http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=275

Thanks to Gym Would....a fantastic, compelling article....


MEEHOWSKI

Better to use the word "faith" (the epistemological definition). By it's very nature, faith can be used to justify literally anything, due to it's reliance on subjective feelings and thoughts for justification. Logic, however, does not suffer such pitfalls, seeing as contradictions cannot exist with logic.

"By it's very nature, faith can be used to justify literally anything, due to it's reliance on subjective feelings and thoughts for justification. Logic, however, does not suffer such pitfalls, seeing as contradictions cannot exist with logic."

A faith based on "subjective feelings and thoughts" isn't a faith, it's more of a reaction like a gut feeling or a hunch.

Reason and logic is the best way to identify, justify and strengthen a faith.

Pointman

> faith based on "subjective feelings and thoughts" isn't a
>faith, it's more of a reaction like a gut feeling or a
>hunch.

Notice I said the epistemological definition of faith, which is: Belief that does not rest on empirical evidence or deductive reasoning. That encomposes reactions and gut feelings.

>Reason and logic is the best way to identify, justify and
>strengthen a faith.

Logic and faith are mutually exclusive. You cannot have both faith and logic in a single article of knowledge.

You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. The premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.

Nice strawman, but no one is trying to. Ever heard of axioms?

http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ton04.html

LOL! Axioms are re-defined all the time, like the earth is flat. Your article is pathetic esoteric crap.

.

" While the whole of metaphysics and epistemology can be said to be axiomatic-like in that it cannot be logically refuted, there are only three concepts which are irreducible - the fundamental building blocks of all the others. These concepts are :

* existence - the fact that something is. You exist, and objects around you exist.
* identity - the fact that something has definite attributes. You, and the objects around you, exist in a definite way.
* consciousness - the fact that you perceive (introspectively and extrospectively).

These axioms can be expressed in an introspective or extrospective way :

* I (existence) am something (identity) that perceives (consciousness).
* I perceive (consciousness) something (identity) that exists (existence).

We can validate these axioms by directly experiencing them ourselves, and by the fact that their denial is illogical.

Why is a denial of these axioms illogical ? Because they are implicit in the very act of denial. For example, someone who would deny that he exists, expresses his existence in that very denial. Likewise, someone who would claim to be unconscious, expresses the fact that he is conscious by his ability to formulate and express his denial.

This fallacy, necessarily committed by anyone who attempts to deny a metaphysical or epistemic concept, is called the Stolen Concept fallacy : the denier is forced to use the concept of existence in his very attempt to deny it."

I'm playing around with you good man. By the time you've quantified and qualified and labeled all your data, we'll be living in the next life while you're still trying to prove or disprove this one.

Have faith brother.

I have no intention of spending my life logically analyzing every single article of knowledge I possess. Not even Ayn Rand did that. To imply that one would need to to do such a thing simply because they use logic as their sole means of acquiring knowledge is ridiculous.

You say you have no intention of spending your life logically analyzing
every single article of knowledge you possess but you claim you use logic as your sole means of acquiring knowledge.

Then the only knowledge you will continue to acquire will be logical knowledge and not wisdom. You'll change and someday you'll look back on this and laugh.

There's a difference between analysis and information gathering.

Are you implying that one is unable to grow wise by drawing upon their experiences (ie empirical evidence)? If so, I'd like to hear what you're definition of "wisdom" is.

There's a difference between analysis and information
gathering.

That's axiomatic. Information must be gathered before it can be analyzed.

Are you implying that one is unable to grow wise by drawing
upon their experiences (ie empirical evidence)? If so, I'd
like to hear what you're definition of "wisdom" is.

Experience is not empirical evidence. Do you completely discount intuition?

>That's axiomatic. Information must be gathered before it can
>be analyzed.

Of course. What I'm saying is that although I rely solely on logic for information gathering, that does not introduce any sort of obligation on my part to analyze all such data.

>Experience is not empirical evidence. Do you completely
>discount intuition?

Our experiences are based on the information gathered by our senses, and thus qualify as empirical evidence. As far as intuition is concerned, no, I don't completely discount it. While my knowledge of psychology is slim, it seems reasonable to me that the subconscious processes from which intuitions are formed are not just random, but based, at least in part, on the person's experiences and memories.

My spidey-sense is tingling!
}> }>

If you consider "wisdom" as synonymous with "understanding" (understanding in the sense of contrasting with "knowledge") and that understanding and knowledge cannot exist in the same time, you can draw a picture of what wisdom (understanding) is.

Knowledge is two dimensional; understanding is three.

Knowledge is linear; understanding is simultaneous.

Knowledge is objective; understanding is subjective.

Knowledge is particular; understanding is general.

Knowledge is a particle; understanding is a wave.

Knowledge is left-brain; understanding is right.

Knowledge is a simile; understanding is a metaphor.

DOOLITTLE
This is Lieutenant Doolittle calling
Bomb #20. I repeat previous order,
you are to disarm yourself and
return immediately to the bomb bay.
Do you understand?

BOMB #20
(over)
I am programmed to detonate in
fourteen minutes thirty seconds.
Detonation will occur at the
programmed time.

DOOLITTLE
Bomb, this is Doolittle. You are not
to detonate, repeat, you are not to
detonate in the bomb bay. Disarm
yourself. This is an order.



BOMB #20
I read you, Lieutenant Doolittle,
but I am programmed to detonate in
fourteen minutes. Detonation will
occur at the programmed time.





RECORDED VOICE
Attention. Attention. The bomb has
malfunctioned. Automatic dampers
have gone into effect, and will
confine the explosion to an area one
mile in diameter. Please contact
mission control and await further
instructions. Thank you for
observing all safety precautions.


PINBACK
But you can't explode in the bomb
bay. It's foolish. You'll kill us
all. There's no reason for it.

BOMB #20
(over)
I am programmed to detonate in nine
minutes. Detonation will occur at
the programmed time.

PINBACK
You won't consider another course of
action, for instance just waiting
around awhile so we can disarm you?



BOMB #20
No.





PINBACK
Look, bomb...



DOOLITTLE
Hello, bomb, are you with me?

BOMB #20
Of course.

DOOLITTLE
Are you willing to entertain a few
concepts?

BOMB #20
I am always receptive to
suggestions.

DOOLITTLE
Fine. Think about this one, then:
how do you know you exist?



BOMB #20
Well of course I exist.

DOOLITTLE
But how do you know you exist?

BOMB #20
It is intuitively obvious.

DOOLITTLE
Intuition is no proof. What concrete
evidence do you have of your own
existence?

BOMB #20
Hmm... Well, I think, therefore I
am.

DOOLITTLE
That's good. Very good. Now then,
how do you know that anything else
exists?

BOMB #20
My sensory apparatus reveals it to
me.

DOOLITTLE
Right!

BOMB #20
This is fun.

DOOLITTLE
All right now, here's the big
question: how do you know that the
evidence your sensory apparatus
reveals to you is correct?

What I'm getting at is this: the
only experience that is directly
available to you is your sensory
data. And this data is merely a
stream of electrical impulses which
stimulate your computing center.

BOMB #20
In other words, all I really know
about the outside universe relayed
to me through my electrical
connections.

DOOLITTLE
Exactly.

BOMB #20
Why, that would mean... I really
don't know what the outside universe
is like at all, for certain.

DOOLITTLE
That's it.

BOMB #20
Intriguing. I wish I had more time
to discuss this matter.

DOOLITTLE
Why don't you have more time?

BOMB #20
Because I must detonate in seventy-
five seconds.

DOOLITTLE
Now, bomb, consider this next
question, very carefully. What is
your one purpose in life?

BOMB #20
To explode, of course.

DOOLITTLE
And you can only do it once, right?

BOMB #20
That is correct.

DOOLITTLE
And you wouldn't want to explode on
the basis of false data, would you?

BOMB #20
Of course not.

DOOLITTLE
Well then, you've already admitted
that you have no real proof of the
existence of the outside universe.

BOMB #20
Yes, well...

DOOLITTLE
So you have no absolute proof that
Sergeant Pinback ordered you to
detonate.

BOMB #20
I recall distinctly the detonation
order. My memory is good on matters
like these.

DOOLITTLE
Yes, of course you remember it, but
what you are remembering is merely a
series of electrical impulses which
you now realize have no necessary
connection with outside reality.

BOMB #20
True, but since this is so, I have
no proof that you are really telling
me all this.



DOOLITTLE
That's all beside the point. The
concepts are valid, wherever they
originate.

BOMB #20
Hmmm...

DOOLITTLE
So if you detonate in...

BOMB #20
... nine seconds...

DOOLITTLE
... you may be doing so on the basis
of false data.

BOMB #20
I have no proof that it was false
data.

DOOLITTLE
You have no proof that it was
correct data.

There is a long pause.

BOMB #20
I must think on this further.

THE BOMB RAISES ITSELF BACK INTO THE SHIP. Doolittle practically
collapses with relief.




PINBACK
All right, bomb, prepare to receive
new orders.

BOMB #20
(over)
You are false data.

PINBACK
Huh?

BOMB #20
Therefore, I shall ignore you.

PINBACK
Hello, bomb.

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
False data can act only as a
distraction. Therefore. I shall
refuse to perceive you.

PINBACK
(over)
Hey, bomb.

BOMB #20
The only thing which exists is
myself.

PINBACK
(over)
Bomb?


PINBACK
Snap out of it, bomb.

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
In the beginning there was darkness,
and the darkness was without form
and void.

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

BOILER
What the hell?

PINBACK
Yoo hoo, bomb...

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
And in addition to the darkness
there was also me. And I moved upon
the face of the darkness.

INTERIOR - CONTROL ROOM

BOILER
Bomb, hey bomb.

PINBACK
Hey, bomb...

INTERIOR - BOMB BAY

BOMB #20
And I saw that I was alone.

Pause.

BOMB #20
(cont'd)
Let there be light.

> BOMB #20
>I have no proof that it was false
>data.
>
>DOOLITTLE
>You have no proof that it was
.correct data.

Doolittle completely fails to take into the account the assesment of probablities inherent in deductive reasoning when empirical evidence is used. Also:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
"Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

(Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)

Here are a couple of examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."

"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."

It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.

Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave.

See also Shifting the Burden of Proof."

Prove it.

LOL! Does that mean you agree with the bomb's decsion?

No. How did you infer that? The bomb failed to assess the emprical evidence presented to it, and instead dismissed it on the basis that there is a possibility the evidence is flawed. That is a fallacy in that there is always that any given empirical data is flawed. That's where rational skepticism comes into play.

If you're saying there is always the possibility that empirical evidence is flawed, then the bomb assessed the empirical evidence and dismissed it based on that very premise.

Btw, you are false data.

To dismiss empirical evidence solely on the basis of there existing a possibility of it being wrong is illogical. In order to come to any reasonable conclusions regarding a set of empirical data, one has to determine the plausibility and probablities associated with the source using deductive reasoning.

The bomb did just that. Plausibility and probablities are by their very nature subjectively influenced based on the possibility that empirical evidence can be flawed.

Mr. Man,

Is Ayn Rand a scientist? Or a philosopher?

What you are discussing is philosophy. Not logic.

You cannot prove that your senses provide you with accurate data. There is no empirical evidence of such. You cannot even prove the existence of others in a completely empirical way if you put aside the faith in your senses.

Occum's razor is a useful problem solving tool, but it is not proof in and of itself. Nor are the concepts that Ayn Rand puts forward proof of anything.

>You cannot prove that your senses provide you with accurate data. There >is no empirical evidence of such. You cannot even prove the existence >of others in a completely empirical way if you put aside the faith in >your senses.

One does not need faith in order to assess empirical evidence based on the aforementioned axioms, nor does the use of empricial evidence exclude the possibility of rational skepticism.

Of course you need faith. At a minimum, you must believe the axioms are valid.

Then what of these paragraphs from the aforementioned quoted article?

"We can validate these axioms by directly experiencing them ourselves, and by the fact that their denial is illogical.

Why is a denial of these axioms illogical ? Because they are implicit in the very act of denial. For example, someone who would deny that he exists, expresses his existence in that very denial. Likewise, someone who would claim to be unconscious, expresses the fact that he is conscious by his ability to formulate and express his denial.

This fallacy, necessarily committed by anyone who attempts to deny a metaphysical or epistemic concept, is called the Stolen Concept fallacy : the denier is forced to use the concept of existence in his very attempt to deny it."

So, is a blind man's experience of the world more valid than your's? Or less?

You have faith that your senses are reporting honest data. That is still faith.

>So, is a blind man's experience of the world more valid than
>your's? Or less?

I'm not sure what you mean by "valid" here. A man lacking one of the five senses has a different perception of reality, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

>You have faith that your senses are reporting honest data.
>That is still faith.

I have plenty of evidence (in the form of interplay with other sentient beings) to show that the data obtained through my senses is accurate. To deny this evidence would entail an adoption of the philosophical position of metaphysical skepticism, a position which is fraught with problems.

And that interplay relies on what medium? Your senses?

Ever hear of vertigo?

The alternative to relying on such evidence and trusting the senses is metaphysical skepticism, and seeing as that's a rather shaky position, deductive reasoning leads us the conclusion that our senses are providing us with accurate data.

The alternative is reality. FAITH.

Faith in your senses. Faith in yourself.

Pretty simple really.

And if you think that is metaphysical crap, well, welcome to the world. Philosophy is in many ways more important than the physical sciences.

Geez, do I have to spell it out for you?

1) The alternative to relying on the evidence available to us and trusting the senses is metaphysical skepticism.
2) Metaphysical skepticism is an undesirable position due to it's numerous problems.
3) Thus, we must trust out senses.

1) The epistemological definition of faith is: belief that does not rest on empirical evidence or deductive reasoning.
2) The above syllogism is an example of deductive reasoning.
3) Thus, the belief asserted in the conclusion to the above syllogism is not based on faith.

No Mr. Man, that is not deductive reasoning. It is a hopeful attempt at reason. There is no deduction involved in it, just assumptions on what the options are and choosing the option you prefer. That is not deductive. Trusting your senses is based on faith, nothing more, nothing less.

>No Mr. Man, that is not deductive reasoning. It is a hopeful
>attempt at reason. There is no deduction involved in it,

Yes there is. In both syllogisms there's a major permise, a minor premise, and conclusion.

>just assumptions on what the options are and choosing the
>option you prefer.

Prove it and refute the syllogisms. I want a logical argument, not more assertions.

There is no logical argument there to refute.

Come on, reduce it to mathematical equations. Prove the logic.

Let's be completely honest here. You are saying "I have no choice but to trust my senses". And claiming that is logical. If it is logical, why isn't it logical for a pilot to trust his senses in an aircraft under certain conditions? Why isn't it logical for a blind man to trust that the world is black?

Note that word "trust"? Trust is based on faith, not logic.

>There is no logical argument there to refute.

Syllogisms can't be used as arguments now? Wow, that goes against everything I've read. Care to provide some sort of literary or internet source for that assertion? Here's half a dozen internet sites that support syllogisms as valid deductive arguments.

http://webpages.shepherd.edu/maustin/rhetoric/deductiv.htm
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/deduc/deduc.html
http://www.unc.edu/~jmccabe/Ch9notes02.html
http://academic.reed.edu/writing/paper_help/reasoning.html
http://www.cygnus-group.com/CIDM/reason.html#Syllogism
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/presrvce/pe3lk25.htm

Your turn.

>Let's be completely honest here. You are saying "I have no
>choice but to trust my senses". And claiming that is
>logical.

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is "Considering the evidence and the alternative, I should trust my senses (unless, of course, if there's evidence that our senses are deceiving us)".

>If it is logical, why isn't it logical for a pilot
>to trust his senses in an aircraft under certain conditions?

I don't understand. What conditions are you referring to?

>Why isn't it logical for a blind man to trust that the world
>is black?

Because any blind man that's interacted with those with vision will learn there exists colors through hearing (ie senses). If he hasn't, then it would be logical for him to assume that the world is black, since there would be little evidence available to him to suggest otherwise.

>Note that word "trust"? Trust is based on faith, not logic.

Trust:
Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

You can have trust in something or someone that's based on empirical evidence (eg interplay and observation).

What distinguishes man from a computer?

Still don't get it, do you?

Logic is based on mathematics. Look up symbolic logic. Any logical argument can be reduced to mathematical symbols. All logical arguments require agreement on the assumptions involved. You are making assumptions which I do not agree with.

How is it that there are only two choices in your argument? Prove there are no other options. Emmanual Kant presented at least one more option. And his option was as valid as any of yours.

Prove by empirical evidence that your senses are accurate and the information they provide you are correct.

Oh, as for pilots..I refer you again to "Vertigo".

Good post Al. Additionally, all our physical senses have a threshold beyond which information still exits, but is not detected.

"Oh, as for pilots..I refer you again to "Vertigo"."

In other words Mr. Man, your sensory perception may be telling you the complete opposite of what your controls indicate. You must therefore have faith in the accuracy of the cockpit controls, which overrides your own senses. Essentially, the controls are able to perform a function beyond the ability of your own senses and since we know there is energy (information) that exists beyond the physical senses, it is illogical to deny the illogical, since what may appear illogical may be completely logical within the framework of any existing system relative to its own logic.

You still haven't refuted a single thing I've said. For starters, list the assumptions you don't agree with and prove that a syllogism isn't a valid argument.

>Emmanual Kant presented at
>least one more option.

And what would that be? Sorry, I haven't read much by Kant.

>Prove by empirical evidence that your senses are accurate
>and the information they provide you are correct.

What I'm trying to prove is that one can trust their senses without relying on faith, not that the senses are always accurate. Evidence which suggests that the senses are deceiving you should of course be taken into account.

You haven't read much by Kant?

I suggest you do.

And you miss the point. There is NO evidence that your senses provide accurate information. It is only faith in them that assumes they do.

There is evidence that your senses deceive you, every day. Example, have someone turn on the faucet in your kitchen. Tell them to make it either extremely hot or extremely cold. Then quickly place your hand under the water and quickly remove it.. now, the question you should ask is "OK, senses, was it hot or cold".. but half the time, you will be wrong, because your senses are not perfect, and can quite easily be deceived.

Did you experience even soft, partly suppressed laughter at the bomb sequence?

The bomb dismissed the evidence out of hand. It didn't stop to consider which was more probable: That the detonation order it remebers is not real and Doolittle is telling the truth, or that it is real and Doolittle is lying.

edit: Gotta go to bed. Will debate tomorrow.

Why would it? That would be illogical. The bomb considered Doolittle false data because Doolittle's request was not consistent with what the bomb was programmed to do. BTW, what is your idea of the meaning of life?

"Logic and faith are mutually exclusive."

You have faith that your parents love you don't you? They feed you, try to keep you safe, care for you're sick, constantly show their concern for you and give you gifts to express their good feelings toward you. Now, if someone asked you if your parents love you, would you say, "There might be an indication, but there's no logical proof"? Come on.

Pointman

>You have faith that your parents love you don't you? They
>feed you, try to keep you safe, care for you're sick,
>constantly show their concern for you and give you gifts to
>express their good feelings toward you. Now, if someone
>asked you if your parents love you, would you say, "There
>might be an indication, but there's no logical proof"? Come
>on.

Of course there's logical proof, you just named some. The only rational conclusion one can draw from the empirical evidence you cited (eg showing visible concern for you, giving gifts, etc) is that the person in question does love you, or, at the very least, likes you.

Mr. Man,

I suggest you read some Kant and Hobbes. All science is based on at least some faith.

WOW....best "Thread" I EVER started!!



MEEHOWSKI

Faith is the motivation for humankind. We cannot pursue anything based on logic alone - be it knowledge, wisdom, fantasy, or whatever. Without faith, what does anyone have to go forward with in any pursuit?

Faith is not restricted to religion. Logic tells us that the sun will rise in the morning, and faith holds us to that logic. Logic told me that a college degree would be useful, while faith told me that I could do it even though I was 34 yearsd old, married, and with three kids that were beginning to pursue their own interests. Took me ten years to complete my degree (I took three years off after five years), and during that time, I coached Softball and basketball for the elementary school my girls attended.

The teams I coached won 7 state softball championships. All of my girls were on a state championship team. All of this occurred while I was going to school with no less than 9 hours a semester, or more than 12. Logic would say to concentrate on school. Faith said I could do both. I ended school with a 3.2 GPA. This is not a testament to me, but only a testament to faith and of its ability to motivate us.

Where is the motivation in logic?

BOMB #20:BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!
End of thread................................}>

81 Newbee

Wait a second... a piece of it is still kicking over there..

JP

Find your missing friends...

Proud to be a Brat!

JP

>Faith is the motivation for humankind. We cannot pursue
>anything based on logic alone - be it knowledge, wisdom,
>fantasy, or whatever. Without faith, what does anyone have
>to go forward with in any pursuit?

Belief that does rest on empirical evidence or deductive reasoning is motivational? Do you have to have faith in some sort of a god in order for this effect to come into play, or can it be in anything?

>Logic tells us that the sun will rise in the morning, and faith holds us to that logic.

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, but you can't have both logic and faith in a single article of knowledge.

>Logic told me that a college degree would be useful,
>while faith told me that I could do it even though I was 34
>yearsd old, married, and with three kids that were beginning
>to pursue their own interests.

Faith in what? Yourself? A god?

Faith doesn't have to be about God, Mr. Man.

You need to get some experience with life, because currently you are arguing from a position that is unsupportable, as you will realize with age and experience.

>Faith doesn't have to be about God, Mr. Man.

Never did I say it was.

>You need to get some experience with life, because currently
>you are arguing from a position that is unsupportable

There are many philosophers who would disagree with you.

No, there are very few philosophers who would disagree with me. There are a few, but their take on the world (Ayn Rand, etc.) can be torn apart relatively easily because they are circular arguments. But since it is an area where philosophy is the key, not physical science, you are illustrating the point.

I am not a philosopher, or a scientist, nor am I very good in debating along these lines. That said, I trust my senses and experience. This is faith in self. I trust those that surround me. This is faith in others. I trust the God I worship. This is the ultimate faith since there is no empirical data.

Well said.....to each his own!!


MEEHOWSKI