tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5139267169012628136..comments2024-03-28T21:43:44.433-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Crane and French on science and AristotelianismEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21940182698425076522018-07-27T23:35:14.622-07:002018-07-27T23:35:14.622-07:00The guy on that blog says eternalism does not deny...The guy on that blog says eternalism does not deny change, so no, he says it’s not like what Parmenides defended. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23033779715810770072018-07-26T16:00:36.835-07:002018-07-26T16:00:36.835-07:00Well Anon from my observations from reading and wa...Well Anon from my observations from reading and watching the debates. "Eternalism" is an ill defined ambiguous concept and shooting at it is like shooting at a moving target. Sometimes I see it as a placeholder for the metaphysics of Parmenides which obviously would be 100% against Thomism. OTOH if any version of it allows real change in some sense at some level then obviously not. Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-91731926999046618092018-07-25T14:08:01.368-07:002018-07-25T14:08:01.368-07:00I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately and I rea...I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately and I really don’t think eternalism(the block universe) poses any threat to Thomism, so I don’t see much use in arguing for or against that. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-39050629034854562652018-07-24T21:09:29.623-07:002018-07-24T21:09:29.623-07:00That guy is nuts.
Read this instead. Eternalism...That guy is nuts. <br />Read this instead. Eternalism is an ill defined concept as is the whole A vs B theory time scheme. This graduate of MIT with a degree in physics will explain it all too you.<br /><br />http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/philtheo/temporal/temporal.htm<br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82377806540640131132018-07-20T05:07:37.702-07:002018-07-20T05:07:37.702-07:00A soul, being a form, is necessarily immaterial, I...A soul, being a form, is necessarily immaterial, I would have thought. <br />And also don't animals possess sense organs, eyes, ears etc that provide them with quale?Gyanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09941686166886986037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-13273528947901851262018-07-20T04:41:44.655-07:002018-07-20T04:41:44.655-07:00There is allot of potential there, but does it rea...There is allot of potential there, but does it really matter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42237716944838771272018-07-19T23:44:33.215-07:002018-07-19T23:44:33.215-07:00Dr Feser, have you ever heard of the blog Atheism ...Dr Feser, have you ever heard of the blog Atheism and the City? There’s a lot over there about eternalism and it’s implications causality(among other things), and I was wondering if you had ever seen it or interacted with it(if you have then I’m sure you’ve had to wade through some of the author’s behavior that’s on par with an edgy teen).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-73158644429775615682018-07-19T06:57:31.526-07:002018-07-19T06:57:31.526-07:00@Brandon:
(1) You wrote: “'petitio', which...@Brandon:<br />(1) You wrote: “'petitio', which meant (among other things) making an assumption ... What you immediately go on to describe is French's assumptions, so he is making some. So the only question is whether any of these assumptions are, are part of, or overlap the point under dispute.” <br />If you wish to withdraw your statement that a meaning of ‘petitio’ was ‘making an assumption’ I’m fine with that. I did not deny that you gave “beg/ask” as one of its meanings. I’ll note that in those scholastic discussion of petitio principii that I have read, the verb for “assume” is supponere, not petere.<br />The point of my remarks after my first post was to contest your characterization of my first post as “bizarre." As you say, discussions of petitiones comes from traditions of disputations in philosophical schools, in which a dialectical situation is presupposed. In the De Fallaciis, written during Aquinas’ lifetime, for example, the moves that can be made by a disputant are classified into five species of “petitio principii.” When originally I spoke of an interlocutor, it didn’t matter whether French’s interlocutor is a flesh and blood disputant or just an implied reader. <br /> But I think we’ve clarified enough about the genesis of the term.<br /><br />Thank you for the references to Browne and Whately. I have read about them but have not read works of theirs. <br />In what you say about Browne, you summarize his explanation so: “ whose definition of petitio principii is assuming, in proof of a conclusion, a principle that is not conceded in the dispute.” As I have said, I don’t see French doing in his review that which Browne defined as committing petitio principii. In some passage of the review, does French, from the premise, naturalism is true, deduce the conclusion that A-T is false? So far I have not seen you or other commentators isolate a part of the review where French is guilty of this move.<br /><br />I am looking at begging the question from the framework of Douglas Walton: “... begging the question is essentially the same fault in argument as arguing in a circle. However, unfortunately, the phrase ‘begging the question’ seems to be used in popular tradition, and even in logic textbooks, in various other ways. In some cases, the alleged fault of ‘begging the question’ is taken to mean simple lack of evidence in argument. Similarly, the fallacy of question-begging epithet (question-begging appellative, question-begging term) is often used to refer to cases where a loaded term has been used in argument. This can be a misnomer, because the use of a loaded term in an argument does not necessarily imply that the argument is circular.” Informal Logic (2nd ed. 2008) 296. <br /><br />When Ed wrote, “It seems to me that, at least to some extent, French’s concerns here are question-begging,” he seemed to commit himself to the criticism that at least one petitio principii argument is found in the review. But perhaps Ed meant “question-begging” in a weaker sense.<br /><br />On skepticism, see what I wrote to David Ezemba. I agree that French is not a skeptic about naturalism. He pretty clearly includes himself among “naturalistically inclined metaphysicians of science”, as he says in the review. When he writes, “those not yet signed up to the neo-Aristotelian project might well feel that it is beginning to sail a little too far from the shores of naturalism,” he is not constructing an argument to demonstrate that A-T is false. He is telling us he does not agree with it, has “not yet signed up to” it.<br /><br /> Perhaps there is more ambiguity about “skeptic” than I had considered. If I say, I am skeptical about a claim, I’m not asserting that it is false or that I can so demonstrate. I’m not committing myself to accepting the claim because I think more investigation (skepsis/episkepsis) would be needed.<br />ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42402364750299692472018-07-19T06:46:06.475-07:002018-07-19T06:46:06.475-07:00Hello Craig, I agree with most of yours. Can you t...Hello Craig, I agree with most of yours. Can you think of a scenario in which an A-T metaphysician might beg the question against a naturalist? ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81157399457183251412018-07-19T05:48:54.182-07:002018-07-19T05:48:54.182-07:00@ David Ezemba: I type lots of dumb things, so I m...@ David Ezemba: I type lots of dumb things, so I may have misused the term "skepticism" or just not said all that I could have said. I didn't say French is a skeptic about naturalism. I was responding to a post in which someone - Red? - seemed to be equating skepticism with seeking to prove that a given position is false. I was trying to say simply that in the review, I don't see French formulating arguments to demonstrate that A-T is false, let alone assuming that naturalism is true and then deducing ipso facto that A-T is false. The stance he takes in the review seems consistent with that of a person who says, "I hold naturalism, and I don't see arguments in the volume that persuade me to abandon it and adopt A-T." <br /><br />But no, French is not a Pyrrhonian skeptic toward both naturalism and A-T. As I have said in other posts on this thread, French is solid in his commitment to naturalism.<br /><br />As to your last paragraph, we may be saying the same thing in different ways. French can't "expect A-T to conform to the scriptures of naturalism" AND to remain A-T. But I don't think he expresses such an expectation. ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-21919600215012945862018-07-18T23:09:50.650-07:002018-07-18T23:09:50.650-07:00The latter in particular is frequented by a lot of...The latter in particular is frequented by a lot of really well known Thomists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-92227086000260181712018-07-18T23:00:19.059-07:002018-07-18T23:00:19.059-07:00You will want to check out both the classical thei...You will want to check out both <a href="http://classicaltheism.boardhost.com/index.php" rel="nofollow">the classical theism forum</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/TeamAquinas/1745672652183939/" rel="nofollow">the Thomism Discussion Group</a>. Between the two of them, you will find what you're looking for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33794220209659399192018-07-18T22:29:33.311-07:002018-07-18T22:29:33.311-07:00classicaltheism.boardhost.com/index_mobile.phpclassicaltheism.boardhost.com/index_mobile.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25423018888572995402018-07-18T15:28:54.768-07:002018-07-18T15:28:54.768-07:00Is there such thing as a discussion board out ther...Is there such thing as a discussion board out there frequented by those of a Thomist bent? I've searched for Reddits and Discords and found... r/CatholicPhilosophy, which is cool I guess, but I think a Discord channel would make a fine community.<br />Mooknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-20845426658640309092018-07-18T14:28:02.967-07:002018-07-18T14:28:02.967-07:00Oops. My reply was supposed to go way up there, by...Oops. My reply was supposed to go way up there, by ficino-4ml's first post. Ah well; hope he sees it.Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14327259028346299422018-07-18T11:17:37.593-07:002018-07-18T11:17:37.593-07:00Hi, ficino-4ml. Here's why the question beggin...Hi, ficino-4ml. Here's why the question begging does not run in both directions.<br /><br />Let's suppose the naturalist makes a claim such as, "Scientific, lab-verifiable knowledge is the only true type of knowledge there is." (To give them credit, most naturalists would not make this claim.)<br /><br />A-T responds, "No, there are other types of knowledge" and gives examples.<br /><br />The naturalist responds, "Those examples do not exemplify real knowledge, because they are not scientifically lab-verifiable; therefore, they are not true knowledge."<br /><br />THAT is begging the question. And it doesn't run in the other direction because the A-T position is not the one making the exclusive claim.Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-76119799921514477242018-07-18T10:59:05.635-07:002018-07-18T10:59:05.635-07:00Ficino4ml
Could it be that you’re equivocating on...Ficino4ml<br /><br />Could it be that you’re equivocating on the meaning of skepticism?<br /><br />On the one had you equate skepticism with doubt when you say <i>“To declare skepticism is merely to decline to affirm that P is true. <b>You suspend judgment.</b>”</i> [emphasis added]<br /><br />But doubt takes two forms – a positive doubt sees reasons for and against assent; a negative doubt sees no reasons for <i>either</i> side. And when you describe as your position, and French’s, as <i>“[…]I'm a naturalist, and we naturalists don't find much of this A-T stuff convincing[,]”</i> it fits neither form of doubt.<br /><br />It is more fitting to describe that statement as an opinion, ie: a state of mind pronouncing a judgment – as opposed to suspending judgment – but not without fear of error. The motives for assenting to the judgment “this AT stuff is not convincing” would be that French is, and you are, “to some extent begging the question,” by expecting AT to conform to the scriptures of naturalism.<br />David Ezembahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09989971303822363417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-7781236551630204402018-07-18T10:45:20.443-07:002018-07-18T10:45:20.443-07:00Dear Scott Lynch: I like it when quick and short q...Dear Scott Lynch: I like it when quick and short questions get quick and short (but sufficient) answers. Thanks.Craig Paynenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-80661984207784310072018-07-18T06:54:02.549-07:002018-07-18T06:54:02.549-07:00ficino4ml,
I will lay it out more slowly.
(1) I ...<i>ficino4ml</i>,<br /><br />I will lay it out more slowly.<br /><br />(1) I did not claim that 'making an assumption' was the translation of <i>petitio</i>; I explicitly said that 'begging' was translating <i>petitio</i>. I said this very explicitly (twice!); you have no excuse for making up something completely different.<br /><br />(2) <i>Petitio principii</i> is a late medieval and early modern term of art; it derives ultimately from translations of Aristotle, but became widespread independently. One cannot assume that late medieval and early modern translations in technical terms are understood strictly in the way the Greek would be; they tend, in fact, to be more generalized.<br /><br />(3) Even setting aside that Latin terms translating Aristotle tended to be generalized to a broader set of problems, as a matter of semantic shift, technical terms that become widespread tend to be applied more loosely. <br /><br />(4) When the English phrase 'begging the question' begins to become common about 16th-century-ish, it is as a translation of the Latin, as a part of the phenomenon of 'learned English' used by lawyers, scholars, and the like. As it spreads, it also tends to be applied more loosely, which, again, is a very common phenomenon. It, like its Latin counterpart, is used in any kind of case that involves assuming what is under dispute, as well as stricter cases. As a quasi-technical term spreading through everyday speech, it tends to be treated as an idiomatic figure of speech, not as a strict description. A major influence on the term spreading was probably Thomas Browne, whose definition of <i>petitio principii</i> is assuming, in proof of a conclusion, a principle that is not conceded in the dispute.<br /><br />(5) English usage her, as throughout most of informal logic, becomes more completely standardized with Richard Whately's work on logic in the nineteenth century, which was not only bestselling its own right, but was a major influence on other manuals discussing the question. Whately is quite clear that <i>petitio principii</i> arises in cases where something is assumed that is under dispute, and that the assumption doesn't even need strictly speaking to be stated.<br /><br />(6) Etymological influence is not strictly transitive; Aristotle's usage does not tell how the term is generally used in common English, despite the fact that the latter ultimately derives from the former.<br /><br />(7) You can easily look up the phrase 'begging the question' in OED or other dictionaries yourself, and get a wide variety of definitions dealing with making assumptions that do not require any explicit statement, demand, or request.<br /><br />As there is no evidence that Ed was using the phrase in a highly technical sense, your pedanticism, as pedanticisms tend to do, is interfering with reasonable exegesis. <br /><br />Moreover, as I explicitly noted, Ed himself goes on immediately to give his reasoning for why he said it, which gives the primary guidance in how to interpret it. Ed does <i>not</i> give as his reasoning that French was declaring skepticism, despite your repeated assertions that this is how to interpret him. (And he even briefly addresses the 'to some extent' point, although its ambiguous in the post whether the issue is that the Aristotelian framework to some extent is independent of what French is assuming or or that French's discussion to some extent involves other things that don't fall under begging the question, both of which are said.)Brandonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06698839146562734910noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-60402102057520008482018-07-17T19:44:04.252-07:002018-07-17T19:44:04.252-07:00Right on. Ever since I’ve broken away from the JW’...Right on. Ever since I’ve broken away from the JW’s (itself, somewhat of a traumatic experience), I have been kind of stuck in limbo. I’m just not sure what to believe! Thankfully, “The Last Superstition” is proving to be a rather delightful, and at times challenging read, but I’m able to follow the gist of what Ed is arguing and am rather entertained by it! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-81177073236981629742018-07-17T18:24:06.967-07:002018-07-17T18:24:06.967-07:00@Brandon, as to the lexical question, neither Lewi...@Brandon, as to the lexical question, neither Lewis and Short nor the OLD supplies "make an assumption" as a definition of "petitio." If you can produce an authority that "make an assumption" is attested as a sense of "petitio," I shall be glad to see the reference.<br /><br />As to what it means to say that a reviewer "is to some extent begging the question," I have no idea. I should think either French committed a fallacy of petitio principii or he did not. If he did, it would help us all if you or someone else would cut and paste the offending words from his review and demonstrate that he commits that fallacy. <br /><br />To declare skepticism about a metaphysical system does not itself amount to declaring that system false, let alone to deducing that system's falsity from a "begged" premise. ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-87722963345175972712018-07-17T18:14:40.940-07:002018-07-17T18:14:40.940-07:00@Red: you seem to say that being skeptical of P en...@Red: you seem to say that being skeptical of P entails deducing falsity. No, to deduce that P is false (validly or invalidly) is to make an assertive claim. To declare skepticism is merely to decline to affirm that P is true. You suspend judgment. As far as French goes in his review, he does not offer an argument to demonstrate that any of the authors of the volume reached conclusions that are false. He just says, in effect, I'm a naturalist, and we naturalists don't find much of this A-T stuff convincing.ficino4mlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00805116221735364590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-29251720309742002632018-07-17T13:42:37.276-07:002018-07-17T13:42:37.276-07:00Who dares invoke Milo? That is my Shtick!
;-)Who dares invoke Milo? That is my Shtick!<br />;-)Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-32798537175031644052018-07-17T00:56:24.645-07:002018-07-17T00:56:24.645-07:00Will Aristotle's Revenge be polemical?Will Aristotle's Revenge be polemical?Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14579200479132033014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-15522553161217237492018-07-16T21:41:37.436-07:002018-07-16T21:41:37.436-07:00Aquonas, philosophy of mind, Nozick, Locke, capita...Aquonas, philosophy of mind, Nozick, Locke, capital punishment, natural theology, philosophy of nature - is there anything you **will not** wrote about, Professor Feser?Karl Heintzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15991593969870461967noreply@blogger.com