tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post4357986628946566976..comments2024-03-29T05:55:32.588-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: All Scientists Should Beg Lawrence Krauss to Shut the Hell Up AlreadyEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger748125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-34013602602224321702018-04-22T16:26:51.110-07:002018-04-22T16:26:51.110-07:00Interesting that mathematics has accepted that it ...Interesting that mathematics has accepted that it cannot know everything for some time. Theorem: In any self consistent system of mathematics there exist some true theorems that cannot be proven. (this is a slight popularization of the actual theorem). We know this to be true. Science can't accept the same limitation, it seems.<br />Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02100734935182604453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-3345593021106655472018-04-22T16:24:07.448-07:002018-04-22T16:24:07.448-07:00Quakers accept also 'that of God in every one&...Quakers accept also 'that of God in every one', the implication always being that God really exists.Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02100734935182604453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-72819424234330816862015-10-21T21:27:05.111-07:002015-10-21T21:27:05.111-07:00"The world opens up its possibilities when yo..."The world opens up its possibilities when you stop defining a thing in one way, and say, "This could be..." Seeing the world as consisting of irreducible variations means seeing them with fresh eyes; the eyes of poetry, particularity, evolution."<br /><br />Only problem in this way the only world you open is nonsense and muddle-headed discourse.<br /><br />You can always say a knife "could be used as a drink in the morning"... and yes you could if you melt the e metal or plastic and drink it... but obviously doing such thing has nothing to do with the purpose the knife was built in the factory, nor does add any insight, rather it only invites confusion and nonsense. <br /><br />Also you completely misunderstand the Thomist point. Just because he Thomist asserts that something has a, for example, a specific purpose, this does not entail that somethinf could be used for very different purposes.<br /><br />---<br /><br /><br />"Don't like cultic behavior, sorry. The focus lost here is that many people who believe superstitious things won't say so directly or defend those superstitions directly, and so they kick up a lot of dust, bluster, and distraction, trying to get counter-focus going on lesser points. Some in these threads are thus akin to Scientologists. They'll say things to one another in private ("Of course we believe in Thetans and the absolute authority of David Miscavage"), but they won't defend the most ludicrous of their beliefs to outsiders.<br /><br />Philosophy in these threads is largely the handmaid of a very particular sectarian theology, though this is generally downplayed and compartmentalized. I bet Feser has rarely (never?) put up a post that isn't consonant with the teachings of the most conservative factions of the Catholic Church--and yet he also poses as an objective reasoner, free of emotion in advance of a question, just following the truth wherever it leads him. Quite the coincidence, then! <br /><br />Krauss's and Haldane's claim is that science is atheistic in the sense that there's no evidence that invisible minds (Thetans, demons, angels, gods) separate from bodies are active in the world or exist, and so they are never deployed as explanation for what we actually see. I tried to bring focus to what the two atheists actually said. Naturally, it then became the mission of some of the more "committed" here to change the subject. "<br /><br />Ironic as Krauss is probably more of a superstitious cultist than some pagan new age on drugs.<br /><br />His superstition is scientism and that blinds him from reality... and the fanatic behavior of new atheists rivals that of suicide cults, I would say.<br /><br />Moreover you are basically being an hypocrite. The "philosophy" (hahah! hard to keep a straight face) posta in blogs like those of Krauss or Carroll or Pigliucci ALSO reflect mostly only THEIR point of view?<br /><br />Obviously if you support a point of view, you are going also trying to prove it. <br /><br />I mean Sean Carroll even wants to do away with the most fundamental tenet of science, empirical proof, because most his research cannot be falsified and is meaningless. (and more than one physicist called bullshit on that)FMnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5220305574221981452015-10-17T11:42:35.237-07:002015-10-17T11:42:35.237-07:00"'When I use a word,' Sampti Tampti s..."'When <i>I</i> use a word,' Sampti Tampti said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what <a href="http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon_03_08_05ef.html" rel="nofollow">Alfred Kinsey</a> chooses it to mean—neither more nor less.'"Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-44951696674818875292015-10-17T09:17:04.831-07:002015-10-17T09:17:04.831-07:00That was moi (mistakenly posting under 'Anonym...That was moi (mistakenly posting under 'Anonymous').Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33292450127296477802015-10-17T09:11:25.970-07:002015-10-17T09:11:25.970-07:00Until a meaning is given to a term, the term is li...Until a meaning is given to a term, the term is literally meaningless. Saying that others have used the term before you says nothing about what the term is supposed to mean.<br /><br />Btw,<br /><br />1. Just before the second quote, Gould writes, "Variation is primary; essenses are illusory." So when he wrote, "[A]ll evolutionary biologists know that variation itself is nature's only irreducible essence," did he mean to say that variation itself is nature's only irreducible illusion?<br /><br />2. You forgot to say, explicitly, "There's glory for you."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-75027284386962774882015-10-17T08:09:59.406-07:002015-10-17T08:09:59.406-07:00I'm flattered that some of you think I invente...I'm flattered that some of you think I invented the idea of irreducible variation, but it actually goes back to Alfred Kinsey, the taxonomist of sex research fame (and obviously applicable to sexual variation along a continuum). <br /><br />And here's Harvard biologist Stephen Gould deploying the idea: "[A]ll evolutionary biologists know that variation itself is nature's only irreducible essence," and, "Species must be defined as ranges of irreducible variation." These quotes come from two separate essays by Gould.<br /><br />Creationists like Dembski implicitly oppose irreducible variation with a counter-term: "irreducible complexity."<br /><br />So instead of going around like a Thomist saying of things: "This is...", and deriving best use from this definition, evolution ought to inform you to go around saying, "This could be..." That's how natural selection "thinks." "These breasts could be used for sexual signalling, this clitoris could be a pair-bonding device for females of the tribe."<br /><br />The world opens up its possibilities when you stop defining a thing in one way, and say, "This could be..." Seeing the world as consisting of irreducible variations means seeing them with fresh eyes; the eyes of poetry, particularity, evolution.Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-37712638955225446182015-10-16T10:28:01.214-07:002015-10-16T10:28:01.214-07:00Anon comments re. Santi's method:
" ... ...Anon comments re. Santi's method:<br /><br />" ... at the same time out of the other side of his mouth, with self-contradictory blather about "sui generis" species and meaningless phrases like 'irreducible variation' "<br /><br /><br /><br />Yeah, irreducible variation of what, exactly, one wishes to ask.<br /><br />But if one were to ask him that question, and eventually got a response of some kind, one would only be deluged with a torrent of ill-educated blather about Wittgenstein. <br /><br />And if I wanted real instruction on Wittgenstein, I would have taken classes in analytic philosophy and studied The Philosophical Investigations, which I did. <br /><br />But if I did instead want another torrent of ignorant blather, this time on Wittgenstein, I would revisit Santi's blog, which I won't.<br /><br />So that kind of ends it where you left off, doesn't it.DNWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76218563862806087682015-10-15T15:22:49.821-07:002015-10-15T15:22:49.821-07:00...does that mean you are not going to answer thos...<i>...does that mean you are not going to answer those pretty simple questions I asked?</i><br /><br />It's amusing that simple questions are what finally drove Santi off, but it's because they are "simple" that he can't bloviate his way around the matter they way he usually does. Try to explain forms, and he'll go off on some bizarre conspiracy theory about Aristotle being a nominalist, despite the fact that even if that were somehow true, it couldn't possibly apply to the Thomistic spirits he's denouncing at the same time out of the other side of his mouth, with self-contradictory blather about "sui generis" species and meaningless phrases like "irreducible variation" and confusing reality with language (hint: one of them is made up by people, the other isn't). If you point out that calling a view "ludicrous" is simply an expression of his personal bigotry and not an argument, he'll accuse you of evading the question, but ask him a yes or no question, and his bluff is well and truly called.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47665299018003679152015-10-14T21:44:14.533-07:002015-10-14T21:44:14.533-07:00Santi...does that mean you are not going to answer...Santi...does that mean you are not going to answer those pretty simple questions I asked? I thought it would be an easy matter to set the record straight on a few issues. Unless you mean your silence to be taken as saying you don't have answer to them. I just think it's fair to come out and lay our cards on the table either way, don't you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-24629156888204008212015-10-14T19:35:04.140-07:002015-10-14T19:35:04.140-07:00holy shit
I see what you guys meant when you said...holy shit<br /><br />I see what you guys meant when you said I was out of my depth <br /><br />- Guess who Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-22241865095945671712015-10-14T10:21:02.823-07:002015-10-14T10:21:02.823-07:00I tried to bring focus to what the two atheists ac...<i>I tried to bring focus to what the two atheists actually said. Naturally, it then became the mission of some of the more "committed" here to change the subject.</i><br /><br />You claim to have attempted to do something, and complain that you have not succeeded in that attempt. <br /><br />Since your attempt, claim, complaint are all subsequent to the OP, we may conclude that the limit of your ineptitude is not yet in sight. <br /><br />To wit:<br /><br /><b>1.</b> The OP contains a link to the New Yorker opinion piece in which what the physicist Lawrence Krauss and the biologist J. S. Haldane actually said can be found. <br /><br /><b>2.</b> The OP also contains a link to the Public Discourse article in which the philosopher Edward Feser quotes what the physicist Lawrence Krauss and the biologist J. S. Haldane actually said.<br /><br />- - - - -<br /><br /><b>3.</b> On the off chance, i.e., in the unlikely event, you might be interested in other things the biologist J.S. Haldane actually said, you can consult his <a href="https://archive.org/download/ThePhilosophyOfABiologist/PhilosOfABiologist_tgd.pdf" rel="nofollow">The Philosophy of a Biologist</a>, in which you are sure to find (and just as sure not to comprehend):<br /><br /><i>a)</i> "It is usual to classify British post-Hegelian philosophy as 'idealism', in contrast with what is regarded as the 'realism' of those for whom physical interpretation stands for a final interpretation of external reality. In this sense, but in this sense only, the book may be regarded as idealistic. In a deeper sense it is, as will be seen, wholly realistic, since it treats the universe as depicted by the sciences, not as 'mere appearance', but as the real universe imperfectly depicted." (preface)<br /><br /><i>b)</i> "All of these sciences [i.e., psychology, biology, physical science, and mathematics] neglect elements in our experience, mathematical interpretation neglecting most, and psychological interpretation least. On the other hand mathematical or physical interpretations are far more frequently applicable in matters of detail than psychological interpretation, and in this respect are of very great importance. We can count and measure all sorts of aspects of our experience, but even when we can add a physical interpretation this by itself tells us nothing about biological significance or about values, though it may nevertheless be sufficient for many practical purposes where we do not require to see more deeply. From the standpoint of philosophy, however, the important matter is to realize that in whatever way we may approach philosophy the sciences represent reality only partially, so that their results must not be taken for more than this partial representation." (p. 64)<br /><br /><i>c)</i> "We have now reached the end of this outline of present-day philosophy as it appears to the writer. The general conclusions reached may be summed up in the statement that the real universe is a universe [with] its scientific aspects being only partial interpretations of it, the imperfect nature of which is revealed by philosophical criticism." (ibid)Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-53567265101155636852015-10-14T06:38:59.611-07:002015-10-14T06:38:59.611-07:00I sometimes wish blogger had upvotes, Gottfried.I sometimes wish blogger had upvotes, Gottfried.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-5724678609832096742015-10-14T06:29:46.709-07:002015-10-14T06:29:46.709-07:00Don't like cultic behavior, sorry.
Another li...<i>Don't like cultic behavior, sorry.</i><br /><br />Another lie.<br /><br /><i>...many people who believe superstitious things won't say so directly or defend those superstitions directly, and so they kick up a lot of dust, bluster, and distraction, trying to get counter-focus going on lesser points.</i><br /><br />Another excellent summary of the Santian method!<br /><br />Gottfriednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23535543393646564482015-10-13T23:12:14.308-07:002015-10-13T23:12:14.308-07:00Don't like cultic behavior, sorry. The focus l...Don't like cultic behavior, sorry. The focus lost here is that many people who believe superstitious things won't say so directly or defend those superstitions directly, and so they kick up a lot of dust, bluster, and distraction, trying to get counter-focus going on lesser points. Some in these threads are thus akin to Scientologists. They'll say things to one another in private ("Of course we believe in Thetans and the absolute authority of David Miscavage"), but they won't defend the most ludicrous of their beliefs to outsiders.<br /><br />Philosophy in these threads is largely the handmaid of a very particular sectarian theology, though this is generally downplayed and compartmentalized. I bet Feser has rarely (never?) put up a post that isn't consonant with the teachings of the most conservative factions of the Catholic Church--and yet he also poses as an objective reasoner, free of emotion in advance of a question, just following the truth wherever it leads him. Quite the coincidence, then! <br /><br />Krauss's and Haldane's claim is that science is atheistic in the sense that there's no evidence that invisible minds (Thetans, demons, angels, gods) separate from bodies are active in the world or exist, and so they are never deployed as explanation for what we actually see. I tried to bring focus to what the two atheists actually said. Naturally, it then became the mission of some of the more "committed" here to change the subject. Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56453915619958559292015-10-13T22:11:57.279-07:002015-10-13T22:11:57.279-07:00Thank you, Glenn. And thank you, Scott. I'm st...Thank you, Glenn. And thank you, Scott. I'm still mostly just confused as to what just happened... :)<br /><br />@George LeSauvage: "All this guy's comments should end 'There's glory for you.'"<br /><br />I had to look that one up. And then I snorted in my beer, laughing. To be fair, it wasn't my first beer.laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54354147787083252322015-10-13T17:57:04.524-07:002015-10-13T17:57:04.524-07:00Hey, Santi, I see you replied to other comments bu...Hey, Santi, I see you replied to other comments but not mine, even though mine is pretty simple and straightforward questions, so I guess you just missed it. Here's a <a href="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/09/all-scientists-should-beg-lawrence.html?showComment=1444616372105#c800031682438504087" rel="nofollow">link to help you out</a>. Looking forward to your responses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92195594096827618822015-10-13T14:57:49.085-07:002015-10-13T14:57:49.085-07:00Agreed on both points.Agreed on both points.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-11845137084924147332015-10-13T12:26:37.349-07:002015-10-13T12:26:37.349-07:00All this guy's comments should end "There...All this guy's comments should end "There's glory for you."<br /><br />@Scott: Neither is he the first to realize it wasn't worth the try.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17811984215567240612015-10-13T09:57:47.904-07:002015-10-13T09:57:47.904-07:00What Glenn said↑. Good attempt, at any rate, and y...What Glenn said↑. Good attempt, at any rate, and you're not the first to think it was worth a try.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11979532520761760862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81617485228469675652015-10-13T09:03:17.014-07:002015-10-13T09:03:17.014-07:00laubadetriste,
Some of the rest of us learned the...laubadetriste,<br /><br />Some of the rest of us learned the hard way too. It isn't necessarily easy to learn in an instant what others have learned via experience over time, so don't be too hard on yourself. Your heart and mind were in the right place, and there's something to be said for that.Glennnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-30896860426306269732015-10-12T23:23:51.495-07:002015-10-12T23:23:51.495-07:00@Santi: "Aristotle was the first nominalist, ...@Santi: "Aristotle was the first nominalist, in the classical sense, long before medievalists made finer distinctions, in that he tapped the brake on Plato's idealism. There is no cat in an ideal or supernatural realm to which all material cats conform. We know cats from our experience of particular cats, which we then conceptualize into the species 'cat.' / That's all I meant in calling Aristotle a nominalist."<br /><br />So Aristotle was a *nominalist* in the *classical* sense (where *classical* is apparently a punning reference to a *medieval* sense, considered as normative); and he is a *nominalist* because of something like abstraction, except that this abstraction seems to operate inductively; and his nominalism involves *conceptualizing*...<br /><br />Do we, like Leibniz, *conceptualize* in order to split the difference between aisthesis and noiesis...? <br /><br />Wait. What am I doing? Sweet Jesus, I started trying to understand what you're saying as if you're saying something! Again!<br /><br />DNW said this was a gambit, and before that Brandon said this was unrelated to your question, and before that Scott said you can't focus on a point long enough to address it cogently... and I just kept on thinking, No, there's a listless thin sediment of sense here, if only we can stir it up...<br /><br />Wow, I am a fool. Fucking fucking fuck, I fucking fell for it! Santi, you're good. *Wow* am I a fool...laubadetristehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17742748003334437454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-1791460197797126012015-10-12T21:59:48.146-07:002015-10-12T21:59:48.146-07:00And these categories (idealist, realist, nominalis...And these categories (idealist, realist, nominalist, etc.) shouldn't be thought of as either-or/all-nothing with stark walls between them, but as functioning along continuums. <br /><br />Evolutionary taxonomists, for example, are realists in the sense that they are scientists who think they argue about objective things out in the world, and nominalists in the sense that they recognize their species designations as conventions. Just as there was no first day you were officially an adolescent, there was no first human, no first dog, etc. The species demarcations in your lineage from trilobites to you are conventions of naming and categorizing, not something inherent to the things themselves.<br /><br />Even Rorty is a realist in that he thinks the moon is there when nobody's looking, but that the language we put around that fact, and the emphasis we place on its meaning, requires a language born of contingencies and conventions. God and the universe don't speak, we speak. Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56257605173135976662015-10-12T20:10:05.073-07:002015-10-12T20:10:05.073-07:00Aristotle was a nominalist along a continuum in re...Aristotle was a nominalist along a continuum in relation to what?<br /><br />Answer: Plato. That's all I meant. No need to turn what I said into a conspiracy theory.<br /><br />Aristotle was the first nominalist, in the classical sense, long before medievalists made finer distinctions, in that he tapped the brake on Plato's idealism. There is no cat in an ideal or supernatural realm to which all material cats conform. We know cats from our experience of particular cats, which we then conceptualize into the species "cat." <br /><br />That's all I meant in calling Aristotle a nominalist. Aristotle obviously believed our concepts were accurately identifying real essences in the world, but they were in the world only. Aristotle, like Prometheus, stole fire from heaven--the power to name. IT'S ONLY A SMALL STEP FROM NAMING CATS AS EMPIRICAL DISCOVERY TO NAMING CATS AS CONVENTION. Obviously, philosophers would come along and make that next philosophical step. If Aristotle isn't the beginning of name-only philosophizing, who is?<br /><br />Aristotle was once the pole to Plato's idealism, and then, as history progressed, people took positions even further to the left of Aristotle, ending in people like Rorty.<br /><br />It's like politics. What was once the liberal position on gays forty years ago, eased over time into the moderate and even conservative position on the continuum, leaving room for more radical views to function at the poles.<br /><br />Aristotle's soft-nominalism (soft as compared to Rorty, hard as compared with Plato) was the beginning of evils from a supernaturalist's point-of-view.<br /><br />And it could be argued that Aquinas, by adopting Aristotle's empiricism, easing Western culture and the Church away from Plato's idealism, set up history for Jerry Coyne and Lawrence Krauss.<br /><br />Once you allow too much reason and nominalism into the world, where does it end? Is nothing sacred? Are there no stable verities? It's like that scene in "No Country for Old Men," where two old sheriffs sit over coffee and talk about "the dismal tide" of purple hair and drugs, and Tommy Lee Jones says, "When people stop saying sir and ma'am, it begins there." Aristotle and Aquinas stopped saying sir and ma'am first. Santi Tafarellahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16762380188083321201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18208021957552303072015-10-12T08:16:07.785-07:002015-10-12T08:16:07.785-07:00DNW, I've seen some extreme Platonists make th...DNW, I've seen some extreme Platonists make the charge; naturally, they would argue at least that Aristotlianism will end up in nominalism. And I've seen professors of other subjects - religion or English - say things like that. And I imagine that some pomo types do, the kind a friend calls "Euro-trash".<br /><br /><i>"He may be dragging this out of some medieval dispute between the "new" and "old" philosophies, or between primary and secondary substance."</i> I very much doubt it has any such reasonable a provenance. Pure whimsy is my guess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com