Saturday, June 6, 2020

Pod people


With woke fanatics suddenly overrunning The New York Times, the public health profession, peaceful protests, and even the knitting community (!), life in these United States is starting to look a little like the 1978 sci-fi classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  If you’re looking for something timely to watch this evening, I recommend it.  (It’s a great flick anyway.) 

The metaphor is near perfect.  People are transformed into robotic pod people only after first falling asleep and (get this) waking up.  One moment they’re polite fellow citizens, the next they are all gaping maws, shrieking at you so as to summon the rest of the mob over for reeducation or a beat down.  After their transformation, even longtime friends and loved ones suddenly turn on you.  And in a nice touch, much of the focus of the movie is on the pod people’s commandeering of… the local health department.

If you want to turn it into film festival, next rent The Last Emperor and check out its chilling portrayal of the Maoist Red Guard.  (Some of our wokesters have apparently seen it, and thought it a “How to” video.)

And then, to see where this mentality leads if unchecked, The Killing Fields

128 comments:

  1. When we said we needed to do away with the old religion because it wasn’t reasonable, we kept the religion and did away with the reason.

    The groveling disavowal of racism is the new auto de fe. You may be required at any moment to signal your virtue or face the inquisition of social media. Confess your sins and beg for mercy or be cast out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait. You took the leftists' side in the last thread and did a drive by on conservatives before running away. With friends like you....

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, There are no "sides", there are facts and non-facts. I don't need "friends" and I don't need to compete in emotional shouting matches.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,
      With friends like you....

      What's it like to be so awful even your supposed friends can't stand you?

      Delete
    4. One Brow, found those right-wing provocateurs yet?

      Delete
    5. TN, the point is you gave an extremely uncharitable interpretation, typical of a hysterical, lying leftist, like One Brow. That's whack. You should show where we were supporting Chauvin or apologize.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous,

      Perhaps a meaningful discussion could have taken place with Screwtape. But here are some of the childish and petty things that were being said: “you don't even have 1/1000000th of the knowledge needed . . . “; “If you actually bothered to research this topic . . .”; “Maybe you should educate yourself . . .”; “you lack the intellectual caliber to discuss these issues . . .”

      Waste of time.

      I made no claim that anyone “supported Chauvin”. I said it is right to concede Screwtape’s concern that the use of lethal force against someone who is clearly not a threat is wrong.

      One Brow just wants to argue about every word on every post. Just ignore him.

      Delete
    7. TN, those excerpts all are taken from AKG's posts, though he was the anonymous tag. He's the very essence of the hysterical leftist and Feser has had to ban him in the past because of his rants. This was actually rather restrained for him. He thinks if you don't have a degree in some variety of Woke Studies, you don't have a right to comment on the issues. He makes One Brow look honest and a worthy debater.

      Who doesn't concede that point about lethal force?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous,

      "those excerpts all are taken from AKG's posts".

      So? My criticism applies to AKC then.

      "Who doesn't concede that point about lethal force?"

      From Alessio: "I've honestly been surprised at how many people on the right are rushing to judgment . . . All the facts are not in, and the facts that are, seem conflicting at best."

      From Anonymous: "By the way, it isn't clear that all the police involved in the Floyd arrest should have been arrested or charged"

      It's fine to affirm that we need to allow the process to work rather than mob justice. But when you're dealing with someone who is upset (like Screwtape) it's not helpful to come off like you're saying his concern is wrong. Saying to Screwtape something like "I agree it's wrong to use lethal force against someone who isn't a threat", is very different in its effect than saying things that come off like you're saying some technicality might get them off. I know that's not what is intended, but that's what it sounds like to Screwtape; he was telling you that, if you listen.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous,
      One Brow, found those right-wing provocateurs yet?

      I didn't find them, but some have been arrested. Did the Washington Examiner not tell you that?

      Delete
    10. T N,
      One Brow just wants to argue about every word on every post. Just ignore him.

      You have no idea how much I let slip by, uncommented upon.

      Delete
    11. One Brow,

      Indeed! Who has time for the small stuff when there are really big issues like whether or not a cops prison sentence is from conviction or plea.

      Delete
    12. TN, AKG is a left-wing troll though, so blame those.

      But it isn't a technicality if those other officers get off. Those officers were moral cowards, but it seems a huge question whether what they did was illegal. It's not a technicality. Ellison's reasoning in charging them is hugely suspect, as Andrew McCarthy and others have pointed out. It is always vitally important that justice is served, and that means the rule of law, not mobs. Screwtape seemed to represent the position of the mob.

      I admit I think Alessio went a little too far, especially in that he didn't subsequently make it clear he thought Chauvin should definitely be charged. But I don't agree that trying to make sure the rule of law is observed is a ever a bad thing.

      Delete
    13. One Brow, you lie.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous,
      One Brow, you lie.

      Everyone lies. Just the other day I told someone they played a great game of `856, when it was really awful.

      However, if you meant the arrest of right-wing provocateurs, that's made the news in so many places that your refusal to look for it and find it can only be willful blindness. If you mean something else, could you be more specific in your accusation?

      Delete
    15. T N,

      I don't recall claiming that I only focus on the big stuff.

      Delete
    16. How about you state some examples. Who bets they will be highly questionable?

      Not that examples alone would matter, as your argument was clearly that by and large the violence is caused by right-wing provocateurs. You also need therefore to show us that what was taken for violence by anti-fa and such was really, on the whole, right-wing provocateurs. A few stray examples hardly shows that, even if they are legit.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous,

      Above, the referenced game should have been 856, not '856.

      You make a habit of telling people what their argument is, and being spectacularly wrong. My point was that the influence of the right-wing provocateurs was at least as large as that of antifa. If I were to categorize the majority of people committing violence, I would say it is opportunists who are using the protests as cover.

      However, since my report of the numbers, there were 3 antifas caught destroying property. So the count is now right-wing provocateurs 3, antifa 3. Some of us don't like to be misleading.

      Delete
    18. One Brow, exactly. You are a conspiracy theorist. You didn't support your claims, but they are obviously bs. Those anarchist symbols everywhere, the burnt churches, the black block tactics, what has been said by Bill Barr and the FBI, all add to to 3 lone anti-fa attacks. You are a liar. You can't stop lying. Be gone troll.

      Delete
    19. Anonymous,
      One Brow, exactly. You are a conspiracy theorist.

      I take this with all the seriousness I can from someone seeing a gigantic antifa conspiracy.

      You didn't support your claims, but they are obviously bs.

      I agree that I did not support the claim you inferred, and that the claim you inferred was nonsense. Since the claim you inferred was not the claim I stated, I'm content to leave it there.

      Those anarchist symbols everywhere,

      Most antifa are not anarchists.

      the burnt churches,

      Burnt black churches are a traditional indication of right-wing tatics.

      the black block tactics,

      Black bloc tactics are more of a sign of the leftist groups.

      what has been said by Bill Barr and the FBI,

      What Bill Barr has said differs noticeably from what the FBI intelligence officers have said.

      all add to to 3 lone anti-fa attacks.

      Feel free to go find others. Nothing is stopping you from proving your claim, besides reality.

      You are a liar. You can't stop lying. Be gone troll.

      I appreciate that you have trouble integrating information contrary to your preferred viewpoint, and that this is the best response you can muster. You have my pity.

      Delete
  2. There is a cousin of mine that I have gotten along with really well since we were children who posted a comment on Facebook about her white privilege manifesting in ways such as being able to jog down the sidewalk without getting stopped by police. I commented that I didn't believe this was privilege so much as being treated how everyone should be treated, and that blacks are being treated horribly if they cannot also do so. So not white privilege, but black underprivilege, so the emphasis should be on where the problem actually lies.

    My cousin, whom I have never once had trouble with in over thirty years, ripped me a new one and told me to get my ignorant self off her page. It was indeed like she had suddenly become someone else, and not sharing the woke position made me an enemy out of nowhere. You can disagree with someone without their being an enemy, or you could once upon a time.

    Wokeness is many things, but a force for good is not one of them so long as those "not woke" are deemed ignorant or evil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What I see day to day and in the headlines is people bending over backwards to virtue signal and show blacks special treatment so they can't be accused of failure to comply.

      Delete
    2. "You can't say that white people are privileged because it is actually the case that white people are treated normally and every other race is treated worse" is an extremely strange argument.

      Delete
    3. an extremely strange argument.

      You think that it is privileged to be treated in accordance with reasonable expectation based on what is legal and not legal? As in, left alone for legal things and punished for illegal things? I see no privilege there, simply reasonable expectation being met. Hardly common usage of the word "privilege".

      If the speed limit is 55 and you get pulled over at 53, that doesn't make me privileged if I get pulled over at 56. That means I was treated according to the rules and you were treated unfairly. That's not remotely a strange argument.

      Delete
    4. Something else to add is: would an Asian American have been stopped as well? A Latino? Then it's not really "white privilege". It's black underprivilege, indeed.

      Delete
    5. You think that it is privileged to be treated in accordance with reasonable expectation based on what is legal and not legal?

      "X is treated fairly while everyone else is being mistreated" is semantically equal to "X is being given preferable treatment while everyone else is not." "Being treated in accordance with reason and reasonable interpretation of the law" is preferable to not, so someone who is treated as such is being given exclusive preferential treatment... which is the definition of privilege.

      Delete
    6. Legion is talking about an absolute moral scale.

      Balanced is talking about a relative moral scale.

      The absolute scale is for matters of justice, the relative scale is for fairness.

      The Professor wrote an article on this a few years back in 2012 on true and false cardinal virtues.

      http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/11/cardinal-virtues-and-counterfeit-virtues.html

      Delete
    7. Keep Calm and Carry OnJune 8, 2020 at 5:38 PM

      In this context it is certainly not helpful to use privilege in the manner BTO proposes.

      In Roman law it was simply a non-universal "private" norm - favorable or unfavorable - and modern usage clearly implies a favorable or preferential exception from the general rule or law.
      I do not dispute that you can use the word in the way BTO proposes - and if you do, he has a point. However, by definition human rights or the rights protected in the constitution are not "privilege" but apply to everyone equally.
      Calling being treated in accordance with the law "privilege" is misleading and should be avoided. In a way that would imply that the unlawfully disparate treatment is justified by the existence of a "privilege". Which is patently wrong.

      Legion has the better reasons for his usage on his side.

      Delete
    8. In Roman law it was simply a non-universal "private" norm - favorable or unfavorable - and modern usage clearly implies a favorable or preferential exception from the general rule or law.

      @KC&CO this depends on the correct philosophy of law. If law = social convention like Thomas Hobbes speculated then white people are still legally privileged because white people enjoy the protections and defenses of social convention that others don't.

      FYI: "Philosophy of X = interpretation of X as a subject." Interpreting law as an object is casuistry. Interpreting law as a subject is philosophy of law. Interpreting physics as an object is experimental analysis. Interpreting physics as a subject is the philosophy of physics.

      Balanced is talking about a relative moral scale... justice vs. fairness

      Two points:

      1. Morale-ity is about morale. It was morale for Barack Obama to be against gay marriage in 2008 and just as morale for Barack Obama to be in favor of gay marriage by the end of his term because he didn't affect the morale of the country: most of the country was opposed when he entered and most of the country supported it when he left. Slavery was morale for the generation of white slaveholders. Ever hear how people excuse old dead slaveholders because "he was just a product of his time" while shaking your head puzzled over how the ethics (something very different from morale-ity) of slavery can't change from evil to good by the passage of time? Or ever hear gramps say the N-word on his geriatric massage chair and mommy or uncle excuse the immorale-ity of his remark by pointing out the generation he grew up in, as if ethical behavior can vary from generation to generation? Ethics are absolute because they do not change over time (= future-oriented). Convention is... not absolute per se, but because it's based on past social agreements, it's objective in a reified sense. But morality is relative because it's the connection between past conventions and future ethics. Future morality will become past conventions, and past conventions were once present morality.

      2. Fairness isn't past-oriented or present-oriented because "what's fair" isn't determined by past convention nor does it change from generation to generation. Fairness is future-oriented and just as absolute as ethics. Justice isn't a virtue so much as a condition: Justice is anti core value collapse. Because of how justice is defined, it is relative to the core values of the person, institution, or society. Ancoms, Marxists, ancaps, liberals, and the alt-right all have very different systems of justice. Some of these ideals of justice are bad and evil, but they nonetheless are valid systems of justice because justice is defined relative to the core values being upheld.

      Delete
    9. Keep Calm and Carry OnJune 9, 2020 at 6:02 AM

      Just a quick rejoinder (as I don't have much time to write at the moment and this is a topic far beyond any comboxes):

      As I said, your usage in and of itself is possible, and I'd use it in a sociological context.

      Given your terminology in the second part of your comment, we'll probably not agree anytime soon on much. Your take on justice seems to be ultimately relativistic, which is curious since you seem to hold that ethics somehow can avoid relativism. A relativism that you seem to think does inform morals / morale which you apparently define more or less as the conventions (mores) of a given society.
      As for justice you emphasize one aspect namely adherence to a (basically immutable) measure (the "core values" of a given individual or society). While adherence to a given measure is a necessary condition* it is not sufficient. For an act to be truly just the measure adhered to needs to be what I assume you would call ethics. I would say, with Thomas Aquinas, that is ultimately comes from God, and yet we can know it to a large extend through the light of our natural reason.

      *however, the person acting does not need to be able to provide a complete verbal account and justification for it, let alone do it, in order to be able to act justly.

      Now there is much here that is both highly interesting and non-combox stuff, so I'll try and resist the temptation to elaborate further in the combox.

      Delete
    10. As interesting as the technical definition of "privilege" is and what it should mean, it misses the point of the word usage. People think of their everyday experiences as the standard, and rate other experiences accordingly. Compared to the everyday treatment that most black people experience, being treated like a white person for a brief period of time feels like a privilege.

      Delete
    11. @KC&CO

      Justice is neither a core value nor a virtue but rather a state reality exists in. Justice is when the core values of reality (n.b. core values are a physical property of reality: this is why your soul continues to exist--although in an extremely diminished form--after death) are in a state of homeostatis against entropy aka. disorder. So Ed is correct when he says it is external.

      But then how can justice be defined by one's core values if it is external? Ah, but this is where your presupposition is wrong. Reality itself is not something that is "out there" but everything we know begins within our minds, and only later do we sort it into real and unreal. From H. P. Lovecraft:

      "Men of broader intellect know that there is no sharp distinction betwixt the real and the unreal."

      Delete
    12. @BTO,

      Glad to know you're a Kantian

      Delete
    13. Actually, I concur with Legion of Logic. There are 11 core values common to all people, each one of them needed in order to have perfect happiness:

      Love
      Peace
      Rule the World
      Friendship
      Religion
      Family
      Childhood
      Art
      Power
      Money
      Science

      Currently, blacks, asians, first nations, and latinos are deprived of core value #3, meaning that white people are not so much privileged as supplied with a core value that other races are deprived of, as Legion of Logic said.

      Delete
  3. As (quite frankly) hilarious this entire post is, the problem I have with it is that it doesn't really take into account the fact that this is all in the making. The universities have been cooking up anti-white, anti-Christian, and sexual liberationist nonsense for decades now. What we're seeing is a sort of trickle-down effect. From the universities to the students to the wider public. If you keep dripping morphine into someone's mouth, they're going to get high eventually.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You should see what James Lindsay had to say on the current 'woke' movement and his past work on the psychology of religion. (Its on Twitter).

    Its uncanny.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, what's the difference between getting worked up over racism and getting worked up over abortion? Evil is evil and it makes no sense to say one is just "getting political" while saying the other is a holy crusade for justice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps I am not understanding you. If you mean by "worked up", working to eradicate the evil, ummmm, yes, we should work to eradicate both evils. If by "worked up" you mean killing people in order to shout about the value of life, and of black lives, ... perhaps not?

      Delete
    2. one is an evil that is overblown and weaponized by evil people, and one is protected by law, trumpeted by half the nation, and literally killing someone. One is literally getting political, and it's not my side that's doing it.

      Delete
    3. one is an evil that is overblown and weaponized by evil people

      Accusing your political opponents of holding their views because they're "the wrong kind of folk" as opposed to mistaken is exactly the same behavior that Ed's critics and the left-wing do to him.

      Why is it the universities/Millennials/Cultural Marxists/Globalists who are weaponizing antiracist movements as opposed to wealthy people weaponizing discrimination? Why is the first interpretation better than the second?

      and literally killing someone

      Evil is like pregnant or perfect. There's no such thing as greater or lesser evil. That's why "the lesser of two evils" strategy for voting is unsound. Which is the "lesser of two evils": unending dehumanization with only the grave as an escape or murder?

      Delete
    4. @BalancedTryteOperatorsJune:

      "Evil is like pregnant or perfect. There's no such thing as greater or lesser evil."

      Of course there is, this is simply contrary to reason, and since the owner of the blog is catholic, against perennial Church teaching and dogma. Stealing 5 dollars from you and taking your life are both evils, but they are not comparable in terms of graveness. To say otherwise is a sign of moral obtuseness (or arguing for the sake or arguing, a.k.a. trolling).

      Delete
    5. You don't think there are greater and lesser evils? Is littering, then, just as much to be condemned as murder? Surely not.

      Delete
    6. Why is it the universities/Millennials/Cultural Marxists/Globalists who are weaponizing antiracist movements as opposed to wealthy people weaponizing discrimination?

      Well, aside from the tendentious "weaponized", there is no question about the former. The groups you name, at least some of them, can be identified, and they DO go on about how "antiracist" they are. It's not a secret.

      Meanwhile, I frankly don't know what actual phenomena the latter refers to. Or even exactly to whom "wealthy people" here refers. Most of the wealthy appear to side with the first group.

      Delete
    7. Most of the wealthy appear to side with the first group.

      Whenever a company shows a rainbow flag, this is called virtue signaling in the original sense of signaling theory in economics. That doesn't mean they are opposers of oppression: they're just broadcasting information according to a very specific set of profit/loss criteria in order to maintain their hegemony.

      Delete
    8. Why is it the universities/Millennials/Cultural Marxists/Globalists who are weaponizing antiracist movements as opposed to wealthy people weaponizing discrimination? Why is the first interpretation better than the second?

      Who says that the one is opposed to the other? It certainly is true that (non-wealthy) university professors and (and the millennials they have brainwashed) have weaponized the "racism" charge. But it is also true that a generation or two ago propagandists also converted soft-minded wealthy(ish) white liberal Christians into self-disgust with (a) wealth, (b) being white, and (c) Christianity, as being tools and totems of oppression. They don't talk about it in those terms as much any more because they won that battle (more or less): a great many such soft-minded people of a certain age are still about as wealthy as then but silently feel wrong about it, are still white but ashamed of not being oppressed like others are by other people who are racists, and are still "Christian" in name for nostalgia's sake but have actually been converted to the marxist version of the "Christian" message: it's all about this world, and the only mortal sin is inequality.

      The two conceptual approaches are entirely compatible with each other. They are just different facets of the same war.

      Delete
  6. While the celebs pay their temple tax on Twitter telling everyone who they stand with, I’ll stick with the excommunicate: Larry Elder; Candace Owens; Denzel Washington; the Hodge twins; Brandon Tatum; Jesse Peterson; Morgan Freeman; Kevin Ellerbe; Lawrence Jones; Thomas Sowell; Allen West; David Webb; et al.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ΑναξίθαλῆςJune 7, 2020 at 7:51 AM

    ah! a new episode of my favorite "conservative" tv show, "Everything I Don't Like Is Communism."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does that one follow everything I don't like is white supremacist, by the leftists?

      Here's an idea, when people talk about dismantling capitalism or white supremacist capitalism or whatever bs terms they use, maybe we should take them at their words, or at least the coherent parts?

      Delete
  8. This hole situation strikes me as fin de siecle, in which the social consensus of the post-WWII period, molded in some measure by the Stalinist left of the 1930s and 40s, forced to stay under cover after Nixon, Chambers, and McCarthy, managed to secure an uneasy center-left consensus during the 1960s and 70s, getting a belated vengeance against Nixon. The politicians who were young during this period are now elderly and at best set in their ways, and their pupils, also now getting on, have learned nothing. The center-left consensus is losing its labor and ethnic minority components, with only the privileged children of elites and free-love advocates remaining -- at the very best, this is not a winning political coalition.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The fruits of the long march through the institutions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems to me that the "long march through the institutions" has systematically accomplished by television and the advertising industry which are of course an integral part of the military-industrial-propaganda/"entertainment"-complex.
      Everything aspect of human culture has thus been reduced to the bottom line.
      The whats-in-it-for-me TV anti- "culture" now rules the world.
      The brainwashing/cloning process begins very early in life. Two year olds can now recognize dozens of popular brand-name Logos.
      Three books (among many) which are very much about this topic
      This Little Kiddy Went To Market - The Corporate Capture of Childhood by Sharon Beder.

      Buy Baby Buy - How Consumer Culture Manipulates & Harms Young Minds by Susan Thomas

      Captains of Consciousness The Social Roots of Consumer Culture by Stuart Ewen

      An early book on the negative influence of TV on culture is Ten Arguments For the Elimination of Television by Jerry Mander

      Delete
    2. The number in the title of Jerry Mander's book is four, not ten.

      Delete
  10. The current situation in many of our cities-- dominated by anarchy and calls for the defunding of the police--reminds me of the movie "Escape from New York" (1981) in which Manhattan has been abandoned by law-and-order and barricaded from the outside world. The environment there is anything but pretty.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Barbarian hopes — and that is the mark of him, that he can have his cake and eat it too.He will consume what civilization has slowly produced after generations of selection and effort, but he will not be at pains to replace such goods, nor indeed has he a comprehension of the virtue that has brought them into being. Discipline seems to him irrational, on which account he is ever marvelling that civilization, should have offended him with priests and soldiers.... In a word, the Barbarian is discoverable everywhere in this, that he cannot make: that he can befog and destroy but that he cannot sustain; and of every Barbarian in the decline or peril of every civilization exactly that has been true.

    We sit by and watch the barbarian. We tolerate him in the long stretches of peace, we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence; his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creed refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond, and on these faces there are no smiles.

    Hilaire Belloc

    ReplyDelete
  12. More that political, it's a malicious religion. Even the non-religious are discovering this (warning: salty language): https://youtu.be/BTjc5TMCS8A

    "All lives DON'T matter!" That's not a mask slipping. That's a mask being torn off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scott W.,
      "All lives DON'T matter!" That's not a mask slipping. That's a mask being torn off.

      Your bias, anyhow, and that of the video maker. The point of the protester, to me, is that black lives are not treated as if they matter, and saying "all lives matter" is denying the reality of the treatment.

      Of course, white people have to make it all about them.

      Delete
    2. All lives = white lives is racist.

      Delete
    3. JoeD,
      All lives = white lives is racist.

      When that phrase, or a similar one, is being used along the lines of "every soldier is important", it's not racist, because every soldier faces basically the same threat. When the phrase is being used to counter the saying "black lives matter" (which is used to highlight the higher level of danger and disregard given to black lives), it becomes racist because it's being used to deny the difference in treatment and support.

      Context matters.

      Delete
    4. @One Brow,


      So you can't see that "All lives matter" means black lives matter. That's quite racist.

      Delete
    5. JoeD,
      So you can't see that "All lives matter" means black lives matter. That's quite racist.

      That's an odd response to "context matters".

      You're using buzzwords and phrases with no signs of understanding what they mean or what the context is. In the process, you are encouraging an environment of pain and unfairness.

      If you don't care about that, you don't. However, throwing around a word like "racist" isn't going to sway anyone who sees through the emptiness of your usage.

      Delete
    6. @One Brow,

      All lives matter. But that doesn't mean black lives matter. In fact, it excludes black lives. So black lives aren't as valuable as other lives.

      Simple. If you think all lives matter ignores black lives, then you're valuation of black lives is deficient.

      Delete
    7. JoeD,

      You argument completely ignores the context of what is being said. Do you agree that the same phrase can take on different meanings in different contexts?

      Delete
    8. One Brow complaining about someone ignoring the context of what is being said is the pot calling the fire engine black.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous,

      You could had actually stated whether you thought context was important, or what the context was. Instead, you decided on making a pointless insult. That seems fairly typical for you.

      Delete
  13. There’s a cheesy 80’s flick called “They Live” where human society has been infiltrated by space aliens. They look like humans to the naked eye but you can see them if you have some special glasses. Not too different than real life today.

    “Truth is stranger than fiction because we create fiction to suit our fancy.” G.K. Chesterton

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's a hilarious turn of events (link below). From Tim Pool: a church and a racetrack call themselves "protests" in order to assemble.

    Church goers have hammers and Molotov cocktails. I love how they put "No Trump, No Racism, No Fascism" on the wall with a sign that says "have donuts and coffee".

    Ya gotta do what ya gotta do, I guess.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpVXJ9TrRGE&t=368s

    ReplyDelete
  15. It's worth mentioning that the 1978 version of The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a remake of the 1956 original, directed by Don Siegel.

    Critics generally consider the original version to be superior to the sequel.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hands up who is sick of One Brow?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      When a narcissist (or other manipulator) fails to receive the adulation they desire, gaslighting is an effective way to exert control over their victim by inducing self-doubt and insecurity. The proper response to a narcissist is indifference.

      Delete
    2. What should be grasped about One Brow is he is an inveterate sophist: he has his ideological views and he will make any sort of claim, including invective or sarcastic dismissal, to rhetorically further them, with little regard to whether his claims are true or logical. Anyone who spends much time discussing things, especially politics, with him or even pays much attention to his posts soon senses this. It's not that uncommon, I suppose, but he is a pretty pure type. One could base a course on fallacies just by using examples from his posts.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous,
      Hands up who is sick of One Brow?

      Dr. Feser's blog, his rules. If he asks me to leave, I'm gone.

      Frankly, you being sick of me is no insult.

      Delete
    4. Time to raise the ancient cry of don't feed the troll?

      Delete
    5. Tim,

      Did you have anything interesting to say? It's a rather poor thing to have this as your sole contribution to a thread.

      Delete
    6. At the moment of this writing the thread has 80 comments, with, if I counted right, One Brow scoring 18 of them. Whatever one thinks of the quality of his contributions, that is an unealthy percentage of the total number posts; nausea and sickness are its natural effects.

      Delete
    7. grodrigues,

      It's curious what people find nauseating. Some might say that 62/80 posts of unrelenting, ill-considered conservatism is an unhealthy percentage.

      Delete
  17. Jeremy Taylor,

    As I believe I have mentioned to you before, I'm flexible. When poster come at me with sneers, dismissals, and insults, I happily meet them at their level. When they come with careful thinking, I'm happy to engage at that level. When they insist on having sides, I'll state my side.

    I know you like to think of yourself as a rational thinker. So, look at the way myinteractions have gone with posters like Daniel and Casual Thomist, look at how varied our own interaction has been at different points (also apies to T N), and look at my responses to posters like Anonymous and Mister Geocon. I just go with the flow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will grant that your discussion of philosophical issues shows at least hope, even if it is buried underneath a lot of confusion. I have never seen you engage in anything but the rankest sophism when discussing politics though, whomever you are discussing it with. That's not going with the flow. That's being a sophist for ideological reasons.

      Delete
    2. I mean, I literally almost can't find a contribution of yours on this thread that doesn't seem sophistic.

      Delete
    3. Oddly enough, I tend to think of most of the political arguments from conservatives as sophistic.

      However, the skeptical side of me knows the reality that we have deep emotional attachments to different ways of approaching the world. We like to think of ourselves as rational, but underneath we are more rationalizers than rational. I hold to different base values than you in a fundamental way, and rather than understand them, you declare reasoning in support of my emotionally chosen base values sophistic, and reason supporting your own emotionally chosen values to be sound. Mind you, I'm not accusing you of hypocrisy, but of a self-deception.

      Delete
    4. Or it could be that you routinely commit the most blatant and brazen fallacies and trade on falsehoods constantly. You literally tried to argue it was a category mistake to complain of non sequiturs in your arguments over science, as these were a matter for logic only. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this was deliberate sophistry, as otherwise you are an ignoramus of the highest order.

      You can't fool me, so do not even bother with trying.

      Delete
    5. Jeremy Taylor,

      I don't mind reasoning with you, but I have nothing to prove to you. When I'm wrong, I admit it. When I'm right, the silence from the various people who accuse me of being a troll is abundant. I have no need to fool you, and nothing to gain by so doing.

      Non-sequitur: a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement. Logic is the grammar of philosophy and mathematics. Science deals with evidence and models. It is a category error to introduce the concepts of logical argumentation into a scientific discussion. Evidence can be valuable or not valuable, relevant or not relevant, supportive or not supportive of a point. There are unsupported, even discredited hypotheses. There are no scientific non sequiturs, because science is not a logical argument.

      Delete
    6. I am speechless, metaphorically speaking.

      Delete
    7. Jeremy Taylor,

      Indifference. That's the key. Indifference.

      Delete
    8. T N,

      Indifference certainly helps.

      Perspective also helps. This is just a comment log on a blog. There's nothing at stake, except how much of our own egos we put into it.

      Delete
    9. Jeremy Taylor,

      I'm curious which paragraph left speechless. On a blog whose owner regularly rails about how bare-bones science is, surely you're not too surprised at seeing that science does not fold logic into its matrix.

      Delete
    10. Keep Calm and Carry OnJune 12, 2020 at 6:15 AM

      So after a couple of days I return to this post and comment section to see if anything interesting has been added.
      And I happen upon One Brow's astounding assertion: "It is a category error to introduce the concepts of logical argumentation into a scientific discussion."

      If that is One Brow's considered opinion, his posts can still have meaning as it is possible that a room full of monkeys typing away "writes" Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

      Delete
    11. At the beginning of any quantum mechanics course, one learns something about the history of its development. A crucial point is the proof that classical electromagnetism implies that an electron in a closed orbit radiates energy and this immediately implies that an atom is unstable contradicting what we observe. Ergo, classical electromagnetism must be wrong somewhere. The whole history of the development of QM is in fact a stark illustration of the crucial importance of logical consistency -- e.g. none other than Niehls Bohr makes this point fairly explicitly. Opening at random a page in any physics textbook will yield countless other examples. And the reason why this is so is not difficult to understand, as *any* prediction made by a scientific theory is but a special case of a logical entailment. Since by the principle of explosion a logically inconsistent theory proves everything and its contrary, it has no predictive power.

      One Brow, implies that the above is not a constitutive part of science as science "does not fold logic into its matrix". As I said elsewhere, he would not recognize scientific research if it bit his nose off. Now he outs himself as a rank sophist, since things like logical consistency apparently mean nothing. He also has a lot of time to waste and feels the compulsion to answer nearly every post, so he will most likely respond to this, predictably, with yet more ignorant dumbassery; I will happily grant him the last word, as I have no wish to waste my time.

      Delete
    12. Keep Calm and Carry On,
      If that is One Brow's considered opinion, his posts can still have meaning as it is possible that a room full of monkeys typing away "writes" Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

      One could not be blamed for thinking the room full of monkeys would address important topics more often than your posts seem to.

      Delete
    13. grodrigues,

      This would be the same Niels Bohr that said, "There is no quantum world. This is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature"?

      I explicitly laid out that science included the notion of claims that were supported by the evidence or contrary to the evidence. The notion that classical electromagnetism created a model of unstable atoms is what makes it a "discredited hypothesis". I agree that you can discredit hypotheses based on any section of any high-school science text. Should I quote myself to you in detail, or do you think you can manage to actually read what I wrote rather than type off something based on pure invective concerning half-read text?

      Then again, I don't see why you would bother. You seem to prefer to judge rather than exchange ideas, and whom am I to tell you otherwise. Instead, I'll just sit in bemusement at the posters who insist that scientists make an effort to fully flesh out reality, while telling me that I need to understand better the works of someone who emphasizes how bare-bones science is.

      Delete
    14. @One Brow:

      I retract what I said about giving you the last word.

      "This would be the same Niels Bohr that said, "There is no quantum world. This is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature"?"

      And? I pointed out that one of the fathers of QM, who traced its development fairly accurately, made a fairly obvious point, a point that it is not somehow made false or moot by his having ideas on the nature of science and knowledge I disagree with. I quoted him as it were, not as an argument from authority, but simply to give a stark illustration of the point I was making. In other words, your quote is completely irrelevant, which is an informal fa -- oh shucks...

      "I explicitly laid out that science included the notion of claims that were supported by the evidence or contrary to the evidence."

      What I responded to were statements like "It is a category error to introduce the concepts of logical argumentation into a scientific discussion." or "There are no scientific non sequiturs, because science is not a logical argument." You have not responded to any of the points I actually made -- which really have no response, as they are pretty elementary and obvious -- so what you explicitly laid out or not is irrelevant. In the present case, it just means you do not know what the hell you are talking about. Being "contrary to evidence", as I already said, *just* is a case of logical argumentation. If T implies p and not-p, by Modus Tollens not-T. That this elementary point eludes you speaks volumes about your understanding and your lack of it. But this is par for the course. If pointing out that you committed a logical fallacy, say a non-sequitur, is a "category mistake" then it follows that you are free to commit logical fallacies, like say, a non-sequitur, at least in the domain of a "scientific discussion" which I suspect is pretty broad. You have outed yourself as a rank sophist.

      "Should I quote myself to you in detail, or do you think you can manage to actually read what I wrote rather than type off something based on pure invective concerning half-read text?"

      This is a case of pure projection. Poor misunderstood One Brow. And please do not quote yourself; I might be crazy enough to subject myself to the torture of reading your words, not once but twice.

      "You seem to prefer to judge rather than exchange ideas, and whom am I to tell you otherwise."

      Who are you to tell me otherwise? You are telling me otherwise, in a not so subtle way I might add. To your point, an "exchange" in the intellectual sphere presumes a commonality that does not exist; you and I do not play by the same rule book, so there is no "exchange" possible.

      Delete
    15. One Brow,
      "science does not fold logic into its matrix."
      That makes as much sense as saying science does not fold reason into its matrix, or science does not fold mathematics into its matrix (whatever "fold into its matrix" is supposed to mean exactly).

      Logic is integral to science, obviously.

      Delete
    16. grodrigues,
      And? I pointed out that one of the fathers of QM, who traced its development fairly accurately, made a fairly obvious point, a point that it is not somehow made false or moot by his having ideas on the nature of science and knowledge I disagree with.

      And? I said that your point had nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with the notion of the discredited hypothesis.

      I quoted him as it were, not as an argument from authority, but simply to give a stark illustration of the point I was making.

      A point that Bohr himself, who was a scientist and a philosopher, would disagree with. A point that misunderstands how science works.

      You have not responded to any of the points I actually made -- which really have no response, as they are pretty elementary and obvious -- so what you explicitly laid out or not is irrelevant.

      It's just all so silly, I didn't feel the need to go line-by-line. Still, here's one morsel.

      Since by the principle of explosion a logically inconsistent theory proves everything and its contrary, it has no predictive power.

      The principle of explosion has no bearing on field where every theory is wrong.

      Pretty much every scientists I have read, that also consider philosophy carefully and as a worthwhile activity, acknowledges that all of our theories are wrong. Quantum mechanics is wrong. General Relativity is wrong. The Theory of Evolution is wrong. Atomic Theory is wrong.

      However, they are the best, most accurate models we currently have. Newton's Laws of motion were wrong, but we used them until we found phenomena that didn't obey them. We'll use our current theories until we find phenomena that don't obey them, and then we will improve the theories.

      To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure. In science, you have at least a third logical value (similar to, but not quite like intuitionist mathematics), and really the better logical models use a continuum of values in multiple dimensions. I mean, if you really want to talk about what it would take to create a satisfactory logical framework in which to do science, we can debate the various multi-dimensional logics. I'm up for that.

      Delete
    17. grodrigues,
      In the present case, it just means you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

      I know enough to know that bring in things like "the principle of explosion" is a gross oversimplification of the types of thinking you need to process science.

      Being "contrary to evidence", as I already said, *just* is a case of logical argumentation.

      Being contrary to evidence is not the same as being false. Sometimes the evidence is wrong. Sometimes our understanding of the evidence is wrong.

      That this elementary point eludes you speaks volumes about your understanding and your lack of it.

      I know when I'm being lectured to by a patzer.

      But this is par for the course. If pointing out that you committed a logical fallacy, say a non-sequitur, is a "category mistake" then it follows that you are free to commit logical fallacies, like say, a non-sequitur, at least in the domain of a "scientific discussion" which I suspect is pretty broad. You have outed yourself as a rank sophist.

      You can't commit logical fallicies outside of a logical argument. That's like saying you can commit a logical fallacy in a dicussion of music preference. You've outed yourself as a person who has only the hammer, and thus thinks every problem is a nail.

      Poor misunderstood One Brow.

      Hardly. I engage in these exchanges because I find value in it, and I have nothing to prove to you.

      Who are you to tell me otherwise? You are telling me otherwise, in a not so subtle way I might add.

      I am only telling you my impression on the nature of your responses. You owe me nothing, and I have no claim on your behavior. Change how you respond, or don't, it's up to you, and will make little difference in my life. We all have to get through life in the best way we can.

      To your point, an "exchange" in the intellectual sphere presumes a commonality that does not exist; you and I do not play by the same rule book, so there is no "exchange" possible.

      As you wish. When you want to get serious, it might get interesting.

      Delete
    18. StardustyPsyche,
      "science does not fold logic into its matrix."
      That makes as much sense as saying science does not fold reason into its matrix, or science does not fold mathematics into its matrix (whatever "fold into its matrix" is supposed to mean exactly).

      Logic is integral to science, obviously.


      Science uses scientific reasoning, which is different from logical reasoning. It uses mathematical tools, but not the full structure of mathematics.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. One Brow,
      "Science uses scientific reasoning,"
      Which requires logical reasoning, and is thus "folded into the matrix", I guess, whatever that is supposed to mean.

      "It uses mathematical tools"
      Math is a form of logic, so again your vague statement about "folding into the matrix" is nonsense.

      Delete
    22. grod,
      "the principle of explosion"
      is nonsense.

      The so-called proof fails due to equivocation between steps 2 and 3, for example here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

      The error of the attempted proof is that the OR statement is not known to be true, only assumed to be true based on prior assumptions. Once those assumptions are determined to be false the OR statement resolves to false, because False OR False = False.

      Delete
    23. Just a couple of notes. I have deleted my two posts in response to One Brow. The blog, its owner, any would-be readers, One Brow, deserve better. Since he is not willing to wrap it up, I will; I will do it later though, as I do not have the time right now.

      And Stardusty is at it again. I so thoroughly spanked him that he just *must* have his petty little revenge and find something, anything, to pin on me. Of all the things he could take, what does he pick? That the principle of explosion "is nonsense". And then posts what I take his is pathetic attempt at a demonstration. Roll eyes. Sure, whatever dude.

      Delete
    24. StardustyPsyche,
      "Science uses scientific reasoning,"
      Which requires logical reasoning, and is thus "folded into the matrix", I guess, whatever that is supposed to mean.


      While this is grossly simplified, logical reasoning is about assumptions and methods of proof, while scientific reasoning is about observations and testing. The very foundation of proof is so anathema to scientists that they often use retorts like 'proof is for mathematics and alcohol'.

      "It uses mathematical tools"
      Math is a form of logic, so again your vague statement about "folding into the matrix" is nonsense.


      Outside of your mischaracterization of the relationship between logic and mathematics, anyone who thinks mathematics is about manipulating equations does not understand the field at all.

      "the principle of explosion"
      is nonsense.


      It's an artifact of a specific type of logical construction, and no more nonsense than the Axiom of Choice.

      Delete
    25. grodrigues,

      I look forward to your wrap-up. If you really don't want to post it on this blog, I welcome you to use my blog instead, where we will disturb no one but each other.

      Delete
    26. @One Brow:

      So you chose to die on this hill; a hill worth nothing, since this is about the most anodyne of statements. So be it; I will thoroughly trash you and then say no more, you will have the last word, to no doubt, triple and quadriple down.

      First let us take stock of what is at issue: statements like "It is a category error to introduce the concepts of logical argumentation into a scientific discussion." or "There are no scientific non sequiturs, because science is not a logical argument." These are very strong claims. They imply that there is *no* logical argumentation in science; they imply that the distinction between consistent and inconsistent theories is rigorously redundant.

      They are also patently stupid and obviously false claims. Now, strictly speaking, and given the logical form of the claim, a negative existential statement, it suffices to provide a single example. But as I said, open a page at random in a physics textbook and you will see a deductive argument every time a physicist makes a mathematical argument (e.g. some calculation). Falsifiability, a minimum requirement for an empirical science, just is an instance of modus tollens: T => p and not-p ergo not-T. The distinction between consistent and inconsistent theories is an important one; because an inconsistent theory, by the principle of explosion, proves everything and its contrary, thus has no predictive power. And then I illustrated this by enjoining Niels Bohr that makes this point several times in his papers (his Epistemology paper on the debates with Einstein, his complementarity paper, etc.): he invokes logical consistency to buttress his arguments and his account of the shape that QM ultimately ended up taking. Important here is not whether his arguments ultimately work or not, but that he specifically relies on logical consistency.

      So you start by saying that it is all very silly, somehow beneath your dignity. I do agree that it is silly, but the silliness is all on your side. So you grudgingly humor me. Let us take the mess apart.

      Your first line of response is: "The principle of explosion has no bearing on field where every theory is wrong." Start with the obvious. Do you know that QED is wrong? That the standard model is wrong? What are you doing here? Publish that paper and collect your Nobel prize. Strike one. And even if I granted that every theory is wrong or false, in the sense that it fails to capture accurately the slice of reality that it purports to describe, how does this render the countless deductive arguments not deductive after all? It doesn't. Strike two. And what exactly is the argument that every scientific theory is wrong? Well if such exists, since it covers all scientific theories it cannot be an argument from experiment but a deductive argument. Strike three.

      I suppose one can count the following as a second line of response: "Being contrary to evidence is not the same as being false. Sometimes the evidence is wrong. Sometimes our understanding of the evidence is wrong." The second and third statement just say that the argument purporting to establish the falsity of a theory could be wrong, not that it is not a deductive argument which it clearly is. Strike four. As far as the first statement "Being contrary to evidence is not the same as being false", suffice to say that it is wrong. And if not that, what could you possibly have meant by "Every theory is wrong"? You can't have both, so pick a lane. Strike five.

      Then you add: "Newton's Laws of motion were wrong, but we used them until we found phenomena that didn't obey them. We'll use our current theories until we find phenomena that don't obey them, and then we will improve the theories." Facepalm. Gee, thanks for making the point for me. Strike six.

      Delete
    27. But you are not content to fail to make your case. Oh no, you go beyond it.

      1. You make factually false statements. I have already highlighted one above. Here is another: "To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure." This is false. The details depend on how exactly you set things up, but the principle of explosion does *not* depend on 2-valued structure. It basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, so the place to look for violations of it is in paraconsistent logics, not on multivalued or intuitionistic logics.

      But you are not content in simply making false statements, you go *well* beyond it:

      2. Continuing you state and I quote: "In science, you have at least a third logical value (similar to, but not quite like intuitionist mathematics), and really the better logical models use a continuum of values in multiple dimensions." This is laughably wrong. No physics textbook uses "at least a third logical value", you are inventing crap. Do you really think physicists worry about logical minutiae? All of physics can be formalized in classical ordinary logic with background theory something like ZFC (although this is probably overkill and much less suffices, possibly with the exception of some recondite parts of quantum field theory).

      And "the better logical models use a continuum of values in multiple dimensions" is a meaningless concatenation of words; you are literally bullshitting me. There are no such "better logical models" because there are no such models. I mean what can you possibly have in mind that even remotely fits the description? Quantum logic? I suppose if we twitch and turn, it could be made to fit. The problem is that quantum logic is not a logic in the relevant sense -- I will forego the details, they are well beyond what you could grasp.

      And even if there were such models, they could not be "better" in any scientifically relevant way, because changing the background logical theory in which you formalize things does not change the predictions of the scientific theory, so you are not even consistent with your own requirements.

      One of the perks of actually having had an education in these matters, and actually knowing what I am talking about, is to recognize a "patzer" miles away. Thanks for the lesson, patzer.

      3. But I am not done on the matter of false statements. You state and I quote: "A point that Bohr himself, who was a scientist and a philosopher, would disagree with." Once again this is a pure textual matter that can be easily checked and yet you have no compunction in, not to mince words, flat out lying. You clearly have never read Bohr and yet here you are, trying to pass off falsehoods.

      But your sins do not end up here.

      4. You say and I quote: "I know enough to know that bring in things like "the principle of explosion" is a gross oversimplification of the types of thinking you need to process science." Where did I implied or even so much as suggested that the "principle of explosion", or even deductive argumentation, exhausted all the types of argumentation done in science? The issue at stake is about your claim, which is a negative existential (there are no arguments of the form...) and here you turn it into a universally quantified statement (all arguments are of the form...). Are you genuinely this ignorant, not being able to distinguish quantifiers, or are you just kicking dust to obfuscate things? And you repeat the offense: "You've outed yourself as a person who has only the hammer, and thus thinks every problem is a nail." This would be true if... oh there is no more need for this.

      Enough. I leave you to your own devices, peace be with you.

      Delete
    28. grod,
      Please point out the logical argument and reasoned refutation contained in these words of yours:
      "Roll eyes. Sure, whatever dude."

      The principle of explosion is nonsense. It is based on a sequentially invalid method of logical problem solving.

      Here is a simple example from the link I provided above:
      1. We know that "All lemons are yellow", as it has been assumed to be true.
      2. Therefore, the two-part statement "All lemons are yellow OR unicorns exist” must also be true, since the first part is true.
      3. However, since we know that "Not all lemons are yellow" (as this has been assumed), the first part is false, and hence the second part must be true, i.e., unicorns exist.

      The equivocation happens in that example with the use of the word "must" in step 2. Instead of "must" the correct term is "assumed to be".

      The argument makes an invalid transition from "assumed to be" to "must" without any justification.

      From there the argument makes the statement
      Y OR U = True

      But again, that is a misstatement and is unjustified. Since Y is only assumed to be true and U is unknown and could be false, the Y OR U can only be justifiably said to be assumed to be true, not that it must be true.

      Then the argument takes a further sequential step, that later we consider Y to be false, but for some irrational reason the argument makes the false assumption that the result or resolution of the OR statement is somehow static once it has been arrived at by some set of conditions on the LHS, even thought now the conditions on the LHS have changed! What a very strange way of thinking.

      No, of course not, if Y is now considered as false and U remains unknown then Y OR U is now unknown.

      Now, supposing we say that this is not an issue of a time sequence of considerations of different values on the LHS, rather, Y is truly a contradiction in that Y is simultaneously both true and false.

      In the case of a simultaneous contradiction we simply have an invalid operation, similar to a divide by zero error, our system of analysis simply rejects that condition as invalid and no resolution can be arrived at.

      The use of the logical operator OR presupposes that the operands are of a binary type, that is, by convention they are allowed to take on only 1 of 2 possible values, true or false.

      Like a great many medieval arguments the principle of explosion is nonsense.

      Delete
    29. One Brow
      "the principle of explosion...It's an artifact of a specific type of logical construction, and no more nonsense than the Axiom of Choice."
      Yet another one of your red herrings. The Axiom of Choice is irrelevant to the fact that the principle of explosion is nonsense.

      You can reference the above comment to grod as it applies to you also.

      Further, if you allow invalid operands you can "prove" all kinds of things. If I am allowed to use and invalid operand I can "prove" that 1 = 2.
      Let
      0*1 = 0*2
      Factor out the zero
      (0*1)/0 = (0*2)/0
      Now we are left with the "proof"
      1 = 2

      Hopefully you can easily see the error in this "proof". Obviously, divide by zero simply is not allowed, and therefore cannot be used to prove anything.

      In computer programming the type of operand allowable in an OR operation is commonly called a boolean, or sometimes bool. Using other types as operands can throw a type mismatch exception at runtime or can lead to a compile error at compile time, depending on the language. Some languages will accept a non-boolean in an OR operation but implicitly typecast it into either a true or a false, typically resolving a numerical zero into false, and anything else into true, but never both true and false.

      An operand that is both true and false is illegal in and OR operation, and thus cannot be used to prove anything, making the principle of explosion just one more example of medieval nonsense.

      Delete
    30. grodrigues,

      As fun and interesting as an extended conversation would be with you on this topic, you have flounced, so there is little point in spending 10,000 characters on the reply.

      However, there were a few of small things I found particularly telling.

      "To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure." This is false. The details depend on how exactly you set things up, but the principle of explosion does *not* depend on 2-valued structure. It basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, so the place to look for violations of it is in paraconsistent logics, not on multivalued or intuitionistic logics.

      You are correct in that there are multi-valued logics that also have the principle of explosion, you are incorrect that you only need the law of non-contradiction. Non-contradiction applies to any logic where every statement is assigned a single truth value, but some of them do not have the principle of explosion.

      Then there was this:
      Do you really think physicists worry about logical minutiae?

      Why no, I don't think that at all. From what I can tell, they don't use logical reasoning at all. As someone recently said, "Gee, thanks for making the point for me."

      ... they are well beyond what you could grasp.

      Naturally, you can't resist the urge to insult. That's pretty typical when you are running on invective and opposition, as opposed to serious thought and careful analysis.

      Should you care to re-join the conversation, I'll go over your fluff in more detail. As it is, enjoy the day.

      Delete
    31. StardustyPsyche,

      Arguing about the reality of the Principle of Explosion makes as much sense as arguing about warp coil configurations. We create logics with the Principle of Explosion, and without it. What you are actually doing is adding a logical value (or perhaps more, I'm not quite sure) to remove the Principle of Explosion.

      OR is a valid operator in a variety of systems of logic, and is not restricted to two-valued systems.

      Delete
    32. StardustyPsyche,
      Yet another one of your red herrings. The Axiom of Choice is irrelevant to the fact that the principle of explosion is nonsense.

      I agree. I was merely pointing out another artifact of various constructions with no physical application and no way to determine the validity thereof. It's a common construction.

      Further, if you allow invalid operands ...

      Truth values are not operands.

      In computer programming ...

      Computer programming does not cover the depth and breadth of what is available in most logical systems.

      Delete
    33. One Brow,
      "Truth values are not operands"
      OR is an operator.
      In the example above Y and U are operands.
      In the principle of explosion the operands take on one of two truth values, true or not true (false).

      You don't even know what an operand is, no wonder you are so confused, continually bringing up red herrings about multivariable logics, other logical principles etc..

      Your understanding of logic is so slight you don't even know what an operand is.

      I think of you as the picture in the OP.

      Delete
    34. StardustyPsyche,
      OR is an operator.

      Yes, I said that above.

      In the principle of explosion the operands take on one of two truth values, true or not true (false).

      As has been mentioned previously, the principle of explosion can also appear in multi-valued logics.

      You don't even know what an operand is,

      The only time I mentioned operands, I said "Truth values are not operands." Do you disagree?

      no wonder you are so confused,

      If you think of truth values of operands, then I'm not too concerned about your opinion of my understanding. On the other hand, if you read posts, agree that truth values are not operands, and still think I said something false about operands, I'm also unimpressed.

      Delete
    35. One Brow,
      Your posts are getting so garbled as to be nearly unintelligible.

      OR is an operator, which makes the values that OR operates on operands.

      Multi value logic is irrelevant to the principle of explosion because taking on multi values other than True or False leaves the Unknown unproven.

      I already showed in step by step detail how the principle of explosion is nonsense.

      All you do is throw around irrelevant terms in garbled messages that contain no proofs at all, just vapid assertions.

      But by all means, do attempt to convert the principle of explosion, which is deduced using binary operands, true or false, to a multi valued logic and show that a multi valued logic can somehow save the nonsense that is the principle of explosion.

      Delete
    36. StardustyPsyche,
      Your posts are getting so garbled as to be nearly unintelligible.

      I am a terrible typist and proof-reader, no doubt.

      OR is an operator, which makes the values that OR operates on operands.

      Correct. Since, in logic, operators like OR operate on statements, and not truth values, truth values are not operands.

      Multi value logic is irrelevant to the principle of explosion because taking on multi values other than True or False leaves the Unknown unproven.

      You are introducing a third logical value of "Unknown" while called multi-valued logics irrelevant.

      I already showed in step by step detail how the principle of explosion is nonsense.

      The Principle of Explosion is the result of evaluating F => T as T in a classical truth table, or making similar assumptions in other logics. If you want to call classical logic nonsense, fine, but it seems to be very useful nonsense.

      All you do is throw around irrelevant terms in garbled messages that contain no proofs at all, just vapid assertions.

      Well, I can work on being less garbled, but you'll have to do the work of understanding what logic is and how it is assembled on your own.

      But by all means, do attempt to convert the principle of explosion, which is deduced using binary operands, true or false, to a multi valued logic and show that a multi valued logic can somehow save the nonsense that is the principle of explosion.
      You say that like it would be hard thing to do.
      One way is add to "true" and "false" a third category of "meaningless", for errors of category or process. So, "moon rocks are made of the elements in the periodic table" would be "true", "mood rocks are made of 99% helium" would be "false" and "moon rocks are made of lyrics from Beatle’s songs" would be "meaningless". The meaningless value would act as an absorbtive state for the classical operations, and f => t or f => f type statements would also be meaningless.
      For any P valued true or false, P ^ ~P is still false, but there is no explosion, because it would be meaningless to derive anything from a contradiction. This construction preserves modus pollens, modus tollens, disjunctive syllogisms, etc.

      Delete
    37. One Brow
      "You are introducing a third logical value of "Unknown" while called multi-valued logics irrelevant."
      Ok, this is just too ignorant to work with at all.

      In boolean algebra a variable takes on one of two values. Unknown is not a third value, it means that the actual value has not been stated.

      To expand such an expression one writes a truth table where the various possible values are solved for.

      That way, if one inputs a true as the U state, once can read the resultant. Else if one inputs a false as the U state the truth table will show that resultant.

      That is why the principle of explosion is nonsense, because there is no specific answer and thus no specific proof of anything.

      I don't agree with grod on much of anything but this time he has you pegged.

      Go learn something about logic.

      Delete
    38. StardustyPsyche,
      In boolean algebra a variable takes on one of two values. Unknown is not a third value, it means that the actual value has not been stated.

      That's sounds pretty close to the third value of intuitionist logic, frankly.

      That way, if one inputs a true as the U state, once can read the resultant. Else if one inputs a false as the U state the truth table will show that resultant.

      Which is how computers differ from actual logic, because in logic, the values of propositions don't get plugged in. They are considered to be a permanent part of the statement.

      Go learn something about logic.

      I know the difference between properties and variables, which seems to have escaped you. Also, you were so busy being oppositional rather than analytical, you missed an actual error in what I said to focus on your confused rhetoric.

      So, I'll take your advice for all that it's worth.

      Delete
    39. Two ignorant morons debating each other...

      Delete
    40. grodrigues,
      Two ignorant morons debating each other...

      Bold talk from someone who learned the rules without understanding why they were set up that way.

      Delete
    41. "Bold talk from someone who learned the rules without understanding why they were set up that way."

      I suppose it must be really grating that you cannot bullshit your way with me. You are pitiable.

      Delete
    42. grodrigues,
      I suppose it must be really grating that you cannot bullshit your way with me. You are pitiable.

      So grating that I entered the conversation five days after it stopped, just to insult someone without making any point.

      No, wait, that was you.

      I do know enough to understand that the "[the principle of explosion] basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, " is bullshit. You don't need a contradiction for explosion in classical logic, and you can have non-contradiction without explosion adding a third logical value and changing an inference rule.

      Delete
    43. @One Brow:

      "I do know enough to understand that the "[the principle of explosion] basically depends on the law of non-contradiction, " is bullshit. You don't need a contradiction for explosion in classical logic, and you can have non-contradiction without explosion adding a third logical value and changing an inference rule."

      You really are a complete ignoramus, unable to understand elementary distinctions. There is a difference between needing "a contradiction for explosion in classical logic" and needing the "law of non-contradiction". The latter, coupled with the properties of (material) implication standard in mathematical logic, is what implies the principle of explosion, a deductive rule. Which is why the principle of explosion does *not* hold in exactly the place you would expect it not to hold, in paraconsistent logics where the law of non-contradiction does not hold.

      And by the way, here is another one:

      "Do you really think physicists worry about logical minutiae?

      Why no, I don't think that at all. From what I can tell, they don't use logical reasoning at all. As someone recently said, "Gee, thanks for making the point for me.""

      It really is too much to ask you to know the difference between "logical minutiae", which in context is tied to the formalization of physical theories, with not using "logical reasoning at all".

      Back on track, your harping about third values is completely extraneous to the matter, as you yourself concede:

      "You are correct in that there are multi-valued logics that also have the principle of explosion, you are incorrect that you only need the law of non-contradiction. Non-contradiction applies to any logic where every statement is assigned a single truth value, but some of them do not have the principle of explosion."

      More ignorance, but I am not going to waste my time explaining as you wouldn't understand it. Yet you concede that "there are multi-valued logics that also have the principle of explosion" therefore whether the logic is multi-valued or not is incidental to whether the principle of explosion holds. And your original claim, replicated here, was, among other things, that "To apply the principle of explosion, you need two-valued logical structure." An intellectually serious man would at least retract the original claim. A moderately competent BS'er would at least make an effort to keep his BS consistent.

      And time to go underwater again, as I am running out of time again. Please, just spare me your whining about insults and invective. This is war, you are the enemy. I shoot my bullets, you shoot your blanks.

      Delete
    44. grodrigues,
      There is a difference between needing "a contradiction for explosion in classical logic" and needing the "law of non-contradiction". The latter, coupled with the properties of (material) implication standard in mathematical logic, is what implies the principle of explosion, a deductive rule.

      Sorry, but that's very misguided, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how logic works. All that is required for the principle of explosion is the rule of F => T is T. You don't need any sort of contradiction for that, any false statement will do.

      It really is too much to ask you to know the difference between "logical minutiae", which in context is tied to the formalization of physical theories, with not using "logical reasoning at all".

      Logic is a process. If one is not paying attention to the process, including the minutiae, one is going to be doing it incorrectly. Scientists don't care, because for the most part that are not interested in following the logical process.

      Back on track, your harping about third values is completely extraneous to the matter, as you yourself concede:

      More ignorance, but I am not going to waste my time explaining as you wouldn't understand it.

      I offered an example above of a three-valued, single-assignment logic with the principle of non-contradiction and no principle of explosion. Should I go over it again for you?

      An intellectually serious man would at least retract the original claim.

      You quoted me acknowledging your correctness, which to me is retracting the claim. Just how many retractions does your ego require?

      A moderately competent BS'er would at least make an effort to keep his BS consistent.

      I prefer accuracy to consistency.

      And time to go underwater again, as I am running out of time again.

      I guess I'll see you in a few days, then.

      Please, just spare me your whining about insults and invective.

      It's just my way of pointing out your limitations and ineffectiveness. Insulting and dismissing what you have not understood is the mark of a small person.

      This is war, you are the enemy. I shoot my bullets, you shoot your blanks.

      What a sad, small view of the world. I don't view you as an enemy at all, just a fellow traveler in the world with a different perspective. It keeps life interesting.

      Delete
    45. @One Brow:

      I see you continue to make up stuff (hint: you are wrong about the principle of explosion as it is a matter of looking at the simplest deductive calculus, Hilbertonian calculus, that has only one deductive rule, modus ponens; your example does not work -- this is mathematics, it is not enough to string words together, you actually have to produce a demonstration, etc. and etc.); but this is mea culpa, mea maxima culpa for having resumed the discussion when I should have forgotten about it and left it buried in the past.

      Once again my apologies for having wasted your time and cluttered the combox with a useless, pointless discussion. You want accuracy above consistency (giggle)? Good for you. Exeunt.

      Delete
    46. grodrigues,

      You are confusing deductive rules with statement evaluation. Saying F => T is T invokes no deductive rule at all.

      Again, it's simple enough to create a 3-valued, single assignment logic that preserves modus ponens, modus tollens, syllogism, and non-contradiction without including explosion. I'm sorry if you didn't understand the example; but if you want me to go into more detail for you, I certainly can.

      Delete
  18. "And then, to see where this mentality leads if unchecked, The Killing Fields."

    I was thinking Lord of the Flies, especially in light of the scene currently unfolding in Seattle's "Free Zone", with its demands to abolish not only the police but the courts, on the excuse, of course, that they're hopelessly racist, and a retrial of all black inmates in state prisons, presumably in new courts of their own creation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nathanael,

      "The CHAZ".

      I know just how they feel. When I was a kid I built a fort in the back yard, and it was soooo cool!

      Delete