Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"

Religions > Atheism > Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 8 of 13

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"George Dance"
Date:	13 Nov 2005 12:59:38 PM
Object:	Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"

As George Orwell noted more than 50 years ago, control of people's
language is a way to control their thought. Control definitions, and
one controls the language.
That is why those whose aim is propaganda often use a tactic called
'definition-switching.' An agnostic-basher, for instance, can simply
redefine agnosticism as some other position, and go on to (validly)
argue for the absurdity of that position instead.
Definition-switching is a logical fallacy known as the "Strawman":
"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a
person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or
misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has
the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
"This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted
version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the
position itself."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
Fallacy or not, though, definition-switching is often effective tactic
in discrediting a position.
Ironically, the example we'll be looking at is an anonymous article
from http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html entitled
"The agnostic fallacy".

The agnostic fallacy

Agnosticism is mostly considered a vague middle ground in the debate
surrounding the god question. Some people see it as the most rational
alternative, given the sheer weight of debate going on from both
theists and atheists.

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term agnosticism, defined it thus :

Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in
the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively, the
principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, follow your
reason as far as it can take you without other considerations. And
negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend that matters
are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
Thomas Huxley, "Agnosticism"

To his credit, the author at least begins with an agnostic's definition
of agnosticism; however, it's not an easily understood one. What, for
instance, does "follow your reason as far as it can take you" mean?
Any clearer paraphrase would necessarily involve some interpretation.
Fortunately, Huxley himself has provided his own perfectly clear
paraphrase (which is the actual definition we will use here):
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
However, the anonymous author rejects the above as 'bad definition'
(signalling that definition-switching will soon be in order):

Some people think he formed the word as a joke, a wordplay on the old
gnostic sects. I can't really say.

At any rate, the definition above is enlightening, but is also a bad
definition.

So why is it bad?

It defines a process instead of a result. As such, it is a
good rational guideline, in terms of following the objective evidence,
but it does not tell us what agnosticism is as a position.

Indeed, those interested in the 'god-question' are interested in what
agnosticism has to say about god. What agnosticism has to say about
gods depends on what knowledge there is about gods (which is not a
matter of definition, but an empirical claim about the state of human
knowledge). Given as an empirical fact that no one has grounds - no
actual evidence, no valid arguments, no means to even test - any
assertions about gods, then an agnosticism (by Huxley's definition)
implies not saying that one knows or believes anything about them:
However, the author has already rejected Huxley's definition as bad;
and now he switches the above knowledge claim as (at least part of) his
new, allegedly 'modern', definition:

The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge
about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing,
just like a-theism means not-belief in god.

Indeed; agnosticism presupposes that there are some things that no one
- not just the agnostic, but no one at all - knows; some things for
which one has no grounds for knowing or believing at all - and
therefore, just as Huxley says, one has no grounds for professing to
know or believe any of them. However, according to the author, the
'modern definition of agnosticism' (which tells us a bit about, but
does not give) says nothing of the kind. By it, agnosticism becomes
not a general position on belief and knowledge, but a 'position' on one
question only: "the god question."
It's one thing to say that there is an 'agnostic position' on the 'god
question'; it's quite another to say that agnosticism as being
concerned with nothing but that question, by definition. For one
thing, it defines those who are agnostic about other things - ET, the
Loch Ness monster, universes other than our own, eg - completely out
of existence. For another, it allows agnostic-bashers to claim that
agnostics are concerned only with 'gods' - that they "treat God
differently from everything else," as many such bashers like to claim.
For a third, it turns 'lack of knowledge on the god-question' from an
empirical, falsifiable claim (as the agnostic treats it) into itself a
presupposition, which (allegedly) the agnostic is trying to smuggle
into the debate by definition (allegedly as it's supposed to be the
'modern' agnostic's own definition, not the author's own).
Yet another problem with the author's definition is that it prevents
him from explaining (or evidently, understanding) the next definitions
that he offers:

Graham Oppy distinguishes between strong and weak agnosticism. This is
his thesis :

strong agnosticism, i.e. the view which is sustained by the thesis that
it is obligatory for reasonable persons to suspend judgement on the
question of God's existence. (...) weak agnosticism, i.e. the view
which is sustained by the thesis that it is permissible for reasonable
persons to suspend judgement on the question of God's existence.
"Weak Agnosticism Defended", Graham Oppy

If agnosticism were nothing but a claim about the 'god-question'; that
there's a 'lack of knowledge' about it - then what in the world does
'suspend judgement' mean? Just why does 'lack of knowledge' imply
'suspend[ing] judgement?' Just what does 'suspend[ing] judgement' even
mean?
To answer those questions in reverse order:
When confronted with a proposition P, a person can judge P to be true;
which means only that he thinks that P is true, or IOW that he believes
P. Or he can judge P to be false, which means only that he thinks that
the contradictory of P (not-P) is true, or IOW that he believes non-P.
Alternately, a person can suspend judgement on P - neither judge it to
be true, nor either judge it to be false. In which case he believes
neither P nor non-P.
By Huxley's definition, if an agnostic "no grounds for believing either
P or non-P, then he "shall not say he knows or believes" either P or
non-P; IOW, he must suspend judgement on P. All he can say is, "I
don't believe P, and I don't believe non-P either."
Which, specifically in regard to the 'god-question', is what agnostics
(at least those who know enough about agnosticism to have heard of
Huxley) do say: "I don't believe that there are any gods, and I don't
believe that there aren't any gods." Which is the exactly what Oppy
means by "suspend[ing] judgement on the question of God's existence."
Howeer, the author either misunderstands or ignores this point, as he
immediately goes on to declare that agnosticism has nothing to say
about belief in gods:

It is important to note, at this point, that agnosticism is not in fact
part of the atheism-theism gradient. Both atheism and theism are
concerned about belief, not knowledge. The basic atheist proposition
can be formulated as follows :

A1 : I lack belief in gods.

Which in turn is consistent with two further propositions:
A3: "I don't believe there are any gods, and I believe there are no
gods."
A4: "I don't believe there are any gods, and I don't believe there are
no gods."
A3 and A4 are commonly used to distinguish 'strong' and 'weak' atheism.
Notice, though, that the two statements do not differ only in degree -
in part of what they say, they are clearly inconsistent as well.
Note, too, that A4 is exactly what Oppy means by 'suspend[ing]
judgement on the question of God's existence' - not professing to 'know
or believe' either answer; while A3 entails claiming something that
(lacking grounds for it) an agnostic 'shall not' profess to believe.
Since an agnostic is restricted (given his knowledge) to 'suspending
judgement' - ie, to professing A4 - and since to profess A4 is to
profess A1 - and since A1 is 'the basic atheist belief' - it follows
that anyone who applies Huxley's definition correctly does profess A1:
IOW, that everyone 'agnostic' who properly applies that definition is
also professing atheism. The 'method' of agnosticism, consistently
applied, leads to the 'position' of atheism.

And the theist proposition as follows : T1 : I believe in gods.

Like A3, T1 is a profession to 'know or believe' a proposition: 'There
are gods.' To 'believe' a proposition means to hold it as true, or IOW
to think that it is true. So T1 means: "I think it is true that there
are gods." Given the 'lack of knowledge of the god-question' (and
Huxley's definition of agnosticism), an agnostic 'shall not' conclude
any such thing; an agnostic has no grounds for believing there are
gods, and therefore "shall not profess to know or believe" that there
are any. So agnosticism is not, in fact, unconcerned with propositions
like T1; agnosticism in fact rejects T1. An agnostic simply is not
allowed to say, by his own principle, something like, "I have no
grounds for believing in gods, but I believe in one anyway."

Both are inherently personal propositions. We are talking here about
what the person believes, not about reality itself. If we look at this
ontologically, we can translate it in the following way :

A2 : I know that there is no god-belief in my mind.
T2 : I know that there is god-belief in my mind.

The atheist and the theist are not making statements about what exists
in reality, only on what they believe.

No, someone who says "I think it is true that there are gods" is not
talking only about what's in his mind. He is restricting himself to a
true statement (that he thinks there are); but he certainly is not
saying nothing about 'what exists in reality'; he is saying that he
thinks that some gods do exist in reality (the only possible case in
which "there are gods" would be true).

However, there are positions
which pertain to knowledge about reality. Monotheistic religions, and
strong-atheism (also called positive atheism) share this gradient. We
can define them as follows :

R : I know a god exists.
P : I know no god exists.
These statements concern what actually exists out there in reality.
Agnosticism is part of that gradient : it claims that the kind of
knowledge stated in propositions R and P is irrational.

Indeed, atheism does declare that claiming that 'knowledge' is
irrational; but it does not stop there, as the author claims. As
Huxley makes clear, an agnostic shall not profess to 'know *or*
believe' either "A god exists" or "No god exists," given (as is
apparently the case) no grounds for knowing or believing either one.
To an agnostic, professing T1 is as 'irrational' as professing R.
Similarly for the T1-analog of P (call it P2): "I believe no god
exists."
P2 is, as we've seen, the second conjunct of A3, which has already been
discussed at length (some might say 'excessive length').

Thus,
agnosticism is actually compatible with both atheism and theism. An
agnostic atheist is someone who does not believe in gods regardless of
their lack of knowledge on the question.

IOW, who 'suspends judgement' on the 'god question' and therefore
believes A4.

An agnostic theist is someone
who believes in gods regardless of their lack of knowledge on the
question.

Which, as we've seen is incompatible with Huxley's definition - to
believe in gods is to 'know or believe' in them, and by definition an
agnostic 'shall not' profess to 'know or believe' such a thing - he
must 'suspend judgement' on the question. However, it is fully
compatible with the author's definition, under which agnosticism means
only believing there's no knowledge to answer the question - and
'suspend[ing] judgement' apparently means nothing at all.
Which is yet another consequence of the definition-switching: it
defines 'atheistic theism' (something that had no place in agnosticism
as Huxley defined it) into existence. In this way, the author succeeds
in defining agnosticism in a completely opposite way than at the
beginning: as the belief that it's quite in order to profess to believe
a proposition on pure faith (ie, on no grounds at all).
That ends the formally definitional part of the article - though as
we'll see, there's a bit of defining left to go. In the next section,
the author begins to critique his strawman:

Given these facts, why is agnosticism a fallacy ? While it parades as a
"moderate" option which is most "reasonable", it is little more than an
example of the cult of compromise.

It's not because a debate is raging
from both sides of an issue that both must be wrong. Or as Richard
Dawkins eloquently writes :

I think it's important to realize that when two opposite points of view
are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie
exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply
wrong.
"Richard Dawkins' Evolution", The New Yorker (September 9th, 1996)

Where did this come from? Who has declared that, "because a debate is
raging, ... both [sides] must be wrong"? No answer, no cite (except
the one from Dawkins refuting that absurdity). That is a separate
strawman from the author's own definition-switching, but it is a direct
consequence of that switch: by redefining agnosticism as a 'position
.... on the god-question' rather than as a process, the author has
eliminated the reason (that was fully given in Huxley's own definition)
why agnostics have any such position - which leaves him room to
speculate on other possible reasons instead.

If we examine the agnostic premise, we find that it is quite
unreasonable. Agnosticism is based on the notion that we can have no
knowledge on the god question.

And where does the idea that 'we can have no knowledge on the god
question' come from? None of the author's cites have mentioned that
claim, not has he made any argument for it previously. There are only
two sentences, in the entire article so far, that could possibly
support it:

The modern definition of agnosticism turns around a lack of knowledge
about the god question. The word a-gnosticism itself means not-knowing,
just like a-theism means not-belief in god.

Defining an agnostic as someone who believs that 'we can have no
knowledge about the god question' is certainly a definition 'that turns
aroung a lack of knowledge about the god question.' In addition, it
looks fully consistent with the author's etymology. Therefore, this
claim apparently must be in the 'modern definition' of agnosticism that
the author proposes to switch for Huxley's own, to wit: "Agnosticism
is the claim that we can have no knowledge of the god question."
(Indeed, IME, many of those who bash agnosticism assume that very
definition.)
The author's revised (or fully revealed) definition suffers from all
the same problems as his earlier attempt - it defines agnosticism about
anything but gods out of existence, and defines 'agnostic theism' into
existence'. But it goes further than that: it completely redefines a
simple statement of empiricism - don't profess to know or believe
anything without grounds - into an example of its opposite: a
metaphysical claim about the possibility of knowledge which is itself
based on no grounds.

But for this to be true, the agnostic must know all possible arguments
of atheism and theism, since he discards them all out of hand. If any
single argument is valid, then agnosticism must crumble. Many such
arguments are available in the atheist literature, and it is
disingenuous to deny them.

This does not refute the author's strawman agnosticism, of course - as
it's not illustrated by even one variant - but it does illustrate the
conceit and implausibility of claiming that no one can have no
knowledge of the god question. No person can have enough information
about what was true in the past, what is true now, and what will be
true in the future, to have 'grounds' for making such a claim. Rather,
it's just an irrational belief that agnostics happen to hold for no
reason: presumably, if the Rapture happened and the agnostic were
transported to heaven, he would *still* insist that it's impossible to
know one way or another.
Huxley himself pointed out the incompatibility with this 'position' of
unknowability and his own 'process' or 'method' (ie, agnosticism as he
defined it:
"I do not very much care to speak of anything as "unknowable."2 What I
am sure about is that there are many topics about which I know nothing;
and which, so far as I can see, are out of reach of my faculties. But
whether these things are knowable by any one else is exactly one of
those matters which is beyond my knowledge, though I may have a
tolerably strong opinion as to the probabilities of the case."
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
Which is the final problem with the author's switched definition: it
defines agnosticism as belief in a 'position' which the man who
admittedly coined the term quite clearly did not believe. IOW, the
author is no longer talking about Huxley's agnosticism at all, but
about a strawman that is clearly inconsistent with it.

Furthermore, the lack of knowledge inherent in agnosticism is
self-contradictory. If we know nothing about the god-concept, then we
cannot claim it exists, or discuss it rationally.

If we claim not to know anything about the concept, then we still know
something about it : that it is beyond human understanding, and
rational discussion. Therefore agnosticism is contradictory, and must
inevitably lead to strong-atheism.

Impeccable logic, a reader might think; but where did the idea that we
'know nothing about the god-concept' come from? He'd be advised to
reread the 'modern definition': "Agnosticism is the claim that we can
have no knowledge of the god question." The reader might have thought
that meant we can have no knowledge of whether gods existed - not that
we cannot even know what the word 'god' means - but if so then he has
simply misread. The definition is quite explicit: "No knowledge,"
period. Therefore, agnostics believe definition that we cannot know
what the word 'god' means, or even whether it can mean anything - in
which case it is quite absurd for them to even use the word - much less
make it the only tenet of their entire 'position' (as the definition
also tells us they do).

Furthermore, agnosticism must be self-contradictory, as identity is
necessary for anything to exist, and there is no such thing as an
undefined object.

Whatever exists in reality has attributes. If we
admit that we have no knowledge about the god-concept, including how to
define it, then it cannot exist. Thus assuming agnosticism is true
leads to a contradiction.

Indeed, the absurdities start piling up at this stage. Since (by the
author's 'modern definition') agnostics believe that the word 'god'
cannot mean anything, they must also believe that any object it could
describe - any possible god at all - must have no properties at all.
IOW, the agnostic's conceived 'god' must not have the properties
theists attribute to their god - and so is irrelevent to theism. Nor
can it be any god that an atheist imagines - and so is equally
irrelevant to atheism. Indeed, it is even irrelevant to itself: an
agnostic, by the author's definition, cannot even know any grounds for
believing that his god is unknowable - he just has to
believe, for no reason and knowing he has no reason, that it is, so
there.

Agnostics have to answer the following question, if their position is
to make any sense at all :

How can you presume that "god" has some possible meaning if you have no
knowledge about "god" ?

In other cases, an agnostic could note that this is a form of the
logical fallacy known as Compound Question, which involves asking two
questions in one - in this case
1) Do you believe you have 'no knowledge about "god"'?
2) How can you believe that and presume that "god" has a possible
meaning?
- and answer the first in the negative, while dismissing the second as
question-begging. However, he cannot do that here. After all, he
admits that he is an agnostic: therefore, he has to believe that he can
have
'no knowledge of the god question', including no knowledge of what the
word 'god' could already mean, by *(the author's) definition*.
Therefore he has to assert the contradiction (and admit his
irrationality, or repudiate agnosticism.

To claim that "gods could exist" is possible, one must attribute some
meaning to "god" in order for this proposition to be meaningful. To say
that "gods cannot exist", from this semantic viewpoint, is to say that
there can be no referent to "god", because the word "god" is
meaningless.

But the agnostic has no knowledge about "god" from which he can
attribute it meaning.

By (the author's) definition, as an agnostic can have 'no knowledge of
the god question' at all: not just none about gods but none about what
the word 'god' could possibly mean.

Therefore agnosticism contradicts itself on this
crucial issue.

Indeed, the author's strawman agnostic cannot say anything about the
'god question' at all - not even state his own position that gods are
unknowable - without contradicting himself.
Which should properly end the example; but there is a relevant coda.
The author follows up his injury to Huxley's system with one final
insult to the man himself:

A number of arguments can be proposed in favour of agnosticism. I will
now examine the most important arguments.

* Argument from the limits of human reason

Based on Huxley's equivocation between a judicious use of reason and
agnosticism, some thinkers have proposed that atheism oversteps the
boundaries of human reason.

Spelled out in full, the first part of this sentence implies:
1) What Huxley called 'agnosticism' - "a man shall not say he knows or
believes that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe" -
is actually called 'a judicious use of reason'.
2) Agnosticism is clearly not 'a judicious use of reason' but something
else (presumably, as per the author's 'modern definition', the
completely unfounded belief that 'we can have no knowledge at all on
the god question.')
3) Huxley was aware of the difference, and therefore his definition was
pure 'equivocation.'
Thus Huxley, and presumably all other atheists, are exposed as secretly
in agreement with the author's straw definition, and proveably
'equivoating' if and when they try to deny it. Not only is their real
'position' both groundless and 'contradictory,' a logical mess that no
one, even them, could take eriously; they know all that, and have to
resort to 'equivocating' about what they believe.
By this point, the author has pretty much finished off his straw man;
it would be unseemly to stay to watch its final death-throes.
snip
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 09:53:00 AM

Colin Day wrote:

George Dance wrote:

Colin Day wrote:

Bob wrote:

On 3 Dec 2005 03:12:43 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

Bob et al reject the idea of infinite causal chains, and therefore opt
for a belief in uncaused and therefore non-contingent things (even if
only one).

I reject the notion of "infinity" in metaphysics.

snip

In some instances you can use the notion of "unbounded" which has
nothing to do with "infinity". Thus a time a computer program can run
is unbounded if there is no Halt instruction present. But no program
can run for an infinite amount of time in the real objective world.

So what? how does this refute George Dance's claims? Also, you could
have an infinite causal sequence occur in a finite time.
Colin Day aa #1500

Only if every cause-effect step in the sequence required no time at
all. If only one step in a million say needed a time greater than zero
in which to occur, there would not be enough time for an infinite
number of steps to happen.

Have you forgotten your Zeno? What if each step required only half the time
of the next step?

As I read Zeno (and as others interpret him), he's saying the same
thing as I am: that precisely because such a series consists of an
infinite number of finite nonzero steps, it is impossible for it to
happen in a finite time. Here's a good link:
"And now there is a problem, for this description of her run has her
travelling an infinite number of finite distances, which, Zeno would
have us conclude, must take an infinite time, which is to say it is
never completed. And since the argument does not depend on the distance
or who or what the mover is, it follows that no finite distance can
ever be traveled, which is to say that all motion is impossible. (Note
that the paradox could easily be generated in the other direction so
that Atalanta must first run half way, then half the remaining way,
then half of that and so on, so that she must run the following endless
sequence of fractions of the total distance: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ....)"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/
Which doesn't mean that I agree with Zeno's (apparent) conclusion that
motion is impossible (nor would it be fair to say that he did). It's
more likely that he's using RAA here to reject a premise.
The premise I'd reject here is that Atalanta's run (or any other series
of events in space-time) is in fact an infinite series, and conclude
from that that (1) infinite series don't exist in space-time [ie, in
the space-time continuum which includes everything we experience, IOW
in 'our universe'] at all. So I'd also reject infinity but not 'in
metaphysics' as Bob does, just 'in physics'.
However, (1) has to be consistent with my other conclusion:
:
(2)

So I'm afraid that, by accepting the idea of infinite causation, I have
to accept that of infinite time as well. Not something I want to do -
remember the agnostic principle I'm working on - but there doesn't seem
any way around it; as the only possible alternatives appear to be: a
necessary existent (whether Bob's "Supreme Being" or your "Universe")
that has exists without beginning or end, or: an endless series of
contingent (ie, non-necessary) existents succeeding each other, again
with no beginning and no end.

If (as per 1) there's no infinite series contained in space-time and
(as per 2) there's no space-time without at least one infinite series,
and (as by our perceptions) there is space-time, it follows that there
is at least one infinite series, and that it's not contained in
space-time.

Colin Day aa #1500

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 03:24:04 PM

George Dance wrote:

I would reject his conclusion, but implicit in his argument

"And now there is a problem, for this description of her run has her
travelling an infinite number of finite distances, which, Zeno would
have us conclude, must take an infinite time, which is to say it is
never completed. And since the argument does not depend on the distance
or who or what the mover is, it follows that no finite distance can
ever be traveled, which is to say that all motion is impossible. (Note
that the paradox could easily be generated in the other direction so
that Atalanta must first run half way, then half the remaining way,
then half of that and so on, so that she must run the following endless
sequence of fractions of the total distance: 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 ....)"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/

But the time she takes to run the 1/4 is half the time she takes to run the
1/2, and the time she takes to runs the 1/8 is half the time she take to
run
the 1/4 and so on.
Let's say she is 16 miles away from her goal, and she runs 16 miles per
hour.
After 30 minutes, she has run 8 miles, after 45 minutes, she has run 12
miles,
after 52.5 minutes, she has run 14 miles, and so on. After an hour, she
will be
at her goal.
The issue that Zeno overlooks is that the times as well as the distances
have
a finite upper bound.

Which doesn't mean that I agree with Zeno's (apparent) conclusion that
motion is impossible (nor would it be fair to say that he did). It's
more likely that he's using RAA here to reject a premise.

The premise I'd reject here is that Atalanta's run (or any other series
of events in space-time) is in fact an infinite series, and conclude
from that that (1) infinite series don't exist in space-time [ie, in
the space-time continuum which includes everything we experience, IOW
in 'our universe'] at all. So I'd also reject infinity but not 'in
metaphysics' as Bob does, just 'in physics'.

I would reject his conclusion, but for a different reason.
Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "George Dance"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	09 Dec 2005 05:51:04 AM

Colin Day wrote:

George Dance wrote:

I would reject his conclusion, but implicit in his argument

But the time she takes to run the 1/4 is half the time she takes to run the
1/2, and the time she takes to runs the 1/8 is half the time she take to
run
the 1/4 and so on.

Let's say she is 16 miles away from her goal, and she runs 16 miles per
hour.
After 30 minutes, she has run 8 miles, after 45 minutes, she has run 12
miles,
after 52.5 minutes, she has run 14 miles, and so on. After an hour, she
will be at her goal.

Up to her last step, she crosses only a finite number of distances.
With her last step at the finish line, she doesn't run across the
remaining infinite number remaining, but merely steps on them; her heel
is still an infinite number of them away from the finish, while her
toes have done the mathematically impossible and gone past the finish.

The issue that Zeno overlooks is that the times as well as the distances
have
a finite upper bound.

It's hard to tell, since Zeno's books apparently no longer exist; but
that appears to be his very point - that there is a 'finite upper
bound' on both the 'number of distances' and the times involved (and
hence not an infinite number of them).

I would reject his conclusion, but for a different reason.

That being? Not that there's a finite upper bond to the number of
distances and times, surely; as that looks like the same reason.
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 10:50:36 AM

On 5 Dec 2005 07:53:00 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

I'd also reject infinity but not 'in
metaphysics' as Bob does, just 'in physics'.

I reject it in the real objective world, which both physics and
metaphysics deal with.

I also reject space-time as a static entity containing everything that
has or will happen as points.
The time when a particular radioactive atom decays is not decided
until it happens. That does not mean the entire process of radioactive
decay is nondeterministic. It means that the time of decay is not
computable because there is no algorithm to compute it. It means that
every fluctuation in the Vacuum, even the ones in the vicinity of the
distant stars, contributes to the decay.
In fact there is no reason to rule out the possibility that Heitler's
version of radioactive decay is caused by Vacuum fluctuation from the
entire Universe. We know QM is a nonlocal theory, so why not have the
Universe participate in quantum processes?
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 11:12:57 AM

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:50:36 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 07:53:00 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

I'd also reject infinity but not 'in
metaphysics' as Bob does, just 'in physics'.

I reject it in the real objective world, which both physics and
metaphysics deal with.

Bwaaaaaaahahahaha..... Physics does. Metaphysics doesn't - it's an
excuse to avoid reality.
.

User: "Seeker"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 02:22:29 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:50:36 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 07:53:00 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

I'd also reject infinity but not 'in
metaphysics' as Bob does, just 'in physics'.

I reject it in the real objective world, which both physics and
metaphysics deal with.

Bwaaaaaaahahahaha..... Physics does. Metaphysics doesn't - it's an
excuse to avoid reality.

metaphysics:
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the
relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and
value. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Metaphysics
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 02:45:19 PM

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

metaphysics: Branch of philosophy concerned with providing a
comprehensive account of the most general features of reality as a
whole; the study of Being as such. Questions about the existence and
nature of minds, bodies, god, space, time, causality, unity, identity,
and the world are all metaphysical issues.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 03:28:16 PM

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 05:35:08 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

It's results may or may not be worthless - but it is a mistake to say
that asking questions and thinking about them is worthless.
We have to do something with these brains - apart from thinking about
food, sex and who should win on Survivor.
Mark.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 06:33:22 PM

On 5 Dec 2005 15:35:08 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

Mark.

User: "Seeker"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 07:06:21 PM

"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote

On 5 Dec 2005 15:35:08 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

metaphysics:
The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality,
including the
relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact
and
value. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Metaphysics

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

If reality is what we perceive, how can a dozen people witness the same
event, object, idea or phenomenon and give a dozen different reports of what
occurred? Eye-witness accounts are infamous for their unreliability. So what
is the relationship between reality (what *is*) and what we believe it to
be? What is subjectivity? How can we account for it? If we knew this we
could discover the truth about a lot of things.
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	06 Dec 2005 08:35:23 AM

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:06:21 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

There is a continual battle between the epistemological and the
ontological. Until this battle subsides we are going to be confused.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: "Seeker"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	06 Dec 2005 03:27:38 PM

"Bob" <spam@uce.gov> wrote

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:06:21 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

If reality is what we perceive, how can a dozen people witness the same
event, object, idea or phenomenon and give a dozen different reports of
what
occurred? Eye-witness accounts are infamous for their unreliability. So
what
is the relationship between reality (what *is*) and what we believe it to
be? What is subjectivity? How can we account for it? If we knew this we
could discover the truth about a lot of things.

There is a continual battle between the epistemological and the
ontological. Until this battle subsides we are going to be confused.

Is subjectivity a topic of ontology? I would have guessed that the answer to
the dilemma had to do with limitations, biases and preconceptions in the
minds of observers.
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	06 Dec 2005 03:56:45 PM

On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 13:27:38 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

There is a continual battle between the epistemological and the
ontological. Until this battle subsides we are going to be confused.

Is subjectivity a topic of ontology?

Define subjectivity.
Awareness of self would seem to be a topic of ontology because it is
real. It's reality derives from the fact that it is an result of brain
activity.

I would have guessed that the answer to
the dilemma had to do with limitations, biases and preconceptions in the
minds of observers.

That's not a very nice way to describe someone's Worldview. It sounds
pompous, like everyone's Worldview but yours is defective for the
reasons stated.
In order to engage in a study of a topic that uses a formal rational
system of deliberation, whether deductive or inductive, one must
decide what the axioms are. You cannot build a formal system without
certain assumptions. The propositions that you prove true in the
formal system are based on the axioms - they are "rearrangements" of
the truths built into the axioms. These axioms constitute the
Worldview proper.
That's why there is no absolute truth except your knowledge of your
own existence. Everything else requires a Worldview upon which to
build the truths you derive - and those truths are dependant on the
truth of the axioms contained in the Worldview you adopt.
Ultimately we embrace one set of axioms over another because they are
intuitively obvious. For example, most people accept the existence of
the real objective world because they trust their senses to report the
things that happen in that world. Most people accept the principles of
consistency and causality, although they do not understand the finer
points about any of these axioms. Fortunately we have common sense,
logic and physics to provide additional justification for adopting
those axioms when we do metaphysics. That is, the truths we obtain in
metaphysics are justified because the axioms are justified. But that
does not mean that metaphysical truth or any other kind of truth other
than self awareness is absolute. It's all a house of cards that we
accept because it seems so obvious.
It's also extremely helpful. No psychologist ever landed a man on the
Moon. All of Kant's rantings or the lunatic ravings of all of his
followers won't get you off the ground much less hit a target 250,000
miles away with such precision as the Apollo Missions. It takes
knowledge, however non-absolute, of the rules learned by studying the
real objective world to pull something like that off successfully.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 10:24:29 PM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 15:35:08 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean - sorry.
Mark.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 11:24:56 PM

On 5 Dec 2005 20:24:29 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 15:35:08 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean - sorry.

Translation: you can't show that it applies to reality.

Mark.

User: ""
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	07 Dec 2005 06:34:38 AM

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 20:24:29 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 15:35:08 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 20:45:19 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:29 -0800, "Seeker" <not@home.com> wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean - sorry.

Translation: you can't show that it applies to reality.

No. I simply dont know what "show" and "applies" means in this context.
I dont think those are coherent requests.
I can SHOW you an apple - DEMONSTRATE the mechanism of a clock.
How would I show you , for example, Epistemology?
It doesnt make any kind of sense.
Ethics:
The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral
choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.
How would you DEMONSTRATE or SHOW that ethics APPLIES to the general
nature of moral choices made by a person?
Astronomy: The study of stars, planets and other extraterrestrial
phenomenon.
How do you SHOW that astronomy APPLIES to the study of stars, planets
and extraterrestrial stuff?
Endocrinology:The study of the glands and hormones of the body and
their related disorders.
How do you SHOW that endocrinology APPLIES to the glands and hormones
of the body and their related disorders?
Etc ad infinitum.
Words simply mean what they mean because we chose them to have those
meanings.
There really isn't anything to DEMONSTRATE or SHOW as far as i can see.
If you are not interested in Metaphysics, Ethics, astronomy or
endocrinology - that's fine.
Standing on the sidelines and shouting bizzare requests at people who
*do* find it interesting that they DEMONSTRATE it to you is just
bizzare.
You learn it by doing it - by reading, talking, thinking and debating
it - not by someone SHOWING you it.
Ok?
Mark.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	07 Dec 2005 03:29:14 PM

wrote:

You could point out that (some) humans strive to gain knowledge,
but that not all such striving will be equally successful. You could
then point out that some ways of trying to cognize the world are
better than others. That's epistemology.

Ethics:
The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral
choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

Again, some ways of acting may be better than others.

How would you DEMONSTRATE or SHOW that ethics APPLIES to the general
nature of moral choices made by a person?

Astronomy: The study of stars, planets and other extraterrestrial
phenomenon.

How do you SHOW that astronomy APPLIES to the study of stars, planets
and extraterrestrial stuff?

Astronomy doesn't apply to the study of celestial objects so much as it is
the study of celestial objects. Given that there are celestial objects, we
can study them.

Endocrinology:The study of the glands and hormones of the body and
their related disorders.

How do you SHOW that endocrinology APPLIES to the glands and hormones
of the body and their related disorders?

Again, endocrinology is the study of the endocrine system. Given that people
have endocrine systems, we can study them.

Etc ad infinitum.

Words simply mean what they mean because we chose them to have those
meanings.
There really isn't anything to DEMONSTRATE or SHOW as far as i can see.

If you are not interested in Metaphysics, Ethics, astronomy or
endocrinology - that's fine.
Standing on the sidelines and shouting bizzare requests at people who
*do* find it interesting that they DEMONSTRATE it to you is just
bizzare.
You learn it by doing it - by reading, talking, thinking and debating
it - not by someone SHOWING you it.

But Christopher Lee might ask if there is any "it" to metaphysics at
all. What are
the objects of metaphysics? What can we learn about objects metaphysically
that we cannot learn in another way?
I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

Ok?

Mark.

Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	07 Dec 2005 08:41:47 PM

Colin Day wrote:

m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:

Correct.

Ethics:
The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral
choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

Again, some ways of acting may be better than others.

Yeah.

Astronomy doesn't apply to the study of celestial objects so much as it is
the study of celestial objects. Given that there are celestial objects, we
can study them.

That's correct.
..

Again, endocrinology is the study of the endocrine system. Given that people
have endocrine systems, we can study them.

Yep.

But Christopher Lee might ask if there is any "it" to metaphysics at
all. What are
the objects of metaphysics?

Space, time, matter, information.
Anything you consider real.

What can we learn about objects metaphysically
that we cannot learn in another way?

Don't know.

I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

You can have a differnt metaphysics - yes.
Mark.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	08 Dec 2005 11:47:48 PM

wrote:

Colin Day wrote:

But Christopher Lee might ask if there is any "it" to metaphysics at
all. What are
the objects of metaphysics?

Space, time, matter, information.
Anything you consider real.

But what do we know of space and time that is neither
mathematical nor physical?

What can we learn about objects metaphysically
that we cannot learn in another way?

Don't know.

And that is part of Christopher Lee's objection.

I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

You can have a differnt metaphysics - yes.

Mark.

Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	07 Dec 2005 07:20:38 PM

Colin Day wrote:

m.richardson@utas.edu.au wrote:

Correct.

Ethics:
The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral
choices to be made by a person; moral philosophy.

Again, some ways of acting may be better than others.

Yeah.

Astronomy doesn't apply to the study of celestial objects so much as it is
the study of celestial objects. Given that there are celestial objects, we
can study them.

That's correct.
..

Again, endocrinology is the study of the endocrine system. Given that people
have endocrine systems, we can study them.

Yep.

But Christopher Lee might ask if there is any "it" to metaphysics at
all. What are
the objects of metaphysics?

Space, time, matter, information.
Anything you consider real.
For there to be no "it" means that to you nothing is real.

What can we learn about objects metaphysically
that we cannot learn in another way?

Don't know.

I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

You can have a different metaphysics - yes.
Mark.
.

User: "Colin Day"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	09 Dec 2005 08:29:48 PM

wrote:

Colin Day wrote:

But Christopher Lee might ask if there is any "it" to metaphysics at
all. What are
the objects of metaphysics?

Space, time, matter, information.
Anything you consider real.
For there to be no "it" means that to you nothing is real.

But what do we know of space and time that is neither physical nor
mathematical?

What can we learn about objects metaphysically
that we cannot learn in another way?

Don't know.

I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

You can have a different metaphysics - yes.

Mark.

Colin Day aa #1500
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	08 Dec 2005 07:58:11 AM

On 7 Dec 2005 17:20:38 -0800,

wrote:

I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

You can have a different metaphysics - yes.

There is only one true metaphysics - the study of Being. That requires
that you adopt the Worldview of Realism because otherwise you will not
accept the existence of the real objective world, in which case you
cannot study Being.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	08 Dec 2005 08:17:27 AM

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:58:11 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On 7 Dec 2005 17:20:38 -0800,

wrote:

I am willing to admit that metaphysics is possible, but Bob isn't going to
convince the doubters with his posts.

You can have a different metaphysics - yes.

More meaningless gobbledygook - and he has the gall to accuse others
of trolling in their own newsgroups.
Nobody "adopts the Worldview of Realism". They just observe what
happens.
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	07 Dec 2005 07:37:44 AM

On 7 Dec 2005 04:34:38 -0800,

wrote:

And it's worthless until you demonstrate that it actually applies to
reality.

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean - sorry.

Translation: you can't show that it applies to reality.

No. I simply dont know what "show" and "applies" means in this context.

Yes you do. Stop playing undergraduate philosophy games.
Demonstrate that metaphisics has any connection with reality.
Instead of digressing about astronomy, endocriology etc.
It should be easy

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	06 Dec 2005 08:36:14 AM

On 5 Dec 2005 20:24:29 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean - sorry.

This retard is just another troll. Ignore him - everyone else does.
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: "Christopher A. Lee"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	06 Dec 2005 09:56:01 AM

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:36:14 GMT,

(Bob) wrote:

On 5 Dec 2005 20:24:29 -0800,

wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

So demonstrate that it applies to reality. Eg too many people ask a
metaphysical why before showing that there actually is one.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean - sorry.

Then you're an idiot.
Because you haven't yet shown that your ivory tower metaphysics
applies outside your abstract philosophy.

This retard is just another troll. Ignore him - everyone else does.

Hardly, liar.
Check your headers - you're cross-posting outside your philosophy
community to places where your mataphysics are worthless.
You haven't yet demonstrated that they apply in the real world.
Until you do that it's just so much mental masturbation.
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	05 Dec 2005 09:22:11 AM

On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:20:41 GMT, Colin Day <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote:

Have you forgotten your Zeno? What if each step required only half the time
of the next step?

So what?
--
"One must realize that the world is a network of real and virtual
combat zones where the stakes are high, struggle is the primary
mode of being and only total victory is acceptable.
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War"
.

User: "Bob"
Title: Re: Agnostic-bashing (I): "The agnostic fallacy"	04 Dec 2005 09:46:21 AM

On 4 Dec 2005 05:11:02 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:

Do you belive that sets are conceptual?
Not our awareness of them, mind you, but the sets themselves.

It can be argued (and I've certainly argued) that some finite sets or
collections exist objectively.

Which is it? Sets or collections? The objects to which you refer are
not mathematical sets. They are collections.

I didn't simply imagine or conceptualize the five fingers on my right hand, for instance.

You count your fingers because they possess the property of quantity.
But they are not mathematical numbe