Sometimes I agree with Massimo Pigliucci, and this is one of those times. Massimo is re-running some of his posts, this post refers to that “brilliant (as a physicist) moron”, Lawrence Krauss. If you are interested in observing blatant intellectual dishonesty in a physicist, then you will be interested in Massimo’s Krauss crunch.
Of particular note is the observation (in concert with my own) made by David Albert in the NY Times, where he confronts Krauss with the observation that his book, A Universe From Nothing actually doesn’t produce what the title claims. In fact, the universe in Krauss’ book required a pre-existing quantum field, not “nothing”. Read Krauss’ reply, and his subsequent attitude. Massimo and Albert and I agree that Krauss is not intellectually honest, and that his book, based on its title, is a fraud.
7 comments:
Perhaps Atheism is sometimes a consequence of Philosophical Materialism
Correct use of logic. Atheism can be a a consequence of Philosophical Materialism but need not be.
...but in my experience here...
Your experience is irrelevant to the truth of any position that does not depend on your experience directly.
...Atheism is more likely to be a juvenile decision based in rebellion...
Logically speaking, it could be and you are actually probably right. From a human perspective, most thinking process start with an emotional need to question. Teens do it much more since it’s a new adventure for them. Rebellion is thus a likely origin.
However, what impact does it have on the truth of any position? None.
...with the Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of that decision...
You said ‘Atheism is [...] a juvenile decision’, which means that:
[Atheism] = [juvenile decision]
[Atheism] = [a type of decision]
Now you thus say that:
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [that decision]
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [Atheism]
This is a direct contradiction of what is being discussed here: Atheism is a consequence of PM.
...just as are Relativism and Consequentialism.
Red hearing. Why bring up Relativism and Consequentialism?
Given that your assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism is both not universally correct and not complete,
Your assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism has been proven to be erroneous.
My assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism stands.
...then your subsequent assessment of the logic of the header is false.
If you use logic and seek truth, you will correct your mistakes before this thread can continue.
(will always be commenting on most recent thread due to:
1) post being buried
2) censorship being enforced
3) today, because Krauss is right)
Oh boy, I could write a million posts on Krauss alone. He's....he's something, that's for sure!
”...but in my experience here...
Your experience is irrelevant to the truth of any position that does not depend on your experience directly. ...but in my experience here...
Your experience is irrelevant to the truth of any position that does not depend on your experience directly.”
So observation of actual conditions is trumped by philosophical rules against those conditions being observable? Yes, that fits Atheism to a T.
On the empirical side, observation of a falsification of a principle negates the principle.
”...Atheism is more likely to be a juvenile decision based in rebellion...
Logically speaking, it could be and you are actually probably right. From a human perspective, most thinking process start with an emotional need to question. Teens do it much more since it’s a new adventure for them. Rebellion is thus a likely origin.
However, what impact does it have on the truth of any position? None.”
Well for starters it does tend to negate your stated position held by PM regarding the source of Atheism.
...with the Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of that decision...
”You said ‘Atheism is [...] a juvenile decision’, which means that:
[Atheism] = [juvenile decision]
[Atheism] = [a type of decision]
Now you thus say that:
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [that decision]
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [Atheism]
This is a direct contradiction of what is being discussed here: Atheism is a consequence of PM.””...just as are Relativism and Consequentialism.
Red hearing. Why bring up Relativism and Consequentialism?”
Examples of similar subcategories of Atheism, which are not logically held by Theists and are therefore dependent on Atheism being held first. The charge of Red Herring is rejected.
Given that your assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism is both not universally correct and not complete,
Your assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism has been proven to be erroneous.
Really? Where? When? How? Who? Show your data, because your logic designating PM as the universal cause of Atheism is false, as shown above.
”My assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism stands.”
If your assessment is that PM is universally acquired by Theists who accept PM first, and then Atheism, then you need to prove that. Above, you even agreed (it seemed) that Atheism is commonly acquired as rebellion in adolescence and young adulthood rather than a philosophical necessity. Now you revert to your original claim that PM universally is accepted first, then Atheism results. You claim evidence, but you do not show it.
”...then your subsequent assessment of the logic of the header is false.
If you use logic and seek truth, you will correct your mistakes before this thread can continue.”
So far you have made claims without evidence, and have contradicted yourself within a single comment. Your assessment of the logic here is faulty.
”(will always be commenting on most recent thread due to:
1) post being buried
2) censorship being enforced
3) today, because Krauss is right)”
1) If you mean “comment” rather than post, I moderate and release comments several times a day.
2) Yes. It is necessary on a blog like this. It originally was not moderated, but that didn’t work.
3) Krauss claims that “nothing” is actually a pre-existing quantum field; is that your definition of “nothing” as well? My definition of “nothing” would be more like this: the absence of absolutely everything, including fields. Read the interview: Krauss knowingly and purposefully used a misleading title to garner sales for his book. That is intellectual fraud.
Finally, I have shown the logical internal non-coherence of Philosophical Materialism. Kindly address that, in light of your apparent endorsement of both PM and logic. A disciplined deductive examination would be nice.
Moi,
Go ahead, let 'er rip. Krauss stories are interesting if nothing else.
So observation of actual conditions is trumped by philosophical rules against those conditions being observable?
No.
On the empirical side, observation of a falsification of a principle negates the principle
Correct.
Well for starters it does tend to negate your stated position held by PM regarding the source of Atheism.
You confused the cause of the questioning with what is being questioned.
I said:
”You said ‘Atheism is [...] a juvenile decision’, which means that:
[Atheism] = [juvenile decision]
[Atheism] = [a type of decision]
Now you thus say that:
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [that decision]
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [Atheism]
This is a direct contradiction of what is being discussed here: Atheism is a consequence of PM
You did not address that part and jumped to Relativism and Consequentialism.Red hearing.
Your assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism has been proven to be erroneous.
Really? Where? When? How? Who?
That thing above shows it. You reversed the logical process around.
Show your data, because your logic designating PM as the universal cause of Atheism is false, as shown above.
PM is not the universal cause of Atheism. False statement.
If your assessment is that PM is universally acquired by Theists who accept PM first,
It is not.
Above, you even agreed (it seemed) that Atheism is commonly acquired as rebellion in adolescence and young adulthood rather than a philosophical necessity.
The questioning may, or may not, start as rebellion in adolescence.
However, the truth value of any statements does not dependent on the source of the questioning.
Now you revert to your original claim that PM universally is accepted first, then Atheism results.
PM is not universally accepted first, or else everyone would adhere to PM and most likely be an Atheist.
You claim evidence, but you do not show it
No. Evidence has not been claimed for anything at this point.
The only claim is not even a claim, but rather a starting point for an ontology:
PM starts with the assumption that what is material exists.
Nothing more. If there are other assumptions/deductions, they need to be assessed in their proper context.
However, if you reject this starting point, there is nothing to discuss.
PM,
Your position is virtually unintelligible. You have made universal statements, then denied them, and you make statements like this which have no bearing on anything that I can discern:
”The questioning may, or may not, start as rebellion in adolescence.
However, the truth value of any statements does not dependent on the source of the questioning.”
What source are you talking about? Who said anything that would lead you to make that comment? How does it apply to rebellion in adolescence?
”No. Evidence has not been claimed for anything at this point.”
Here’s what you said:
”Your assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism has been proven to be erroneous.”
Now. Where is the evidence which proves this? And what is my assessment of the relationship of PM to Atheism at that point? My assessment is that Atheism frequently comes prior to PM, because it comes as emotional rebellion in adolescence, which you agreed as a possible cause for Atheism. So where is your evidence? Show why this is “erroneous”, or admit that it is not, as you have already done before in contradiction to your position here.
”The only claim is not even a claim, but rather a starting point for an ontology:
PM starts with the assumption that what is material exists.
Nothing more. If there are other assumptions/deductions, they need to be assessed in their proper context.
However, if you reject this starting point, there is nothing to discuss.”
That is not what you said. You made a series of claims, culminating in Philosophical Materialism. Now you say that you have not even made a claim, only a starting point. Here is what you actually claimed, as opposed to what you now say:
”Moreover, as an initial defense of Philosophical Materialism, it could be noted that only by accepting PM can one have a coherent definition of what it means to exist versus not to exist objectively. No other ontology can produce a system in which things can exist, or not exist, independently of human consciousness. PM starts by assuming that the material exists, and it is only by starting with this assumption that one can attain a rational understanding of what it means to actually exist as part of the material world. This yields the inescapable conclusion that all that can be proven to exist is also material, and finally, this yields the probable scenario that nothing non-material exists. “
When I attacked your several points on their errors, you started wobbling all over the place making unjustifiable statements like this:
”Your experience is irrelevant to the truth of any position that does not depend on your experience directly.”
You contradicted that statement with this:
Stan: ”So observation of actual conditions is trumped by philosophical rules against those conditions being observable?
You: No.
Stan: On the empirical side, observation of a falsification of a principle negates the principle
You: Correct.
(continued)
(from above)
Followed by another incomprehensible statement:
You said: ”You confused the cause of the questioning with what is being questioned.
”You said ‘Atheism is [...] a juvenile decision’, which means that:
[Atheism] = [juvenile decision]
[Atheism] = [a type of decision]
Now you thus say that:
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [that decision]
Philosophical Materialism being the necessary consequence of [Atheism]
This is a direct contradiction of what is being discussed here: Atheism is a consequence of PM
This piece of work is amazing. You make an unprovable universal statement; I refute it with ideas with which you then agree. Then you make the same unprovable universal statement with the apparent claim that that statement is the only allowable topic, and the refutation is not allowed because it contradicts your statement.
PM, you are a confused pup. When you make unprovable statements, then they are challengeable and they will be challenged. This is especially true when you make unprovable universal statements regarding Philosophical Materialism. And it is even more true when you try to limit the discussion to only your side.
Here is your statement, made yet again just above:
”Atheism is a consequence of PM”
This you claim is the only legitimate subject, even after the refutation to which you agreed.
This universal statement is false. I have shown why. There are conditions where the relationship is reversed and PM is a consequence of Atheism. You have agreed to that.
1. It is not universally true that "Atheism is a consequence of PM".
2. In cases where PM is a consequence of Atheism, it is not the case that "Atheism is a consequence of PM".
So what in the world are you actually talking about?? Your contradictions completely bury any possible rational position you might have.
If you wish to argue that "should a person adopt PM without prior consideration of Theism or Atheism, then Atheism would be a consequence" that is a different proposition from what you have said. I suspect that it would be hard to find such a person.
And of course that is not the necessary premise for your full-blown argument which you made above.
If you wish to argue your full argument, which yousubsequently denied actually making, we can do that. Is that what you want to do? Or would you rather try to support your universal statement some more?
Post a Comment