoxes that come from more materialistic interpretations.
You don't have to be completely convinced of their ideas to see that A-T is neither obsolete nor grossly erroneous with respect to "modern scientific study." To think otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest; although I suppose I shouldn't rule out both.
David Ezemba October 2, 2017 at 9:45 AM
Delete"Search for Ian Thompson's works on causal powers and dispositions."
--Thanks for that reference. I found this, perhaps you have other more preferred link. If so, please post it here.
Real Dispositions in the Physical World
Ian J Thompson
His work reinforces a key point I have made regarding what Feser considers to be the true call for a first mover in the First Way, that not being a temporal first mover acting in the distant past, rather, an ontological first mover called for by a zero time causal regress to a sustainer of material existence.
Feser errs, like all A-T proponents, in considering this to be a causal regress. As shown by the words of Thompson, what is actually called for is a regress of human models.
Macro scale dispositional properties are scientifically explained by more fundamental dispositional properties, as Thompson explains.
Thompson is correct that a terminus to this regress of models is called for, and that terminus is fundamental physics, by which I mean the properties of the most fundamental constituents of material existence, whatever they actually are, be they strings, or quantum fields, or some as yet unimagined physical structures.
Thus Thompson demonstrates my point for me. No ontological first mover is called for in the First Way because no causal series is called for at all, rather, only a regression of models of constituents of material existence are called for, and that terminus is fundamental physics, not a divine sustainer of existence.
Thompson does my work for me in discounting the notion of an "essential" series as an illusory artifact of human perception.
Then I next recommend you pick up “How To Read A Book,” by Mortimer Adler.
DeleteYou didn’t understand Thompson’s paper.
Firstly, Thompson’s dispositions depend on the same notion of actualising potentials by which Feser’s Argument from Change or Aristotle’s Argument from Motion progresses.
Secondly, Thompson writes: ”A distinction' is thus made between the 'Principal Cause' (that disposition which operates), and the 'Instrumental Cause' (that circumstance by means of which dispositions operate). Principal causes operate according to instrumental causes. Both are necessary for any action[]
“
Here we have the elements of an essential series. The Principal (or First) Cause that actually has the power, and the Instrumental Causes are (and I emphasised this in the quote) both necessary for any action. That doesn’t allow for a linear (or accidental) series where preceding members of the series need not exist for later members to operate their causal powers.
In other words, he doesn’t reinforce your key point but demolishes it. The “essential” series is no illusory artifact but is actually “[] necessary for any action.”
(You still haven’t addressed TheOFloinn’s example, and your evasions are proving to be neither motivated nor justified by “modern scientific study.”)
David Ezemba October 3, 2017 at 12:34 AM
Delete"You didn’t understand Thompson’s paper."
--Actually, Thompson does not understand his own paper in that he does a fair job of pointing out how science treats dispositional properties and he does a fair job in realizing that there must be an end to this regression of models but he fails to capitalize on that valid analysis.
I did correctly put Thompson's valid scientific analysis to good use in recognizing the terminus of the regress of models called for, that being fundamental physics.
Unfortunately, like all A-T thinkers, Thompson then goes on to making up illusory assertions, at that point failing to understand the value of his own analysis.
"Firstly, Thompson’s dispositions depend on the same notion of actualising potentials by which Feser’s Argument from Change or Aristotle’s Argument from Motion progresses."
--Right, those are Thompson's dispositions, not scientific properties. Thompson is just making them up out of his imagination, or borrowing from A and T, who made them up out of their imaginations.
"Secondly, Thompson writes: ”A distinction' is thus made between the 'Principal Cause' (that disposition which operates), and the 'Instrumental Cause' (that circumstance by means of which dispositions operate). Principal causes operate according to instrumental causes. Both are necessary for any action[]
“
--Which is not a scientific distinction.
"Here we have the elements of an essential series. The Principal (or First) Cause that actually has the power, and the Instrumental Causes are (and I emphasised this in the quote) both necessary for any action. That doesn’t allow for a linear (or accidental) series where preceding members of the series need not exist for later members to operate their causal powers."
--More unscientific hogwash.
"In other words, he doesn’t reinforce your key point but demolishes it. "
--Actually he does reinforce my position in his valid descriptions of how scientists disdain his language and his concepts of causality and he validly describes how scientists explain macro properties in terms of constituent properties and he validly reasons there must be an end to this process of explaining macro properties in terms of constituent properties.
Unfortunately, Thompson fails to understand the true meaning of his own work, that the regress of modeling is not a causal series at all and that modeling regress simply terminates at fundamental physics.
He instead relapses into A-T terminology and thought.
"(You still haven’t addressed TheOFloinn’s example, and your evasions are proving to be neither motivated nor justified by “modern scientific study.”)"
--I have givin you the timestamp twice. If there is something specific about my address of the musician and the instrument you object to I will address it, but continually ignoring the referenced text that has been on this thread for days is pointless.
I won't comment on your remarks about Thompson not knowing his own business. I can only hope the Anonymous that thanked you earlier has been disabused of the notion you're either serious or honest.
DeleteAs to the referenced text, I haven't ignored it (though apparently it would be legit for me to assert that you don't understand the true meaning of your own words and actually have made the case against yourself, and then ignore it.)
You were asked to, ”Give us a counterexample of a performance continuing despite the performer no longer playing. Some empirical data, please.” So the objection I have to the referenced text is: it doesn’t give a counterexample of a performance continuing despite the performer no longer playing.
Instead of giving a counterexample in the first you gave some jibber-jabber about systems of mutual causation. Even your Anonymous Fan could see that you hadn’t given a counter-example and said he wished that you had. Which brings us to the (oft-)referenced text - you say a lot about key A-T errors in thinking about things, about human perception of the present, about how calculus represents an instant, and on and on. But there’s no counterexample of a performance continuing despite the performer no longer playing.
David Ezemba October 3, 2017 at 9:53 AM
Delete"I won't comment on your remarks about Thompson not knowing his own business."
--In other words, you have no counter arguments to my carefully reasoned analysis, which therefore stands unrefuted by you.
" it would be legit for me to assert that you don't understand the true meaning of your own words and actually have made the case against yourself,"
--Only if you have a carefully reasoned argument to demonstrate that assertion. Since you do not, such an assertion is not legitimate.
"You were asked to, ”Give us a counterexample of a performance continuing despite the performer no longer playing."
--Give me an example of a process of procreation that continues when the individuals stop procreating.
Give me an example of an extended temporal process that continues when the elements of that process stop proceeding.
The request for such an example is absurd and irrelevant, so I thought no more about it.
" jibber-jabber about systems of mutual causation."
--That is how scientists study causation. I am sorry if it is too complicated for you.
" you say a lot about key A-T errors in thinking about things, about human perception of the present, about how calculus represents an instant, and on and on. "
--Yes, that is how scientists study causation. If you lack the patience and depth of thought to engage in those sorts of reasoning you will not be able to advance your concepts.
Once the temporal process of procreation is labeled as a single thing, then eliminating certain elements of that thing will result in that thing no longer doing that thing.
The grandfather, father, child process is a classic example of an "accidental" series. So, eliminating an element in that series, say, the father, prior to the conception of the child will stop that particular process of procreation, yet it is considered accidental.
Eliminating the musician prior to playing the next note will stop that labeled process, yet it is accidental.
You are simply not adjusting your thinking between a decade, a second, and a microsecond. There is no qualitative difference, only a quantitative difference.
But that quantitative difference between an microsecond and a decade leads to the illusion of a perceived "essential" series.
Go away.
DeleteSP is a troll for the following reasons
ReplyDelete- He's criticising the book and the review without having even deigned to read it because he 'knows it's wrong'; despite the fact that Dr Feser actually offers a defence of A-T causality in the book itself.
- he' more or less hijacked the thread, making it all about him and his theories, using the scattershot approach by throwing out terms which any laymen in physics is unlikely to understand (and thus unable to respond to) as proof that he's right.
- he's quite frankly behaving like a jerk, as do a whole lot of new atheist types in the com-boxes; he's condescending, rude, and angry, and shows a profound lack of humility (Socrates is rolling in his grave). If I were in his position I would (a) read the book, and (b) submit a list of my objections to Dr Feser so that he could post a substantive response on the blog.
Just another mad Catholic September 30, 2017 at 8:05 AM
Delete"SP is a troll for the following reasons"
- He's criticising the book and the review without having even deigned to read it because he 'knows it's wrong'; "
--I know A-T arguments. They don't change. I don't need to read this particular book to know the arguments and what is wrong with them. The responses on this thread demonstrate this fact.
"despite the fact that Dr Feser actually offers a defence of A-T causality in the book itself."
--I know Feser's causality arguments, which are deeply flawed, as I have demonstrated on this thread.
- he' more or less hijacked the thread,"
--I am the the only person here in this timeframe who is in opposition to A-T. In terms of posts per side they are about 55% on the A-T side.
" making it all about him and his theories, using the scattershot approach by throwing out terms which any laymen in physics is unlikely to understand (and thus unable to respond to) as proof that he's right."
--I do not intend to use technical jargon as a smokescreen. Most folks here seem well educated and able to understand what I am talking about. If not I can try to elaborate in other terms.
"- he's quite frankly behaving like a jerk, "
--I always find it amusing to be accused of antisocial behavior by those who are calling names.
Maybe that one guy will get on and call me a homo or something, how boring.
"as do a whole lot of new atheist types in the com-boxes; he's condescending, rude,"
--Interesting. Do you consider disagreement to be itself rude?
" and angry, "
--That's actually pretty funny. It is going to take a great deal more than a bunch of folks stuck in the 13th century calling me a jerk and a homo to make me angry.
"and shows a profound lack of humility"
--Guilty as charged. With each passing year I become more convinced of my opinions, largely because the counter arguments to them universally fail on rational grounds.
" (Socrates is rolling in his grave)."
--Do you suppose engaging on a 10 to 1 basis with those who strongly disagree with me is somehow an unexamined life?
" If I were in his position I would (a) read the book,"
--This blog is a book sales generation vehicle, among other things, and that's fine. If you want to boost Feser's sales that is up to you. He continually posts about his books in part to pump up sales and that is just fine in our free market. But I don't buy books from people who promote them with clearly erroneous arguments.
I refuse to buy the Krauss book about nothing for the same reason.
" and (b) submit a list of my objections to Dr Feser so that he could post a substantive response on the blog."
--Unfortunetly Feser has a history of strawmaning the written words of others, such as I demonstrated wrt Rosenberg above
Stardusty Psyche September 29, 2017 at 2:59 PM
So I doubt very much that Feser would take the time to respond to me as he is very busy, and if he did I have indications that he would distort my words in order to knock down a strawman of them.
SP is a troll for the following reasons...
DeleteThat's all true, but actually it's because he uses a collection of made-up words, red herrings, internally inconsistent statements, selective quotations, and other assorted gibberish to just throw up smoke.
For example, from Rosenberg:
We have the best of reasons to believe that the methods of physics -- combining controlled experiment and careful observation with mainly mathematical requirements on the shape theories can take -- are the right ones for acquiring all knowledge. Carving out some area of “inquiry” or “belief” as exempt from exploration by the methods of physics is special pleading or self-deception.
This is a strawman, whenever it comes from the lips of a theist. But it magically becomes a reasonable and defensible view, whenever it comes from the lips of an atheist (or, at least, atheists who haven't wandered off the reservation).
There's no way to refute such raving nonsense.
jmhenry September 30, 2017 at 10:22 AM
Delete"For example, from Rosenberg:
We have the best of reasons to believe that the methods of physics -- combining controlled experiment and careful observation with mainly mathematical requirements on the shape theories can take -- are the right ones for acquiring all knowledge. "
--I suppose you object to the use of the word "all", but that depends on one's definition of knowledge, commonly asserted to be justified true belief.
But how do we know what is true and what is a valid justification? Taken to the limit we can only know we exist in some form and a few other things based on our self awareness.
Perhaps then knowledge comes in gradations of reliability or value, and that we can know things to varying degrees of confidence. In that case Rosenberg cites the methods that are the right ones for acquiring all knowlege to highest confidence levels humanly possible, with other methods yielding knowledge of lesser confidence and therefore not the preferred or "right" epistemological methodology.
"...atheists who haven't wandered off the reservation)."
Link"The modern materialist approach to life has conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world as consciousness, intentionality, meaning, and value."
--Conciousness is a data processing feedback path.
--Intentionality is a data processing pre-execution storage preparation.
--Meaning is relative, a computation of relations between observations and abstractions.
--Value is relative, a computation of benefit or inhibition to some planned sequence.
"There's no way to refute such raving nonsense."
--Since you are unable to voice contrary reasoning Rosenberg stands uncontested by you.
Conciousness is a data processing feedback path.
DeleteWhat is this 'data' you speak of? Is it a fundamental feature of reality, or does it depend on another mind to define it?
Intentionality is a data processing pre-execution storage preparation.
Same question.
Meaning is relative, a computation of relations between observations and abstractions.
Would that also be data?
Value is relative, a computation of benefit or inhibition to some planned sequence.
Who's doing the computing? Actually, what is this 'computing' you speak of? Another fundamental feature of reality, or is that a relative description by agents? How do we know who is and isn't an agent, by the way? Is that data?
Looks like jmhenry was right after all.
Anyone else notice that this guy doesn't argue so much as vehemently assert, and then act as if the assertion was not only an argument, but a successful one?
I mean, I can't be the only one seeing this gimmick, right?
CrudeSeptember 30, 2017 at 1:09 PM
Delete"Anyone else notice that this guy doesn't argue so much as vehemently assert, and then act as if the assertion was not only an argument, but a successful one?
I mean, I can't be the only one seeing this gimmick, right?"
--So, a long post is bad to some, a short post is bad to others. By all means, please do share your criteria for a post that is just right.
The computation in question is a brain process. The brain is a sort of computer in the most general sense of the term, not to be confused with our home computers which have vastly different architectures.
Data is a very broad term that is an abstraction, a means to model an extremely complex real process.
The link provided by jmhenry made some assertions of the supposed failures of the modern materialist approach. I made no attempt to publish books on those subjects here on this blog, only to touch on very brief counter statements.
To that end I used basic terms that have meaning to most people, but apparently not to you.
So, a long post is bad to some, a short post is bad to others.
DeleteIt wasn't about long or short, but sheer volume. More than that, a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. For all your, uh... 'contributions', you've got surprisingly little to say. Just assertions, furiously insisted upon.
Data is a very broad term that is an abstraction, a means to model an extremely complex real process.
Gosh, that's fascinating! Tell me more.
Particularly, answer my question: What is this 'data' you speak of? Is it a fundamental feature of reality, or does it depend on another mind to define it?
Saying that data 'means to model' doesn't answer me, though the translation of a noun into a verb is quite a feat.
Are these abstractions fundamental, SP? Objective constituents of nature? Or is something 'data' or 'a model' only by virtue of another mind doing so?
I made no attempt to publish books on those subjects here on this blog, only to touch on very brief counter statements.
Yeah, I already noted your penchant for giving no argument but simply making contrary assertions. Which is why I'm giving you this grand and glorious opportunity to explain yourself and give some arguments and evidence.
C'mon, Star. Break it down for me. Tell me more about data, and models. Account for them. Add to the data in my computer, won't you please?
Crude September 30, 2017 at 1:57 PM
Delete"Are these abstractions fundamental, SP? Objective constituents of nature?"
--The most fundamental constituents of nature yet identified are described in the standard model, quarks, neutrinos, photons, electrons, spacetime, fields etc. You can read all about it from thousands of sources. I have no intention of educating you on the subject here.
The most fundamental constituents of nature yet identified are
DeleteMan, for a guy who comments *voluminously*, you sure seem allergic to giving me a straight answer here. Responses are getting awfully short too. Weird, huh?
It's almost as if all you can do is assert dogma that you yourself barely understand, but when it comes time to argue or explain in the matter at hand, you're at a loss.
It's funny that jmhenry gave you a link whereupon you objected to the claim that materialists have conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world. Whereupon you gave some statements, but when time comes to flesh them out, well... you've conspicuously failed to explain such central mind-related features of our world.
You've got nothing, Star. You assert and misdirect - but you provide neither argument nor evidence.
But it's kind of fun to show up and illustrate that for onlookers.
Don't feed the trolls, please.
DeleteApparently he's starving now.
DeleteAin't it funny that a guy whose prime quality is an inability to shut up (while simultaneously saying not much at all) is fleeing my questions?
He's been going on and on and on until now. Wonder what happened?
SP is a homo. He is not a homo in the fun sexy, intelligent & sassy way Milo Yiannopoulos is homo.
DeleteHe is a homo in the silly, stupid, Smelly, BO douchebag bitchy way of Perez Hilton.
The above is all the interaction Stardust Homo is owed.
Why waste good brain cells on him?
FWIW, so far I'm not seeing trolling in Stardusty Psyche's participation in the threads I've looked at, though I am not a long-time reader here. My experience on other sites with trolls who get banned is that they make insults and/or throw out usually short pronouncements rather than try to present arguments and/or evidence. Someone who becomes a resident contrarian is not for that a troll, unless this blog runs on a more expansive notion of what constitutes trolling.
ReplyDeleteSome combox threads run well into the hundreds or even over 1000 on some blogs. I assume Prof. Feser is OK with people developing lines of discussion on his blog.
Anyway, I have profited from many comments of different POVs on here, even bought Five Proofs.
and/or throw out usually short pronouncements rather than try to present arguments and/or evidence.
DeleteThe only way Stardusty differs is that he throws out exceedingly long pronouncements rather than try to present arguments and evidence. He also engages in a heavy amount of namecalling: "It is fascinating that people arguing from a medieval position are so self righteous about their long ago discounted, antiscientific, logically invalid, and otherwise unsound positions."
We get this to the extreme, but the actual arguments? There's little in the way of that. Just assertions, and wild gesticulating as if he made an argument at some point. He typically has not.
Anon, the reason SP is a troll is because he doesn't engage and argue properly. He will make a series of poorly set out retorts to a position of Feser's or some other poster. He will get a response, and he will in turn respond with misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and sophistry, all combined with plenty of arrogance. There is no meaningful interaction possible with the guy.
DeleteA proper atheist interlocutor would take on board what is said to him. I don't mean he would agree with everything said against his position, but he would engage in two-way interactions at least. SP doesn't do that. He comes in confused and stays confused, but believes he is striking great points against theism and A-T.
Believe me, as heated as the discussion might sometimes get, most here would welcome a sensible skeptical poster. They wouldn't react to him as they do to SP (something he never reflects on).
Anti-SP September 30, 2017 at 4:06 PM
Delete"... he doesn't engage and argue properly. ...poorly set out retorts to a position of Feser's or some other poster. ... no meaningful interaction possible ...
... he would engage in two-way interactions at least. ... believes he is striking great points against theism and A-T...most here would welcome a sensible skeptical poster. "
--Do you have a "proper" argument in support of points made in the OP? Perhaps a "proper" argument in support of A-T more generally or some of the specific A-T issues raised on this thread?
We can see your are anti, but what are you for and why, I mean, just on the hypothetical chance you might encounter a proper atheist interlocutor?
The problem is, SP, your modus operandi doesn't change. If I were to put forward arguments, you would respond with misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and sophistry, all served with ample arrogance. Any further posts I'd make would be greeted in the same way. What's the point in engaging you properly, therefore?
DeleteIf you want to be taken seriously, tone down the rhetoric, actually pay attention to what is being written, and try to respond in a careful, measured, and thoughtful way. If you do this, you will find you will soon be greeted far more positively around here. Things may still get heated, but you won't be written off as a troll.
Aristotle had something to say about this.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-american-philosophical-association/article/aristotle-on-trolling/540BB557C82186C33BFFB61E35A0B5B6/core-reader
That was the best thing I've read this week :D
DeleteI am literally laughing out loud.
DeleteI want to give Feser and Scholastic thinking a fair hearing. So I want to observe and participate in exchanges between people who also want to engage in honest, sincere and fair-minded examination of these ideas - which is very much in the spirit of the Scholastic disputatio.
ReplyDeleteStardusty Psyche's approach on this thread impedes genuine analysis, conversation and exchange, and therefore enlightenment and understanding. The concepts and arguments involved can be difficult to understand on superficial analysis, and so require all parties to avoid polemical obfuscation.
For impartial, fair-minded and uncommitted investigators, SP is a real annoyance and impediment to understanding for those interested in real exploration and learning.
Anonymous September 30, 2017 at 5:52 PM
ReplyDelete"For impartial, fair-minded and uncommitted investigators, SP is a real annoyance and impediment to understanding for those interested in real exploration and learning. "
--Interesting..
Have I prevented you from posting your views of "Feser and Scholastic thinking"?
In the event that you were to open such a dialog, does it seem possible that I could prevent others "who also want to engage in honest, sincere and fair-minded examination of these ideas" from doing so?
Are you able to present your positions and engage with people who fundamentally disagree with you?
Or for you to muster an expression of your views do you require an A-T safespace?
Are you able to present your positions and engage with people who fundamentally disagree with you?
DeleteDude, you offer nothing to engage. Everyone has attempted. -I- attempted. You bolted.
All you do is repeat, ad nauseum, baseless assertions and, at times, insults. When someone analyzes what you said, you give more baseless assertions. You flee argument.
This is easy to see through when pointed out. Dialog is not one wag repeatedly saying 'You're wrong, materialism is true' over and over. Dialog is not asserting that all the features of mind have a physical explanation, and then bolting when your 'explanations' are questions.
SP,
DeleteIt's obvious you're not interested in sincere dialogue. You're a rodeo clown who with a lot of time on your hand.
CrudeSeptember 30, 2017 at 7:08 PM
Delete" -I- attempted. You bolted."
--I answered your question about the fundamental constituents of nature. The answers to the rest of your questions flow from that answer. If you don't understand that then you need to think about it. That is not even the topic of the OP and I do not have to educate you on such pedestrian matters.
Asked and answered. Get over it.
I answered your question about the fundamental constituents of nature. The answers to the rest of your questions flow from that answer.
DeleteNo, SP. You made claims about the mind being a 'computer' and 'data'. I asked you what this 'data' was: " What is this 'data' you speak of? Is it a fundamental feature of reality, or does it depend on another mind to define it?"
And you responded by... giving me a list of what's fundamental to nature.
Because you don't know how to account for 'data' or 'computation' with regards to the human mind. All you can do is assert - but the very explanation desired, you can't offer.
So you bluff.
Once again, Star, you're exposed as knowing precious little. You know little science, less philosophy. You're an assertion machine, and even your assertions are largely copy and paste.
You're skewed, SP. Just like you've been on the last two blogs you were banned at. Whaddya know - yet another pattern in nature.
As he said he was giving Feser and Scholaticism a hearing, I guess he's not a Thomist.
Delete"SNEAKY SOPHISTS for 1000, Alex."
ReplyDeleteThis sophistical loser critiques a book he hasn't read and comments on the author's blog like a hopping hare cracked up on heroin.
"Who is Stardusty Psyche?"
"Correct! And you get a 500 bonus for having had the misfortune of knowing this com-box clown and insult to reasonable discourse."
TheOFloinn September 30, 2017 at 4:49 PM
ReplyDelete"Aristotle had something to say about this."
--While it would be absurdly pretentious to even imply a remotely equivalent stature to Socrates it is not absurd to aspire to such as much as I am able.
Indeed I revel in placing myself as 1 juxtaposed to many who think themselves wise.
Have I here corrupted the youth? Denied the true gods? Introduced my own? What say the majority?
While it would be absurdly pretentious to even imply a remotely equivalent stature to Socrates it is not absurd to aspire to such as much as I am able,
Deletehe said, going on immediately to imply a remotely equivalent stature to Socrates. And you are right, it is indeed absurdly pretentious.
You know little science, less philosophy.
ReplyDeleteMy money's on computer science.
Heh, nice one.
DeleteSome people on here may find interesting this review of a recent volume of essays on metaphysics and science:
ReplyDeletehttp://ndpr.nd.edu/news/metaphysics-and-the-philosophy-of-science-new-essays/
To judge from its absence in the review, it looks as though A-T metaphysics is not applied to science by any of the contributors.
BTW, searches on JSTOR and ProQuest do not turn up much from the pen of Ian J. Thompson except the article that David Ezemba mentioned above. There is an Ian J. Thompson who co-authored a book about nuclear reactions for astrophysics (of that title, Cambridge 2009), so perhaps that's his specialty. On the other hand, the Thompson whom DE cited uses his scientific background to promote Swedenborgianism.
Anonymous October 4, 2017 at 3:34 AM
ReplyDelete" There is an Ian J. Thompson who co-authored a book about nuclear reactions for astrophysics (of that title, Cambridge 2009), so perhaps that's his specialty."
--Yes, Ian J Thompson is a particularly stark example of the cognitive bifurcation of the theistic scientist.
He has some good scientific credentials:
https://pls.llnl.gov/people/staff-bios/nacs/thompson-i
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=enmwWn0AAAAJ&hl=en
But then he has a sort of mental breakdown:
https://www.youtube.com/user/theisticscience
http://www.beginningtheisticscience.com/
In
Real Dispositions in the Physical World
Ian J Thompson
he is able to accurately describe the scientific approach to explaining macro scale properties in terms of properties of constituents. So his own work lays the foundation for showing the falsity of A-T, in particular the assertion of an ontological first mover.
Then his eyes glaze over, as it were.
Rather than coming to the obvious scientific conclusions, that the perception of an "essential" series is illusory, that the regression A-T seems to call for is not a causal regression at all, rather a regression of human modeling of successively smaller constituents and their properties, and that the terminus of this analytical regression is fundamental physics...well, like I said, his eyes just seem to glaze over at that point.
Instead he chucks all his scientific education and starts speaking in vague A-T terms.
That is the bifurcation of the theistic scientist laid bare. The individual is fully capable of great reasoning within a certain subject matter, but suffers a cognitive break as the subject turns to his imagination of god.
In other words, "He knows more about science and philosophy than I do, but he doesn't come to an opinion I can only assert and not defend, which is unacceptable."
DeleteStill waiting for you to explain whether 'data' and 'data processing' is fundamental in nature, SP, or if it's all just some subjective assignment of value.
You got mighty quiet once someone started asking you questions.
It's as if your eyes just started to glaze over at that point.
Crude October 4, 2017 at 6:13 AM
Delete"In other words, "He knows more about science and philosophy than I do"
--Unfortunately, on the subjects of science and philosophy most relevant to A-T he knows far less than I do as I demonstrated here:
Stardusty PsycheOctober 2, 2017 at 10:00 PM
and here:
Stardusty PsycheOctober 3, 2017 at 6:36 AM
"Still waiting for you to explain whether 'data' and 'data processing' is fundamental in nature, SP,"
--Asked and answered several times, I'm sorry you just cannot seem to understand the answer. Fundamental physics is fundamental to nature. Humans form models of aggregate properties so we can function at our macro level. Science explains these macro level properties in terms of properties of constituents. This regression of models is not a causal series at all, and thus does not call for a causal first mover, or a first cause, or a sustaining cause, or an ontological first cause, as Feser erroneously asserts.
The terminus in the regress of models is the terminus of explanation by properties of constituents, that being fundamental physics.
Asked and answered several times,
DeleteNo, Star. I asked several times. You dodged.
Let's refresh your memory, since clearly your constituent micro-properties are out of whack:
You said:
"Conciousness is a data processing feedback path."
"Intentionality is a data processing pre-execution storage preparation."
"Meaning is relative, a computation of relations between observations and abstractions."
I asked you what this 'data' and 'data processing' is. In particular: What is this 'data' you speak of? Is it a fundamental feature of reality, or does it depend on another mind to define it?
You replied:
"The computation in question is a brain process. The brain is a sort of computer in the most general sense of the term, not to be confused with our home computers which have vastly different architectures.
Data is a very broad term that is an abstraction, a means to model an extremely complex real process."
Now, already, the problem is clear. You try to define 'consciousness' and 'intentionality' in these stern, material-sounding terms. "Computation." "Data." But when you have to define what these things are, you fall back to mental terms. It's an 'abstraction'. A broad term, it's about modeling. Wait, but that's yet more intentionality.
I reply: Are these abstractions fundamental, SP? Objective constituents of nature? Or is something 'data' or 'a model' only by virtue of another mind doing so?
And what did you do?
You replied: "The most fundamental constituents of nature yet identified are described in the standard model, quarks, neutrinos, photons, electrons, spacetime, fields etc. You can read all about it from thousands of sources."
Ah, in other words... you didn't answer my question.
You dodged. Because you have no answer. And you have no answer, because you have no argument. No evidence. In fact, clearly? No understanding of these topics.
Which is why you assert and insult, but when questioned... you squirm, you deflect, and then you go quiet and hope it all blows over.
It won't.
Crude October 4, 2017 at 7:47 AM
DeleteYou asked:
" Is it a fundamental feature of reality,"
I answered what is the fundamental reality.
Not complicated.
I answered what is the fundamental reality.
DeletePity that not only wasn't the question, but it also doesn't answer how we determine what this 'data' and 'abstraction' is, eh?
You have no answer, Star. If you say something is 'data' or 'modeling' only by virtue of a mind deciding it is, then you're stuck when it comes to determining a mind. If you say 'data' and 'modeling' don't require minds to evaluate but exist of their own accord, then you're stuck yet again.
Laugh about it, shout about it, when you have to choose. Any way you look at it, you lose.
I have to hand it to SDP he's persistent.... I stopped taking an interest on the weekend and he's still at it.
ReplyDeleteFor those of you who are interested in other cognitively bifurcated (as Jar Jar would say "how wude") Theist-physicists just think Faraday, Maxwell, Newton et al. Or if they're too ancient for you the Reverend Fathers Jaki, Lemaitre (sadly gone to their reward), Heller and Pinsent; all of whom know / knew more about science and Philosophy than SDP.
I have an idea mate, if you are dead set against reading Dr Feser, then seek out some books by these chaps, or if you're loath to read something written by a Priest, then maybe Stephen Barr, who sees no conflict between his work as a physicist and his Catholic Faith. That being said I can't comment on Barr's work (not having read it), nor can I promote my Fiancé's work as (a) blatant conflict of Interest and (b) it's not yet finished (and will never be at this rate).
But why the hell should you? I mean you KNOW that these people are self-deluded, you my friend are most obviously the pinnacle of creation, and you know more about Physics and Philosophy than Fr Pinsent and Clara; both of whom have worked at CERN, taught students and published in peer reviewed journals. I bow before your magnificence.
The one thing he's persistent about is avoiding arguments and evidence. But man, can he assert, and assert, and assert. (And awful bungle what he's asserting too, but ah well.)
DeleteKeep in mind, this is actually the status of most arguments against God and even religion: the firm insistence of 'You're wrong.', a bit of namecalling. But start pressing for details, for engagement beyond mere assertion, and suddenly it looks like there's nothing on offer after all.
Crude
DeleteI know what you mean, I used to be irreligious myself.
Just another mad Catholic October 4, 2017 at 8:52 AM
Delete" Theist-physicists just think Faraday, Maxwell, Newton et al"
--Yes, some, probably most, of the historical greats in science held muddled spiritual notions outside the historic achievements we remember them for. Bifurcation indeed.
"eek out some books by these chaps"
--"Go read a book" is a particularly weak argument, not that you have any specific argument for any actual point of view.
I can give you an atheist reading list. So what?
"I bow before your magnificence. "
--Do you have any words of your own to form any rational points on the content of the OP or my criticisms of it?
Do you have any words of your own to form any rational points on the content of the OP or my criticisms of it?
DeleteYou haven't made any criticisms other than putting your hands on your hips, declaring it to be wrong, namecalling - and then fleeing questions.
You're an assertion machine, Star. I'd say an evasion machine, but too many people land too many hits for that to be true.
OHD SDP you miss the point indeed (is there a Nobel for that?)
ReplyDeleteI wasn't making any argument per se, I was suggesting that you read books by people who are well versed in religion, Science and Philosophy, and who see no contradiction between Faith and Reason, I do so because you evidently need to understand that the conflict thesis is Dead, although it hasn't quite gone the way of the dodo ......yet.
Now I've only met Fr Pinsent a few times (I doubt he remembers me) at functions which Clara has dragged me along to, but from our brief conversations he seems a pretty smart guy, if such a man can be both a scientist and a cleric (we have a long tradition of that in the Catholic Church) then ad homminem attacks against him and his illustrious predecessors simply will not cut the mustard, especially if they are made without reading a word they have written.
I can empathise with you, 12 years ago a smug 17yr old parroted Zola in a school debate " Civilization will not attain perfection until the last stone from the last church falls on the last Priest", only to be floored by bespectacled brunette from the upper sixth who gave a well reasoned assessment of the Kalam argument (she hadn't progressed to St Thomas by then). I stayed in touch as we went to University, and over the next two years she argued me into the Catholic Church and now we're engaged.
Just another mad Catholic October 5, 2017 at 1:17 AM
ReplyDelete"I wasn't making any argument per se, ... the conflict thesis is Dead".
--Right, you just make a bald assertion, provide no argument, and point vaguely into the distance at some books and claim the answer is out there. That sort of misdirection in place of argument is very common among theists.
"he seems a pretty smart guy, if such a man can be both a scientist and a cleric ... then ad homminem attacks against him and his illustrious predecessors simply will not cut the mustard, "
--People are highly segmented. A person can act very rationally and skillfully in one area and at some other time become irrational, emotional, and illogical. That's just how human beings function.
The fact that a human being puts forth some great scientific work, and in other aspects of his life is highly irrational does not make his irrationality rational. It just means that people engage in different sorts of thinking in different settings.
"(she hadn't progressed to St Thomas by then). I stayed in touch as we went to University, and over the next two years she argued me into the Catholic Church and now we're engaged. "
--She may be a wonderful wife and I wish you all the best. When you are with her I doubt both of you maintain the utmost in rationality at all times. People are segmented in their thinking. The fact you can think rationally at some times does not make your irrational thoughts rational.
Reason and deism are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Reason and Christianity are mutually exclusive because the Christian god is logically incoherent, having asserted to it a combination of mutually incompatible properties.
Reason and Thomism are particularly incompatible. Thomism is an inherently irrational and nonsensical set of views that are anti-scientific and anti-logical.
Woah there, fella! Reason!? That's not supposed to be included in your little QuantumScience sandpit!
DeleteYou should have one of the bigger boys - Alex Rosenberg, maybe - remove that for you before you hurt yourself.
Everyone, it is seems to have become quite clear by now that the best course we can take against SP is to totally ignore him. If no one rose to his bait, he would skulk away soon enough. He might a spate of posts to get some attention, but then he'd give up. We should all pledge to make no response to him, except perhaps to tell him to go away and others not to feed the trolls.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous:
Delete"Everyone, it is seems to have become quite clear by now that the best course we can take against SP is to totally ignore him."
You are absolutely correct. As Aristotle observed:
"Before some audiences not even the possession of the exactest knowledge will make it easy for what we say to produce conviction. For argument based on knowledge implies instruction, and there are people whom one cannot instruct."
Having wasted several hours sparring with Stardusty Psyche, he is the classical example (nay, the Platonic exemplar) of what Aristotle is talking about. He is a know-nothing, whether philosophy, physics, etc (and this is *demonstrably* true, not a mere guess or insult), but alas his sense of his own self-importance is proportional to his ignorance, so we get this sad spectacle.
As you say: better to just leave him talking alone. Hopefully, he will get bored, and seek attention elsewhere, of someone more inclined to be awed by his devastating arguments and witty rhetoric.
grodrigues October 6, 2017 at 7:40 AM
Delete--Another vapid grod post, entirely void of rational discourse on the subjects of the OP.
True to form you post some quote, make some vague reference to some imagined time when you say you somehow showed my alleged errors, and leave without making a single argument for or against the topics of the OP.
You manifestly prefer personal attacks to forming your own arguments, such as on 1, 2, and 3 below.
Anonymous October 6, 2017 at 12:51 AM
ReplyDelete"Everyone, it is seems to have become quite clear by now that the best course we can take against SP is to totally ignore him."
--What is it about carefully reasoned, on topic, rational discourse that frightens you so much?
The OP refers to:
1."Feser argues that scientism is self-refuting"
2."Feser’s discussion of causal powers is especially rich and deeply in dialogue with contemporary analytic philosophers"
3."Feser’s admirable introduction .. old medieval thinkers ... have got a few things right. After Feser’s book, you might be persuaded they got more than a few right!"
I have responded directly to the claims of the OP.
1.Feser's caricature of scientism is a strawman and he only refutes that strawman, not what Rosenberg actually said.
2.Feser's causal "analysis" is hopelessly shallow, obsolete, and illusory.
3.A-T got almost nothing right beyond a few basic observations of our apparent sensory reality that are obvious to nearly all of us. Feser bases his work or uses as a starting point or resource A-T notions and thus gets a very great deal of things wrong.
Several people here have been kind enough to take the time out of their lives to address these topics on the rational merits, so I appreciate that interaction.
Go away.
DeleteI would much prefer an atheist like "the thinker" from the Strange Notions blog.
ReplyDelete