| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Joseph H" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 04:27:16 PM |
| Object: |
The Lineaments of Existence |
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see how energy could have emerged: emerged from what?
It begets matter. I don't know how. The E=MC thing always seems too
pat. Can the creation of matter really be that precise?
On at least one occasion matter spools out to produce the thing we call
universe. Over time this matter condenses or coalesces into planets
etc.
On at least one such planet a replicating entity emerges,needing
sustenance to continue replicating. What is sustenance? Why should
something be designated a food? Is "food" just something that provides
energy to a replicating entity?
Countless replicating entities down the ages honed survival strategies.
Such patterns of behaviour were an intrinsic element of the
replication. Amazing stuff.
Knowledge, so called, didn't arise. Some perception arose over time. I
wouldn't dare surmise what creatures knew - or know.
Eventually a creature emerged who could know the lineaments of
existence. But knowledge first had to overcome error. Sanctified error
dominated perception. Such error was unavoidable - but led to tragedy
and gross inefficiency and the destruction of countless human beings
who glimpsed a truth.
Excuses could be made for error up to the present day. And the cost of
error wasn't too high - if one discounted the destruction and
corruption of millions. But now the species stands or falls as a unity.
The cost of error could be horrific. Global error threatens us all. We
know our situation. We must be allowed use that knowledge. We must not
pander to past erroreous views of existence. We must not indulge
deeply-held nonsense. Life is valuable and preciuous and meaningful
enough not to need to seek meaning elsewhere. The human being has the
capacity to know all the foregoing lineaments of existence and to endow
them with as much meaning and value as we could ever require. we are on
the brink of such an age. We have carved out fundamental freedoms
worldwide. Now indifference on the one hand and an obsession with self
on the other - all allied to greed on a global scale - allows reactive
and regressive forces to hinder our advance. We must fight such forces.
But we must fight them not with some empty formula for freedom or
democracy but with a vast committment to a better life for human
beings.
Joseph H
www.humanisation.org
.
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Oct 2005 07:39:04 PM |
|
|
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1130448435.996100.307070
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
"Deep within the heart of every evangelist lies the wreck of a car
salesman."
-- H.L. Mencken
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 10:01:59 AM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1130448435.996100.307070
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 12:43:33 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I
like the phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true. ----------------
2. X is false.
Not really:
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. [Fortean Times
Number 82.]
See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.
--
Dave
.....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 03:45:41 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I
like the phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true. ----------------
2. X is false.
Not really:
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. [Fortean Times
Number 82.]
See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.
--
Dave
....If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987.
Hi Girls, any chance we might apply some of this vaunted logic to the
real world...er, if that's allowed...?
For example: I happen to be involved in the promotion of a Contention,
a Proposition and Theory. I will list them very briefly.
Contention: Our increasingly global age needs a global theory of human
emergence if it to avoid massive disruption in the years ahead.
Proposition: Western Values, so called, are not sufficiently global to
play such a role.
Theory: A close reading of human history permits us the hope that our
fraught colonisation of the planet will eventually - and quite soon -
issue forth in an intelligent global society (which I term
Humanisation).
Now, frankly, nobody has any interest in the above. Let me now ask some
questions:
Is this because
(a) It's all nonsense anyway?
(b) One or other of the threesome - the Contention, say - might have
some value, but only as a platitude, while the remainder are nonsense?
(c) All of the threesome are true, or largely true, but I have
singularly failed to "get them across" to people?
(d) All of the threesome are true but most human beings lack the
capacity - the perspective and the vision - to see them?
(e) All of the threesome are true but the people who inhabit these
Groups have no interest in such general speculation and prefer instead
to tease out fine matters of logic or theory?
(f) Some of the threesome might have some worth but is largely
irrelevant to most people living their quiet lives?
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 05:43:56 AM |
|
|
Joseph H wrote:
David V. wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Hi Girls, any chance we might apply some of this vaunted logic to the
real world...er, if that's allowed...?
Sure, honey. That's what logic is for: it's a tool or method for
reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.
For example: I happen to be involved in the promotion of a Contention,
a Proposition and Theory. I will list them very briefly.
Contention: Our increasingly global age needs a global theory of human
emergence if it to avoid massive disruption in the years ahead.
Agreed. 'Need' may be a bit over-dramatic; there have always been
those warning us about our imminent doom; and while those warnings
cannot be discounted, there's no reason to buy into that scenario
completely. OTOH, I think there are lot of positive reasons to propose
universal belief and value systems.
Proposition: Western Values, so called, are not sufficiently
global to play such a role.
Agreed; Western values like liberalism were only a first step; though
it's easy, from our perspective, to underplay the importance of such a
step. Someone who today reads, for example, Herbert Spencer saying
things like, "The people of inferior races have the same rights as
those of the superior race" may fail to appreciate just how advanced
such a statement was, by any existing value system, for the time.
Theory: A close reading of human history permits us the hope that our
fraught colonisation of the planet will eventually - and quite soon -
issue forth in an intelligent global society (which I term
Humanisation).
There are many reasons for optimism. For one thing, more people than
ever before - and not just an academic elite, but the common herd using
forums like this - are now applying their intelligence to that that
very issue, in a way that would have been inconceivable 100 years ago.
Now, frankly, nobody has any interest in the above. Let me now ask some
questions:
Is this because
(a) It's all nonsense anyway?
(b) One or other of the threesome - the Contention, say - might have
some value, but only as a platitude, while the remainder are nonsense?
(c) All of the threesome are true, or largely true, but I have
singularly failed to "get them across" to people?
(d) All of the threesome are true but most human beings lack the
capacity - the perspective and the vision - to see them?
(e) All of the threesome are true but the people who inhabit these
Groups have no interest in such general speculation and prefer instead
to tease out fine matters of logic or theory?
(f) Some of the threesome might have some worth but is largely
irrelevant to most people living their quiet lives?
I'd suggest that most people simply missed your message, which I'd
explain by:
(g) Your message was not suited to your medium: while you posted to
an 'atheism' list, you began your article by raising the same
objections to scientific truth that a theist (perhaps one pushing ID)
would have raised; as a result of which your article pushed the
'theist' hot button in a lot of readers, and they simply stopped
reading before they got to your message.
That's something that can be repaired, though; you can simply rewrite
your original article with a new intro, repost as a new thread, and
reach your audience that way. My suggestion, based on my knowledge of
those who post here (and logic 8), is that you start with the following
two points:
1) An explanation for why, in spite of all its faults, religion is more
popular than ever: because it satisfies a human desire for 'order' (ie,
for a common value/belief system).
2) An explanation of why religion has failed, as a mechanism of
building a common value/belief system; and, given our global and
pluralistic society, why religion must fail.
3) An explanation of why Humanism can succeed in that role.
And then go on from there. I think you'll receive a much more
appreciative hearing if you go that route.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 09:39:53 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Joseph H wrote:
David V. wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Hi Girls, any chance we might apply some of this vaunted logic to the
real world...er, if that's allowed...?
Sure, honey. That's what logic is for: it's a tool or method for
reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks, sugar, but all too often you logicians prefer the fine cut and
thrust of this or that syllogisism to the ungainly reality of life
itself.
For example: I happen to be involved in the promotion of a Contention,
a Proposition and Theory. I will list them very briefly.
Contention: Our increasingly global age needs a global theory of human
emergence if it to avoid massive disruption in the years ahead.
Agreed. 'Need' may be a bit over-dramatic; there have always been
those warning us about our imminent doom; and while those warnings
cannot be discounted, there's no reason to buy into that scenario
completely. OTOH, I think there are lot of positive reasons to propose
universal belief and value systems.
I wasn't talking about doom. I was talking about "massive disruption".
If global warming and fuel shortages take hold they will surely cause
disruption. My fear is that nations will be tempted to look after their
own interests only - which could be disastrous for all of us.
Proposition: Western Values, so called, are not sufficiently
global to play such a role.
Agreed; Western values like liberalism were only a first step; though
it's easy, from our perspective, to underplay the importance of such a
step. Someone who today reads, for example, Herbert Spencer saying
things like, "The people of inferior races have the same rights as
those of the superior race" may fail to appreciate just how advanced
such a statement was, by any existing value system, for the time.
Theory: A close reading of human history permits us the hope that our
fraught colonisation of the planet will eventually - and quite soon -
issue forth in an intelligent global society (which I term
Humanisation).
There are many reasons for optimism. For one thing, more people than
ever before - and not just an academic elite, but the common herd using
forums like this - are now applying their intelligence to that that
very issue, in a way that would have been inconceivable 100 years ago.
Now, frankly, nobody has any interest in the above. Let me now ask some
questions:
Is this because
(a) It's all nonsense anyway?
(b) One or other of the threesome - the Contention, say - might have
some value, but only as a platitude, while the remainder are nonsense?
(c) All of the threesome are true, or largely true, but I have
singularly failed to "get them across" to people?
(d) All of the threesome are true but most human beings lack the
capacity - the perspective and the vision - to see them?
(e) All of the threesome are true but the people who inhabit these
Groups have no interest in such general speculation and prefer instead
to tease out fine matters of logic or theory?
(f) Some of the threesome might have some worth but is largely
irrelevant to most people living their quiet lives?
I'd suggest that most people simply missed your message, which I'd
explain by:
(g) Your message was not suited to your medium: while you posted to
an 'atheism' list, you began your article by raising the same
objections to scientific truth that a theist (perhaps one pushing ID)
would have raised; as a result of which your article pushed the
'theist' hot button in a lot of readers, and they simply stopped
reading before they got to your message.
Hmmm...this posting is currently on no less than 5 lists. alt and
talk.atheism, alt.philosophy, talk.philosophy.humanism and
talk.origins.
Secondly, I challenged no scientific truth. I tried to "get underneath
or come to some personal understanding of how things happened. If
that's "challenging" then science has become as much an unquestioned
orthodoxy as other vaunted orthodoxies.
That's something that can be repaired, though; you can simply rewrite
your original article with a new intro, repost as a new thread, and
reach your audience that way. My suggestion, based on my knowledge of
those who post here (and logic 8), is that you start with the following
two points:
1) An explanation for why, in spite of all its faults, religion is more
popular than ever: because it satisfies a human desire for 'order' (ie,
for a common value/belief system).
Religion is definitely NOT more popular than ever. In fact, it is less
popular than ever. The numbers "attending services" are down massively
across the globe - except maybe in the "Heartland". But what is
happening is that these smaller numbers are more vocal than ever -
simply because most of us are too busily enjoying the pleasures of our
empoowered lives. This is another reason why I propose a new vision of
human possibility.In the absence of such a vision the forces of
retrenchment are the only voices we hear.
2) An explanation of why religion has failed, as a mechanism of
building a common value/belief system; and, given our global and
pluralistic society, why religion must fail.
I think such an explanation has been up and about since about 1753 in
Paris.
3) An explanation of why Humanism can succeed in that role.
Hmmm. I don't actually consider myself a humanist - even though what
I'm saying is very close to what humanists say. I really don't want to
be any "ist".
And then go on from there. I think you'll receive a much more
appreciative hearing if you go that route.
Thanks for the trouble you took. I shall think about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 05:13:14 AM |
|
|
David V. wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I
like the phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true. ----------------
2. X is false.
Not really:
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.
[The phrase after 'equivalently' says the same thing as I did.]
(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.)
I wish people wouldn't keep bringing in that analogy, as it's actually
based on a different principle: justice. The reason for the
presumption of innocence is because (1) it is unjust to not punish
someone who is guilty, while (2) it is unjust to punish someone who is
really innocent; hence the only just course is to assume innocence
until the latter possibility is eliminated through trial. It's a
formal legal 'presumption,' and does not translate into an assumption,
on anyone's part, that the defendent is innocent of all charges; an
alleged murderer, for example, is guarded throughout his trial just the
way a real murderer would be.
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
Here's the first form of the fallacy: "No proof B is false // B is
true."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not
exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."
And here is the second: "No proof T is real; T is not real."
It's the same fallacy, whether going from negative to positive, or from
positive to negative.
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.
Indeed, and that is a most important point. Showing that an argument
is invalid is not the end of a discussion, but only a beginning; as
it's the easiest thing in the world to repair an invalid argument, ie
to turn it into a valid one, by adding additional premises; as I did in
my 'unicorn' example, and as a scientist does when working out, and
then checking for, observable consequences of the alleged event.
Too many people get hung up on discussions of 'validity' and
'invalidity', treating the laws of logic as some kind of commandments
set in stone rather than what they really are - linguistic rules meant
to enhance clear thinking and communication.
It does not prove it with certainty, however.
Agreed; as in Lord Kelvin's notorious proof (based on its interior
temperature) that the earth could not have existed long enough for
evolution to have occurred. As Kelvin and everyone else had no way of
knowing about radioactivity, his proof was valid enough; but as it
turned out that earth is radioactive (which fully explains the
discrepancy between how warm the earth should be, given Kelvin's
theory, and its actual temperature), his proof turned out to be quite
wrong.
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. [Fortean Times
Number 82.]
Good examples, which highlight the difference between scientific and
religious 'truth' - the truths of science are always provisional, as
science can be wrong. I find it ironic how many theists pounce on
examples like those to try to discredit science, when all it shows is
exactly why scientific conclusions are more reliable than religious
'truths': because scientific 'truths' can be, and repeatedly, tested
and the false ones rejected, while there is no method for eliminating
the false 'truths' of religion.
See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.
You can, but I'm not going there. Can you spell S-E-P-T-I-C? 8)
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Nov 2005 09:54:08 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism George Dance <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
David V. wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I
like the phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true. ----------------
2. X is false.
Not really:
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.
[The phrase after 'equivalently' says the same thing as I did.]
(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.)
I wish people wouldn't keep bringing in that analogy, as it's actually
based on a different principle: justice. The reason for the
presumption of innocence is because (1) it is unjust to not punish
someone who is guilty, while (2) it is unjust to punish someone who is
really innocent; hence the only just course is to assume innocence
until the latter possibility is eliminated through trial. It's a
formal legal 'presumption,' and does not translate into an assumption,
on anyone's part, that the defendent is innocent of all charges; an
alleged murderer, for example, is guarded throughout his trial just the
way a real murderer would be.
It's not really based on a different principle. If there's no evidence at
all for a person's guilt, we don't even pay them any attention, much less
arrest them (in theory.) If there's SOME evidence, we then may do an
indictment or even start the trial. Then we look at the totality of evidence
and see if it tilts us over a given point or not so that we may find the
person guilty.
We do the same for anything we do. When there's no evidence at all for a
planet X, we don't even think about it. But if we start seeing some weird
movements of Pluto, we then start checking it out (i.e. arrest the
defendant.) We then look at the over-all amount of evidence and if it's
sufficient, we then say "Planet X exists" (or "Guilty as charged.") Or maybe
the evidence doesn't quite pan out. Then we may quit looking so hard for
this planet/dismiss the charges against the person but retain the right to
re-open the investigation at some later point if/when more evidence comes
in.
The only real difference is that if we go beyond a given point and then
decide there's not enough evidence or that it's not well-supported, we don't
re-try the person's guilt even if more evidence comes in later on
(double-jeopardy) but we DO "re-try" the case for Planet X's existence.
Basically we have to have a "working position" with regard to any given
proposal. We can act as if P is true or as if it was false. In the legal
cases, we act as if P (P=guilty) was false unless/until some evidence came
along to show otherwise. Then we'd act as if P was true with some provisions
(we do allow for bail, etc.) until the trial at which time we either
conclude that P is true or we conclude that the evidence wasn't sufficient
and we go back to acting like P is false. In the case of planet X, we start
by acting as if it doesn't exist at all, then acting like it's true and
looking for more evidence and then may conclude that there wasn't really any
evidence after all and go back to acting like P is not true (cold fusion,
anyone? It was never proven that it can't happen but we pretty well act like
it can't) or finally decide there really is a tenth planet out there.
Here are a couple of examples:
"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
Here's the first form of the fallacy: "No proof B is false // B is
true."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not
exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."
And here is the second: "No proof T is real; T is not real."
It's the same fallacy, whether going from negative to positive, or from
positive to negative.
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.
Indeed, and that is a most important point. Showing that an argument
is invalid is not the end of a discussion, but only a beginning; as
it's the easiest thing in the world to repair an invalid argument, ie
to turn it into a valid one, by adding additional premises; as I did in
my 'unicorn' example, and as a scientist does when working out, and
then checking for, observable consequences of the alleged event.
But then it's not the same simple argument when you start adding in more
premises. An argument from ignorance can be stated as a single premise and
the conclusion but a proper argument would use at least 2 premises.
--
Mike
atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 01:54:38 PM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1130448435.996100.307070
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
That is a dishonest inversion of the argument from ignorance.
What you meant to say is that that the argument from ignorance is: you
can't prove it false therefore it's true.
What you pretended was the argument from ignorance is (2) is a
falsifiable working position derived from (1).
Note the words "falsifiable" and "working".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 02:06:45 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in
news:h5h7m1dpcoli52fu99qq9paic6poihomvf@4ax.com:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
That is a dishonest inversion of the argument from ignorance.
What you meant to say is that that the argument from ignorance is: you
can't prove it false therefore it's true.
What you pretended was the argument from ignorance is (2) is a
falsifiable working position derived from (1).
Note the words "falsifiable" and "working".
An argument from ignorance is any argument that begins with "We don't
know" or "I can't see how" and the proceeds to draw a conlusion based on
this ignorance.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
-- lapel button
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 02:29:33 PM |
|
|
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
An argument from ignorance is any argument that begins with "We don't
know" or "I can't see how" and the proceeds to draw a conlusion based on
this ignorance.
Depends on the conclusion. This is a perfectly valid argument:
1. I don't know whether it will rain or not.
2. If it rains, I'll want to have my umbrella.
--------------------
3. I'd better take my umbrella with me.
That's certainly not an "argument from ignorance". (If it were,
everyone who made a will (or bought life insurance) would be similarly
guilty of "argument from ignorance".) At least, though, it's an
argument; unlike what you quoted, which was not even that (as it didn't
even have a conclusion).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu the Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 05:29:52 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in
news:1130614173.625529.101160@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04
@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in
news:1130448435.996100.307070 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like
the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
An argument from ignorance is any argument that begins with "We don't
know" or "I can't see how" and the proceeds to draw a conlusion based
on
this ignorance.
Depends on the conclusion. This is a perfectly valid argument:
1. I don't know whether it will rain or not.
2. If it rains, I'll want to have my umbrella.
--------------------
3. I'd better take my umbrella with me.
That's certainly not an "argument from ignorance". (If it were,
everyone who made a will (or bought life insurance) would be similarly
guilty of "argument from ignorance".) At least, though, it's an
argument; unlike what you quoted, which was not even that (as it didn't
even have a conclusion).
It's an argument in the sense that choosing toast or biscuits with your
breakfast is an argument.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
-- lapel button
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 02:14:10 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1130448435.996100.307070
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
That is a dishonest inversion of the argument from ignorance.
What you meant to say is that that the argument from ignorance is: you
can't prove it false therefore it's true.
Works either way; there's no special status in logic for propositions
depending on whether they're affirmations or denials.
What you pretended was the argument from ignorance is (2) is a
falsifiable working position derived from (1).
Oh, really? So you're saying that I can conclude that there are no
kangaroos, just from the fact that I have no good evidence of there
being any; and that would not be a fallacious conclusion? Interesting
use of logic there.
Note the words "falsifiable" and "working".
Noted. They indicate that you're no more comfortable with your
conclusion than I am.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 02:22:30 PM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2005 12:14:10 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1130448435.996100.307070
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
That is a dishonest inversion of the argument from ignorance.
What you meant to say is that that the argument from ignorance is: you
can't prove it false therefore it's true.
Works either way; there's no special status in logic for propositions
depending on whether they're affirmations or denials.
What you pretended was the argument from ignorance is (2) is a
falsifiable working position derived from (1).
Oh, really? So you're saying that I can conclude that there are no
kangaroos, just from the fact that I have no good evidence of there
being any; and that would not be a fallacious conclusion? Interesting
use of logic there.
Can't you read, moron? What part of FALSIFIABLE and WORKING POSITION
are you pretending you didn't see?
Note the words "falsifiable" and "working".
Noted. They indicate that you're no more comfortable with your
conclusion than I am.
No, liar, that's just the methodology to sort out claims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 02:56:07 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 12:14:10 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Enkidu the Atheist wrote:
"Joseph H" <joseph@humanisation.org> wrote in news:1130448435.996100.307070
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Energy exists, Is energy eternal? I don't know - though I like the
phrase. I don't see . . . .
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
----------------
2. X is false.
That is a dishonest inversion of the argument from ignorance.
What you meant to say is that that the argument from ignorance is: you
can't prove it false therefore it's true.
Works either way; there's no special status in logic for propositions
depending on whether they're affirmations or denials.
What you pretended was the argument from ignorance is (2) is a
falsifiable working position derived from (1).
Oh, really? So you're saying that I can conclude that there are no
kangaroos, just from the fact that I have no good evidence of there
being any; and that would not be a fallacious conclusion?
Interesting use of logic there.
Can't you read, moron? What part of FALSIFIABLE and WORKING POSITION
are you pretending you didn't see?
As I told you, little liar, I did see those words. What I didn't see
(and still don't see, FTM) was any indication that labelling an
argument's conclusion FALSIFIABLE and a WORKING POSITION makes the
argument non-fallacious.
Note the words "falsifiable" and "working".
Noted. They indicate that you're no more comfortable with your
conclusion than I am.
No, liar, that's just the methodology to sort out claims.
Right now they just look like words that you've thrown in in the hopes
that your misrepresentation of the fallacy might fool someone.
Nonsense; as you're using them, they're just words that you're hiding
behind, so that your lying about logical fallacies might pass
undetected.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 02:56:30 PM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
2. X is false.
LaPlace used an argument like that to prove the sun would rise
tomorrow.
Your statement is missing the obvious distinctions of necessary and
sufficient.
--
If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 03:09:01 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 08:01:59 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
2. X is false.
LaPlace used an argument like that to prove the sun would rise
tomorrow.
No prob; an invalid or fallacious argument can certainly have a true
conclusion. Take:
1. I'm hungry.
-------------
2. 2 + 2 = 4
Your statement is missing the obvious distinctions of necessary and
sufficient.
The only way to add those distinctions, that I can see, would be to add
further conditional premises to the argument; in which case it is not
simply an argument from ignorance. For example:
1. There's no physical evidence of unicorns.
2. If there were any unicorns, there would be physical evidence of
them.
----------------
3. There are no unicorns.
is not an "argument from ignorance," but a valid argument (though
possibly unsound) because of the added premise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 03:31:24 PM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2005 13:09:01 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
2. X is false.
LaPlace used an argument like that to prove the sun would rise
tomorrow.
No prob; an invalid or fallacious argument can certainly have a true
conclusion. Take:
1. I'm hungry.
-------------
2. 2 + 2 = 4
Your statement is missing the obvious distinctions of necessary and
sufficient.
The only way to add those distinctions, that I can see, would be to add
further conditional premises to the argument; in which case it is not
simply an argument from ignorance. For example:
1. There's no physical evidence of unicorns.
2. If there were any unicorns, there would be physical evidence of
them.
----------------
3. There are no unicorns.
is not an "argument from ignorance," but a valid argument (though
possibly unsound) because of the added premise.
Let's start with your original comment above. Using that scheme I
construct the following argument:
1. There's no proof/evidence that "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is true.
2. "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is false.
All I did was to substitute X = "Lumeniferous Ether Exists".
That is how physicists proved that the Ether does not exist.
--
If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
29 Oct 2005 04:41:14 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 13:09:01 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
2. X is false.
LaPlace used an argument like that to prove the sun would rise
tomorrow.
No prob; an invalid or fallacious argument can certainly have a true
conclusion. Take:
1. I'm hungry.
-------------
2. 2 + 2 = 4
Your statement is missing the obvious distinctions of necessary and
sufficient.
The only way to add those distinctions, that I can see, would be to add
further conditional premises to the argument; in which case it is not
simply an argument from ignorance. For example:
1. There's no physical evidence of unicorns.
2. If there were any unicorns, there would be physical evidence of
them.
----------------
3. There are no unicorns.
is not an "argument from ignorance," but a valid argument (though
possibly unsound) because of the added premise.
Let's start with your original comment above. Using that scheme I
construct the following argument:
1. There's no proof/evidence that "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is true.
2. "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is false.
All I did was to substitute X = "Lumeniferous Ether Exists".
And your argument is no less invalid.
That is how physicists proved that the Ether does not exist.
And they just made up the stories about Maxwell's Equations, and the
Michaelson-Morley experiment, to fool the gullible? I'm not convinced
of that; but even if it were the case, it would show that they had some
qualms about presenting their actual 'proof' to the world.
--
If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 06:59:20 AM |
|
|
On 29 Oct 2005 14:41:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Let's start with your original comment above. Using that scheme I
construct the following argument:
1. There's no proof/evidence that "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is true.
2. "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is false.
All I did was to substitute X = "Lumeniferous Ether Exists".
And your argument is no less invalid.
The argument is perfectly valid. But I left out the necessary and
sufficient conditions which make it valid.
That is how physicists proved that the Ether does not exist.
And they just made up the stories about Maxwell's Equations, and the
Michaelson-Morley experiment, to fool the gullible? I'm not convinced
of that; but even if it were the case, it would show that they had some
qualms about presenting their actual 'proof' to the world.
You are confused. Physicists used the M-M experiment to prove that the
Ether does not exist.
Their argument goes something like this. You can render it into the
form you presented above if you include the necessary and sufficient
conditions.
If the Ether exists then we will necessarily get certain specific
results when we perform the M-M experiment.
But we do not get those results - we get totally contradictory
results.
Therefore the Ether does not exist.
--
If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
30 Oct 2005 10:01:18 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 14:41:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Let's start with your original comment above. Using that scheme I
construct the following argument:
1. There's no proof/evidence that "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is true.
2. "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is false.
All I did was to substitute X = "Lumeniferous Ether Exists".
And your argument is no less invalid.
The argument is perfectly valid. But I left out the necessary and
sufficient conditions which make it valid.
Which would have to go in, as in the example I gave earlier, as
additional premises; in which case the inference is not an *ignoratio*.
That is how physicists proved that the Ether does not exist.
And they just made up the stories about Maxwell's Equations, and the
Michaelson-Morley experiment, to fool the gullible? I'm not convinced
of that; but even if it were the case, it would show that they had some
qualms about presenting their actual 'proof' to the world.
You are confused.
No, I was being *sarcastic.* We both know that physicists did not use
argument from ignorance; rather:
Physicists used the M-M experiment to prove that the
Ether does not exist.
Exactly.
Their argument goes something like this. You can render it into the
form you presented above if you include the necessary and sufficient
conditions.
If the Ether exists then we will necessarily get certain specific
results when we perform the M-M experiment.
But we do not get those results - we get totally contradictory
results.
And that is a perfectly valid *modus tollens* argument:
1. If A, then B
2. Not-B
----------
3. Not-A
Remember, the physicists had no evidence for the ether *before* the MM
experiment either - Michelson and Morley were trying to prove its
existence - but no one concluded from that lack alone that there was no
ether (which would have been argument from ignorance); rather, they did
what it takes to collect the evidence. That's the difference between
using logic fallaciously or validly.
Therefore the Ether does not exist.
--
If you build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day. If you
set a man on fire, he will be warm for the rest of his life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Nov 2005 09:26:45 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 14:41:14 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Let's start with your original comment above. Using that scheme I
construct the following argument:
1. There's no proof/evidence that "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is true.
2. "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is false.
All I did was to substitute X = "Lumeniferous Ether Exists".
And your argument is no less invalid.
The argument is perfectly valid. But I left out the necessary and
sufficient conditions which make it valid.
That is how physicists proved that the Ether does not exist.
And they just made up the stories about Maxwell's Equations, and the
Michaelson-Morley experiment, to fool the gullible? I'm not convinced
of that; but even if it were the case, it would show that they had some
qualms about presenting their actual 'proof' to the world.
You are confused. Physicists used the M-M experiment to prove that the
Ether does not exist.
Their argument goes something like this. You can render it into the
form you presented above if you include the necessary and sufficient
conditions.
If the Ether exists then we will necessarily get certain specific
results when we perform the M-M experiment.
Premise #1.
But we do not get those results - we get totally contradictory
results.
Premise #2.
Therefore the Ether does not exist.
Conclusion.
The original argument was a single premise and a conclusion. So they are not
the same arguments.
--
Mike
atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
01 Nov 2005 09:24:48 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
On 29 Oct 2005 13:09:01 -0700, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Argument from ignorance.
No; an 'argument from ignorance' is an argument of the form:
1. There's no proof/evidence that X is true.
2. X is false.
LaPlace used an argument like that to prove the sun would rise
tomorrow.
No prob; an invalid or fallacious argument can certainly have a true
conclusion. Take:
1. I'm hungry.
-------------
2. 2 + 2 = 4
Your statement is missing the obvious distinctions of necessary and
sufficient.
The only way to add those distinctions, that I can see, would be to add
further conditional premises to the argument; in which case it is not
simply an argument from ignorance. For example:
1. There's no physical evidence of unicorns.
2. If there were any unicorns, there would be physical evidence of
them.
----------------
3. There are no unicorns.
is not an "argument from ignorance," but a valid argument (though
possibly unsound) because of the added premise.
Let's start with your original comment above. Using that scheme I
construct the following argument:
1. There's no proof/evidence that "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is true.
2. "Lumeniferous Ether Exists" is false.
All I did was to substitute X = "Lumeniferous Ether Exists".
That is how physicists proved that the Ether does not exist.
No, they proved that in order for it to exist, there'd have to be something
that's stationary to which all other movement can be compared to. They
showed that there's no such 'fixed point/thing' and thus the ether can't
exist. Your way above would be to try and say that Alpha Centarians don't
exist because there's no evidence that they do. Did Pluto not exist until
there was evidence that it did?
--
Mike
atheism: a non-prophet organization...
-------------------------------
Creation Science: an oxymoron actually created by morons...
-------------------------------
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop
thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do
we," George W. "Shrub" Bush Aug 5, 2004
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wordsmith" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
27 Oct 2005 11:04:15 PM |
|
|
Socrates always argued from ignorance. Better to be ignorant and be
aware of the ignorance than to assume you have knowledge but don't.
W : )
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
28 Oct 2005 03:25:13 AM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 21:04:15 -0700, "Wordsmith" <wordsmith@rocketmail.com>
wrote:
Socrates always argued from ignorance. Better to be ignorant and be
aware of the ignorance than to assume you have knowledge but don't.
W : )
Tell that to a fundy creationist next time you meet them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
04 Nov 2005 10:13:27 AM |
|
|
"Narrativity is part of the futility of language," says Lacan; however,
according to Scuglia, it is not so much narrativity that is part of the
futility of language, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the
rubicon, of the emergence of energy from matter and matter from energy
quantum physics. But Lyotard uses the term 'dialectic quantum physics'
to denote the common ground between energy, matter and society.
The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of
matter/energy as participant. Thus, the subject is interpolated into an
expressionism that includes art and physics as a whole.
Debord uses the term 'Baudrillardist simulacra' and 'Einsteinian
simulation' to denote not theory, but posttheory. In a sense, Reicher
states that we have to choose between materialist theory and
subcultural dialectic theory. The main theme of de Selby's model of
posttextual dematerialism is the fatal flaw of cultural sexual identity
in matter-energy exchange. But the subject is contextualised into a
Baudrillardist simulacra that includes sexuality as a reality and
matter as an illusion of energy.
-----
Dr. Theodore Mangrove
http://mangrove.scripterz.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
04 Nov 2005 07:04:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
"Narrativity is part of the futility of language," says Lacan; however,
according to Scuglia, it is not so much narrativity that is part of the
futility of language, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the
rubicon, of the emergence of energy from matter and matter from energy
quantum physics. But Lyotard uses the term 'dialectic quantum physics'
to denote the common ground between energy, matter and society.
The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of
matter/energy as participant. Thus, the subject is interpolated into an
expressionism that includes art and physics as a whole.
Debord uses the term 'Baudrillardist simulacra' and 'Einsteinian
simulation' to denote not theory, but posttheory. In a sense, Reicher
states that we have to choose between materialist theory and
subcultural dialectic theory. The main theme of de Selby's model of
posttextual dematerialism is the fatal flaw of cultural sexual identity
in matter-energy exchange. But the subject is contextualised into a
Baudrillardist simulacra that includes sexuality as a reality and
matter as an illusion of energy.
I think you might be saying something very clever there - but I don't
know what it is. Do I need to know what you are saying to be saying
something useful myself? Can I not say something true and useful
without quoting upwards of 20 authorities in one short passage? Is it
not possible to see something useful off one's bat without relying on
such authorities? Could you paraphrase just what you are saying - or is
that request a violation of what you are saying? Is it necessary to
move in this medium to say anything today? Can such a thing as an
incisive layman exist today - or is such a thing a naive fantasy? Have
these authorities pushed the boundaries of perception so far forward
that someone - e.g. me - unschooled in their dsiciplines has NO CHANCE
of being at the cutting edge of anything new today? Do these people
constitute the ramp of state-of-the-art perception or are they merely
clever guys toying with neologisms and trendy formulations?
-----
Dr. Theodore Mangrove
http://mangrove.scripterz.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
06 Nov 2005 12:02:53 AM |
|
|
"To explain poetry makes it banal. I cannot explain my poems with any
words other than those I have already written." -Pablo Neruda
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Dr. Theodore Mangrove
http://mangrove.scripterz.org/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joseph H" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
05 Nov 2005 06:37:43 AM |
|
|
wrote:
"Narrativity is part of the futility of language," says Lacan; however,
according to Scuglia, it is not so much narrativity that is part of the
futility of language, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the
rubicon, of the emergence of energy from matter and matter from energy
quantum physics. But Lyotard uses the term 'dialectic quantum physics'
to denote the common ground between energy, matter and society.
The characteristic theme of the works of Pynchon is the role of
matter/energy as participant. Thus, the subject is interpolated into an
expressionism that includes art and physics as a whole.
Debord uses the term 'Baudrillardist simulacra' and 'Einsteinian
simulation' to denote not theory, but posttheory. In a sense, Reicher
states that we have to choose between materialist theory and
subcultural dialectic theory. The main theme of de Selby's model of
posttextual dematerialism is the fatal flaw of cultural sexual identity
in matter-energy exchange. But the subject is contextualised into a
Baudrillardist simulacra that includes sexuality as a reality and
matter as an illusion of energy.
I've read this again and again. I love it. It dances around my themes -
but makes them seem somewhat leaden. I shall never dance so.
-----
Dr. Theodore Mangrove
http://mangrove.scripterz.org/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Lineaments of Existence |
06 Nov 2005 12:12:53 AM |
|
|
Your points are well taken, however Hawking states that "Energy and
matter are responsible for the status quo." In a sense, the subject is
interpolated into a cultural discourse that includes culture as a
quantum paradox.
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the concept of textual
sexuality in mass-energy interchange. Sartre's model of the
neocapitalist paradigm of expression states that the law is
fundamentally unattainable, given that consciousness is equal to
energy. Therefore, Brophy suggests that we have to choose between
capitalist materialism and textual desublimation.
If one examines the precapitalist paradigm of reality, one is faced
with a choice: either accept capitalist materialism or conclude that
context comes from the lineaments of existence. Bataille suggests the
use of subsemioticist capitalist theory to read both culture and
quantum physics. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a cultural
discourse that includes subatomic particles as a reality.
"Sexual identity is impossible without matter and energy" says
Baudrillard. The primary theme of Cameron's analysis of the
precapitalist paradigm of reality is the role of the universe as
artist. In a sense, many narratives concerning neodialectic quantum
existential theory exist, and thus your suggestion that absurdity could
be part of the futility of language is a paradox.
Dr. Frab Timov
http://timov.artshost.com/
.
|
|
|
|
|
