Basic Human Rights

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 3:46 pm The only part I agree with is that:

the only evidence there is and the only foundation there is for any and all knowledge is the fact of human consciousness and that which human beings are directly conscious of, that is, what they see, hear, feel, smell, taste and experience internally as interoception,
That's what Empiricism might be, if Empiricism were to be taken to be a comprehensive philosophy...which, in some cases, it has been. Not in mine.
That's not anyone's empiricism, as far as I know. Every version of empiricism you will find leaves out the most important essential of knowledge, "fact of human consciousness." It is never rejected outright, because it would be an obvious contradiction, but in all discussions, it's nature and significance is simply ignored.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm That is to say, if "empirically" were the ONLY way to know things, rather than merely one of various ways, then that might be a problem. But it's not.
Of course. That's one of the main reasons I reject empiricism. I clearly stated:
The only evidence there is and the only foundation there is for any and all knowledge is the fact of human consciousness and that which human beings are directly conscious of.
Conscious perception does not provide any knowledge whatsoever. Perception is nothing more than the direct apprehension (consciousness of) what exists, and it is what exists (what we perceive) that all knowledge is about. Perception alone cannot produce knowledge. Knowledge begins with the conscious identification of what is perceived by means of concepts, a rational process without, which there can be no knowledge. It is that aspect of human consciousness all varieties of empiricism ignore.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm
No.

A priori reasoning is inevitable, intuition is something we all use, and is even sometimes very telling (but it must be carefully watched), and there's no obvious reason to say revelation is implausible as well, especially if, like me, one is a Theist.
Well, I already knew you bought into all those mystical magical sources of knowledge nonsense. If one wants to believe there is something other than the reality that one is actually conscious of as the only evidence there is and all there is to know and reason about, they must assume some other kind of existence for which there is no evidence and some method other than reasoning from evidence for knowing it.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm And I'll warrant it was by induction into the traditions of science that you first learned what science was yourself -- nobody learns it by inventing it first hand...at least, not since Francis Bacon.
No science has been done by, "induction," since alchemy was superseded by chemistry, which happens to be the first science I mastered. Bacon was introduced in that usual nontechnical way in early grades as being the father of science because he insisted on the use of evidence and experiment (all good), until it became, "induction," (knowledge is determined by how often the same events or same series of events are observed together). which immediately revealed the absurdity of induction. Nothing is true as an explanation of anything just because some things are observed frequently related. Some of the greatest disasters in human history were caused by the belief in induction: "the river has never dried up before," "the volcano has never been known to errupt," "the water has always been safe to drink," "heavier than air human flight is impossible else someone would have flown by now." By the time they began teaching that induction was the method of science in school, I already knew how most of the chemical elements had been identified, which had absolutely nothing to do with induction. Neither induction or deduction leads directly to any knew knowledge. All new knowledge is discovered and verified by a process of observation and identification, that is, the rational process of concept formation.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm So there are various routes to knowledge: empiricism, sure; but also a priori, logic and reason, intuition, revelation, education, and so on.

In fact, saying that empiricism is good for some things DOES NOT imply it's the ONLY thing that's any good for anything.
Only you say that. I have no use for empiricism, as already explained, or any of the other so-called, "routes to knowledge," in your grab bag of mind warping methods, all excellent methods of putting over scams, religions, and ideologies, because they all leave out the one thing that protects against deception, the ruthless application of rigorous reason to all evidence which rejects all contradictions and all appeals to anything other than evidence anyone can examine.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:39 pm Every version of empiricism you will find leaves out the most important essential of knowledge, "fact of human consciousness." It is never rejected outright, because it would be an obvious contradiction, but in all discussions, it's nature and significance is simply ignored.
Yes, that's true. Empiricism tends to focus away from the percipient and onto the observed world. But that's not a problem, so long as we keep perspective on what empiricism can and cannot do.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm No.

A priori reasoning is inevitable, intuition is something we all use, and is even sometimes very telling (but it must be carefully watched), and there's no obvious reason to say revelation is implausible as well, especially if, like me, one is a Theist.
Well, I already knew you bought into all those mystical magical sources of knowledge nonsense.
Your rejection of revelation is merely assumptive, not evidentiary.
If one wants to believe there is something other than the reality that one is actually conscious of as the only evidence there is and all there is to know and reason about, they must assume some other kind of existence for which there is no evidence and some method other than reasoning from evidence for knowing it.
All one actually has to believe is that RC hasn't personally seen everything there is to know yet. The question "is there evidence," and "has RC seen the evidence" are quite different questions....the latter is not at all threatening to Theism. And if one has seen evidence, or has one's own evidence, then one can completely ignore skepticism on the point. It would be verifiably wrong, then.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm And I'll warrant it was by induction into the traditions of science that you first learned what science was yourself -- nobody learns it by inventing it first hand...at least, not since Francis Bacon.
No science has been done by, "induction,"...
I didn't say "induction." I said "education" or alternately "tradition." (But actually, your claim is quite wrong anyway: all science cycles through induction to arrive at conclusions.)

How did you first learn science...say, the scientific method? I'll bet bucks to bagels that you were taught it by some impressive guy in a lab coat, when you were in school. And you believed the guy in the lab coat, and only afterward found out whether what he was teaching you to do and think was right at all.

That's learning by tradition. And in the above case, it's legitimate.
I have no use for empiricism,

So you don't believe in science? Interesting.
...anything other than evidence anyone can examine.
That's empiricism. Are you sure you know what empiricism is?
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:56 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:39 pm Every version of empiricism you will find leaves out the most important essential of knowledge, "fact of human consciousness." It is never rejected outright, because it would be an obvious contradiction, but in all discussions, it's nature and significance is simply ignored.
Yes, that's true. Empiricism tends to focus away from the percipient and onto the observed world. But that's not a problem, so long as we keep perspective on what empiricism can and cannot do.
...

A priori reasoning is inevitable, intuition is something we all use, and is even sometimes very telling (but it must be carefully watched), and there's no obvious reason to say revelation is implausible as well, especially if, like me, one is a Theist.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:39 pm Well, I already knew you bought into all those mystical magical sources of knowledge nonsense.
Your rejection of revelation is merely assumptive, not evidentiary.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:39 pm If one wants to believe there is something other than the reality that one is actually conscious of as the only evidence there is and all there is to know and reason about, they must assume some other kind of existence for which there is no evidence and some method other than reasoning from evidence for knowing it.
All one actually has to believe is that RC hasn't personally seen everything there is to know yet. The question "is there evidence," and "has RC seen the evidence" are quite different questions....the latter is not at all threatening to Theism. And if one has seen evidence, or has one's own evidence, then one can completely ignore skepticism on the point. It would be verifiably wrong, then.
No individual needs to consider any evidence except evidence that is available to that individual. One only needs or can use knowledge about that which in some way they are aware of. If there were anything that existed that had no affect whatsoever on an individual's consciousness, no knowledge of it is possible and no knowledge could possibly matter. It is all that same to that individual as it would be if it didn't exit.

What is definitely not evidence is the testimony of others, no matter what kind of expert or authority they are supposed to be. If they cannot demonstrate what they claim from evidence available to any individual, or by non-contradictory reasoning from such evidence, their claims cannot be excepted as true, and to do so is a form of gullibility or superstition.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm And I'll warrant it was by induction into the traditions of science that you first learned what science was yourself -- nobody learns it by inventing it first hand...at least, not since Francis Bacon.
RCSaunders wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 7:39 pm No science has been done by, "induction,"...
I didn't say "induction." I said "education" or alternately "tradition." (But actually, your claim is quite wrong anyway: all science cycles through induction to arrive at conclusions.)

How did you first learn science...say, the scientific method? I'll bet bucks to bagels that you were taught it by some impressive guy in a lab coat, when you were in school. And you believed the guy in the lab coat, and only afterward found out whether what he was teaching you to do and think was right at all.
Oh, you would owe me big bucks. When I was ten, I began dragging home huge old books on chemistry from the library, which absolutely fascinated me. [Those old tombs had four and five page paragraphs I had to read over and over and look up every word in a dictionary.] They were about the size of an unabridged dictionary themselves. No photographs, just line drawings and etchings of flasks, and retorts, and tables of formulas and measurements in drams and other old units of measure. Over the years I built an extensive laboratory in the cellar. In those days I could buy anything by mail from Merck and Merck, and my grandfather and aunt were pharmacists and got me anything I could not get on my own. I got my chemistry badge (scouts) when I was fourteen and lectured a high school class on acids and bases when I was fifteen. Everything I knew about chemisty I learned by actually doing the experiments that verified the attributes of the elements involved, the nature of reagents and why they reacted as they did. It was dangerous (making picric acid and and abrin, for example). Some of more interesting chemicals I had were a clay jug of mercury (about twenty pounds), hydrofluoric acid (in wax bottle, because it dissolved glass), and aqua regia (actually hydrochloric and nitric acid--which dissolves gold). Did you know oxygen is not the only element that supports combustion? Hydrogen will burn with a pretty blue flame in an atmosphere of chlorine (just to make it interesting). If hydrogen and chlorine are mixed and sealed in glass tube in the dark, it produces a lovely explosion when exposed to sunlight. Best done outdoors since the result of the reaction is HCL which, mixed with water, is hydrochloric acid.

[I grew up in Peabody Massachusetts, which at that time, was the largest leather manufacturing city in the world. I spent many afternoons in the chemical labs of some of the leather factories where the scientist allowed be observe what they were doing while they explained. They seemed to enjoy the audience, and I sure enjoyed it. I always regarded, "school," a great impediment to my learning, wasting the time I could have used to pursue real knowledge.]

Sadly, any young person pursuing most of the experiments I performed or used the chemicals I used, today would be arrested and put in jail. No one today has any idea how free the forties and fifties were.

Personally I do not regard anyone educated who is not an autodidact and polymath. Everything else called, "education," is being brainwashed.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm
I have no use for empiricism,

So you don't believe in science? Interesting.
...anything other than evidence anyone can examine.
That's empiricism. Are you sure you know what empiricism is?
I do not think any version of what is called empiricism includes one's own consciousness as evidence, or admits that the evidence, all by itself does not provide any knowledge at all, but must be rationally identified before there is any knowledge. The perceived evidence is, as I said, "the foundation," for all knowledge, but, "does not provide any knowledge whatsoever." What is perceived is existence itself, just as it is, and it is that existence all knowledge is of and about, but just being conscious of (perceiving) it does not provide any knowledge of or about it. Only the conscious rational process of identifying what is perceived and identifying it's nature is knowledge.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:04 am No individual needs to consider any evidence except evidence that is available to that individual.
If that were true, it would mean that nobody had any reason to learn anything from anybody else.
What is definitely not evidence is the testimony of others, no matter what kind of expert or authority they are supposed to be.
Oh, nobody said anything about advocating belief on "authority." But it would be foolishness not to listen to somebody who had expertise or experience in an area one had not, oneself, yet explored fully. Again, if that were the case, it would mean nobody was capable of learning anything from anybody else. And being too hubristic to listen to people who have knowledge one lacks is hardly a noble character quality.

Now, that does not mean one accepts their information merely because they are putative "experts." But it does mean one hears and considers their findings for oneself, and takes the time to test what they say and find out if it's true.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm How did you first learn science...say, the scientific method? I'll bet bucks to bagels that you were taught it by some impressive guy in a lab coat, when you were in school. And you believed the guy in the lab coat, and only afterward found out whether what he was teaching you to do and think was right at all.
Oh, you would owe me big bucks. When I was ten, I began dragging home huge old books on chemistry
A distinction without a difference. What age you were makes no difference. And whether the guy in the lab coat spoke the words to you personally or wrote them in a book makes no difference to the point.

The point is that there was already an existing tradition called "science," and you were inducted into the tradition by the teachings of others (whether written or spoken), and only afterwards learned whether what they said was entirely true. At the start, you had to believe at least this much: that the authors of the books knew what they were talking about, and thus might direct you to some truth. If you did not have that much faith in them, you would have spent your time on other pursuits.
Personally I do not regard anyone educated who is not an autodidact and polymath.

I think you might be overestimating the degree to which each of us is actually "free" of the contributions of others to our learning. One thing for sure: you didn't invent the scientific method, nor did you discover it yourself. You got it from Francis Bacon, as handed down to others and eventually, to you.
...anything other than evidence anyone can examine.
That's empiricism. Are you sure you know what empiricism is?
I do not think any version of what is called empiricism includes one's own consciousness as evidence, or admits that the evidence, all by itself does not provide any knowledge at all, but must be rationally identified before there is any knowledge.[/quote]
You're right that Empiricism, when it's treated as a comprehensive episteme or creed, if often far too dismissive of the role of the conscious observer in processing the data. Fair enough.

But as I said before, empirical evidence is only part of the epistemological equation, not the whole. However, it's an important part, because empiricism draws our attention to the fact that the impressions received by our consciousness are not merely haphazard or idiosyncratic, but rather are induced by real, external phenomena that are not themselves consciousness-dependent at all. That's an important modification to the contrary mistake, which is to think that the individual "generates" the real world.

I'm suggesting that our first principles, our "major and minor premises," if you like, are drawn from our experience with this real and non-dependent world. They do not spring from some sort of "pure reason" or elegant mathematics of the brain: they come from observing and believing our interpretations of the data we receive from the world. It's only after that that reason kicks in and starts to do its (very important) work of modifying our understanding toward generating reasonable conclusions. But reason is inert without premises, just as mathematics is inert without things like the thinking mathematician and specific values for the variables.

Maths itself never "solved" a single problem: neither does reason qua reason. Both are methods, and as such, both depend on something specific being "plugged in," something supplied from the world external to mathematics or reason. Once that has been done, they both operate exceedingly well; but just as mathematical formulae do not themselves hand you the specific values to be applied in an equation, so too reason itself does not hand you the specific premises to be used in a deduction.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:08 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 2:04 am No individual needs to consider any evidence except evidence that is available to that individual.
If that were true, it would mean that nobody had any reason to learn anything from anybody else.
That's absolutely absurd. It implies no one else can provide evidence for what they teach or demonstrate what they teach, reasoning from evidence that can be observed. No one should ever believe a teacher that cannot explain what they teach and demonstrate why it's true.
What is definitely not evidence is the testimony of others, no matter what kind of expert or authority they are supposed to be.
Oh, nobody said anything about advocating belief on "authority." But it would be foolishness not to listen to somebody who had expertise or experience in an area one had not, oneself, yet explored fully. Again, if that were the case, it would mean nobody was capable of learning anything from anybody else. And being too hubristic to listen to people who have knowledge one lacks is hardly a noble character quality.[/quote]
What do you think an, "authority," is? It is anyone who claims their, "expertise," or, "experience," as the basis for their claims, which someone else is supposed to simply accept because they are the, "experienced experts." To doubt any claim by anyone they cannot explain in terms one can understand is noble. To accept any claim by anyone without evidence or explanation one can verify themselves is nothing but credulity and gullibility. [The most frequent abusers of such, "authority," are doctors and environmentalists.] Just how do you go about assuring yourself someone else is an expert in any field? If you don't know enough, or are unable to learn enough to know something, how can you possibly know when someone else does know? If one is too dumb to know something, one is too dumb to know someone else does.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm How did you first learn science...say, the scientific method? I'll bet bucks to bagels that you were taught it by some impressive guy in a lab coat, when you were in school. And you believed the guy in the lab coat, and only afterward found out whether what he was teaching you to do and think was right at all.
Oh, you would owe me big bucks. When I was ten, I began dragging home huge old books on chemistry[/quote]
A distinction without a difference. What age you were makes no difference. And whether the guy in the lab coat spoke the words to you personally or wrote them in a book makes no difference to the point.[/quot]
I did not accept anyone else's word for anything. In fact, the reason for my persistence was because by the third grade in school I had discovered I could not trust anything I was taught by adults if I could not verify it myself. I got into a lot of trouble when my third grade teacher tried to teach the class camels stored water in their humps. But I learned stupid people resorted to abuse when corrected, which was an important lesson.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm The point is that there was already an existing tradition called "science," and you were inducted into the tradition by the teachings of others (whether written or spoken) ...
What are you talking about? I wasn't, "inducted," into anything. Call it whatever you like. I was interested in what things were and discovered that chemistry explained so many things, I was determined to learn all I could. It was much more like philosophy than science. Chemistry enabled me to understand what so many things were and had the nature it had, that within its own context, it was better than any philosophy, and contradicted most of it. Chemistry didn't depend on anyone's opinion, expertise, or authority (like law or philosophy, for example), only existence as it actually is, which I could examine for myself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm Maths itself never "solved" a single problem: neither does reason qua reason
I think you confuse, "reason," with, "logic," which are not at all the same thing. You seem to be aware the mathematics is one rational method but not that logic is just another rational method. Rationality is the faculty of human consciousness by which all identification of existents are done, all questions are asked, and all judgments are made. Rationality is not possible without knowledge, because knowledge is all there is for consciousness to reason with or reason about. Knowledge is not possible without rationality, because all knowledge begins with the identification of existents by means of concepts. The formation of concepts is a rational process of identifying entities by means of their attributes.

Like all human faculties, rationality can be used correctly as required and determined by its nature (called reason or correct thinking), or it can be use incorrectly as in rationalism and rationalization, which you and others who despise the fact that reason is one's only means to knowing the truth, put in place of reason. The incorrect use of the rational faculty can certainly be used to rationalize all kinds of wrong, untrue, and evil things. Reason (correct thinking) cannot.

Most reason (correct thinking) does not require any formal method (like logic or math), it only needs to be based on observable evidence and never result in contradictions. Philosophers and ideologists do despise the simple truth. As my wife puts it, "why do the obtuse use language so abstruse?"
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:08 pm No one should ever believe a teacher that cannot explain what they teach and demonstrate why it's true.
Of course not. Just as you should not believe a book without examining its claims. That's not even in question.

But to listen to an expert, or to pick up a book, you've already expressed this much faith: that you think it's possible this person/book may have something to tell you, something that, on further investigation, might turn out to be correct.

That's a probability calculation, not a certainty; but without it, you wouldn't even get going.

That's inductive reasoning, plus a little thing we call "having some faith." :wink:
To doubt any claim by anyone they cannot explain in terms one can understand is noble.

Well, you'd have to prove that "noble" is a thing, first. But I won't make that point.

The point I would make here is that one does not know, before one listens to the expert that he really is an expert, or that what he says is true. He may well be a deceiver...perhaps somebody on whom you shouldn't waste a single minute...but you don't know that. And you think, perhaps, that you will believe him enough to take his claims seriously and investigate them for yourself. That takes faith. You could be wrong. But you don't think you necessarily will be, and you think that maybe proof will come later, during your subsequent investigation.

And so it turns out, perhaps. But sometimes it doesn't. There's the inductive leap again.
I did not accept anyone else's word for anything. In fact, the reason for my persistence was because by the third grade in school I had discovered I could not trust anything I was taught by adults if I could not verify it myself.
Yes, I'm sure you were a marvel of the 3rd grade. Would that we could all attain such rare heights of skeptical acuity as to baffle our third-grade teacher. :wink:

I'm teasing you, of course. But if I wanted to brag, I'd tell you that my first doubts about Theism came, according to my father, around age 4. That was when I first expressed skepticism, he said. But if that were all I ever learned, I'd have been in a poor state. Skepticism's great at tearing things down; but it's terrible at creating anything positive itself.

For any positive knowledge, we need faith.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Jun 10, 2021 5:46 pm Maths itself never "solved" a single problem: neither does reason qua reason
I think you confuse, "reason," with, "logic," which are not at all the same thing.
It's true they're not the same. Math is deductive (well, mostly), but the broad category, "reason," includes induction, possibly abduction, and even informal rationalizing, depending on how the word is being employed. But I'm using the term only to refer to disciplined, careful, systematic reasoning, whether formal or informal.
Rationality is not possible without knowledge, because knowledge is all there is for consciousness to reason with or reason about.

Bingo! Now you've got it.

That's the same as to say that the premises are empirical before the conclusions can be rational. Reason is step 2: observation and hypothesizing from the real world is step 1.
The formation of concepts is a rational process of identifying entities by means of their attributes.
Actually, it's not. I guarantee that's not how you got your concepts, because a baby has none. They don't think in concepts, but merely in sensations. Their concepts, they acquire from their socialization process, including their being taught language and their other education. That's why concepts are not particular to one person, and thus always only unique to him, but rather are shared, debated and contested among people and circulated in societies.
you and others who despise the fact that reason is one's only means to knowing the truth
There's no "despising." Reason is a perfectly good faculty. The problem is that it has no specific content, just a form or method into which any content can be pressed. That doesn't make it bad; it merely makes it secondary in epistemological terms.

Reason can't even begin without induction (or the empirical, if you prefer). It has nothing to work on, because, as a wise man said above, "knowledge is all there is for consciousness to reason with." If you know nothing about the external world, you can't "reason." There's nothing to reason with.
The incorrect use of the rational faculty can certainly be used to rationalize all kinds of wrong, untrue, and evil things. Reason (correct thinking) cannot.
Actually, it can. Your application of the term "incorrect" is actually not justifiable unless the logic in a particular syllogism or line of reasoning is itself procedurally wrong. If the premises are taken for granted and the reasoning from those premises is strict and rigorous, then the conclusion will still be "incorrect," but not because of the failure of reason, but because of the incorrectness of the premises.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:52 pm
The incorrect use of the rational faculty can certainly be used to rationalize all kinds of wrong, untrue, and evil things. Reason (correct thinking) cannot.
Actually, it can. Your application of the term "incorrect" is actually not justifiable unless the logic in a particular syllogism or line of reasoning is itself procedurally wrong. If the premises are taken for granted and the reasoning from those premises is strict and rigorous, then the conclusion will still be "incorrect," but not because of the failure of reason, but because of the incorrectness of the premises.
What I'm saying is if any part of one's thinking is incorrect, including any premises, the thinking is incorrect. If any part of one's reasoning is wrong, their reasoning is wrong. Checking one's premises is part of right reasoning.

You have swallowed the whole Kantian, logical positivist lie, that so long as reason follows some supposed proper form or pattern (called logic), it is reasoning correctly, no matter how absurd the premises or disconnected from reality the terms are. What I'm saying is, if any part of one's reasoning is wrong, if every premise is not true, if every term does not correctly identify a real existent, if there is any contradiction allowed, the reasoning is wrong, no matter how perfectly it matches some logical form or pattern.

Your whole view of reason is to embrace GIGO as a right way to use a computer. GIGO, means, Garbabe In is Garbage Out. If what one puts into the computer is garbage, what comes out of the computer is garbage. It is your view, so long as the computer is working correctly, (following the logical patterns perfectly), putting garbage in and getting garbage out is using a computer correctly, just as you assume using the rational faculty and the mechanics of reason (logic), no matter how absurd the premises or meaningless the terms are, it is using reason correctly.

Reason (correct thinking) is using the rational faculty correctly, (like using a computer correctly). Every premise must be true, every term must unambiguously identify an actual existent, and no part of one's reasoning can introduce a contradiction or hidden false premise. Anything else, (most of what you describe as reason for example) is irrational.
Gary Childress
Posts: 2493
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:08 pm
Location: The Domain of Confusion

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Gary Childress »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:26 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 4:52 pm
The incorrect use of the rational faculty can certainly be used to rationalize all kinds of wrong, untrue, and evil things. Reason (correct thinking) cannot.
Actually, it can. Your application of the term "incorrect" is actually not justifiable unless the logic in a particular syllogism or line of reasoning is itself procedurally wrong. If the premises are taken for granted and the reasoning from those premises is strict and rigorous, then the conclusion will still be "incorrect," but not because of the failure of reason, but because of the incorrectness of the premises.
What I'm saying is if any part of one's thinking is incorrect, including any premises, the thinking is incorrect. If any part of one's reasoning is wrong, their reasoning is wrong. Checking one's premises is part of right reasoning.

You have swallowed the whole Kantian, logical positivist lie, that so long as reason follows some supposed proper form or pattern (called logic), it is reasoning correctly, no matter how absurd the premises or disconnected from reality the terms are. What I'm saying is, if any part of one's reasoning is wrong, if every premise is not true, if every term does not correctly identify a real existent, if there is any contradiction allowed, the reasoning is wrong, no matter how perfectly it matches some logical form or pattern.

Your whole view of reason is to embrace GIGO as a right way to use a computer. GIGO, means, Garbabe In is Garbage Out. If what one puts into the computer is garbage, what comes out of the computer is garbage. It is your view, so long as the computer is working correctly, (following the logical patterns perfectly), putting garbage in and getting garbage out is using a computer correctly, just as you assume using the rational faculty and the mechanics of reason (logic), no matter how absurd the premises or meaningless the terms are, it is using reason correctly.

Reason (correct thinking) is using the rational faculty correctly, (like using a computer correctly). Every premise must be true, every term must unambiguously identify an actual existent, and no part of one's reasoning can introduce a contradiction or hidden false premise. Anything else, (most of what you describe as reason for example) is irrational.
Well, incorrect premises do not produce logically sound arguments. Logic is like the mathematics of argumentation. If a person is arguing using untrue premises, then they are not being faithful to the rules or spirit of logic if they try to claim that their arguments are sound.

Maybe I'm wrong but "reason" seems like a relatively ambiguous term to me and maybe stands in some distinction from wisdom. A person can be "rational" in thinking that if they do X, then Y might likely happen. However, a wise mind also asks whether Y is the result that is most appropriate or desirable. I think a criminal can be very rational, using reason to deduce that if they break in at midnight, the bank vault may be vulnerable. I don't think reason tells us that stealing is either right or wrong, wisdom makes that determination. I mean, if it were some unbelievably urgent matter of life and death of the species or something, then a rational person might be wise to try to steal or kill or some other seemingly counterintuitive action. To me, wisdom is knowing what and doing that which is most appropriate toward achieving penultimate ends.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:26 pm What I'm saying is if any part of one's thinking is incorrect, including any premises, the thinking is incorrect. If any part of one's reasoning is wrong, their reasoning is wrong. Checking one's premises is part of right reasoning. You have swallowed the whole Kantian, logical positivist lie...
No, I haven't. But that probably won't stop you insisting otherwise.
GIGO, means, Garbabe In is Garbage Out.
Tell me something I don't know.
...you assume using the rational faculty and the mechanics of reason (logic), no matter how absurd the premises or meaningless the terms are, it is using reason correctly.
You're wrong again, of course. I do not assume any such thing at all, nor is Kant any of my sources. What I am pointing out, though, is that "reason" qua reason does not supply any premises. I'm not only not disputing one must check one's premises...I'm insisting on it.

But I'm also pointing out that "reason" is itself not a set of particular ontological premises. And it's not. That's why people can be "reasonable," and yet live different ways and hold different values. Reason doesn't supply content...it just dictates method by which that content is to be treated.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

Gary Childress wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 10:14 pm Maybe I'm wrong but "reason" seems like a relatively ambiguous term to me and maybe stands in some distinction from wisdom. A person can be "rational" in thinking that if they do X, then Y might likely happen. However, a wise mind also asks whether Y is the result that is most appropriate or desirable. I think a criminal can be very rational, using reason to deduce that if they break in at midnight, the bank vault may be vulnerable.
You're quite right, Gary. And I like your example.

It can, in fact, be "rational" for a psychotic killer to stalk his victim cautiously, and he can select the most "rational" moment to execute that victim...that's a far cry from saying that makes him a good man, or means that he's done the right thing.
I don't think reason tells us that stealing is either right or wrong, wisdom makes that determination.

Something like that is the truth. Reason itself is not immoral, nor is it moral...it's amoral...morality is not part of its calculations, unless one puts it there as a desired end, or assumes it in a premise prior to getting to reasoning.

To be both moral and logical...well, that takes something like wisdom.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:19 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:26 pm What I'm saying is if any part of one's thinking is incorrect, including any premises, the thinking is incorrect. If any part of one's reasoning is wrong, their reasoning is wrong. Checking one's premises is part of right reasoning. You have swallowed the whole Kantian, logical positivist lie...
No, I haven't. But that probably won't stop you insisting otherwise.
You said:
A priori reasoning is inevitable, intuition is something we all use, ... there's no obvious reason to say revelation is implausible ....
Just where do you think the idea of a priori comes from:
A priori is a term first used by Immanuel Kant and it means "from the beginning" or "at first". It is a type of argument based on the meaning of terms. It describes things we can know independently of the facts. To know something a priori is to know it from pure logic, without having to gather any evidence.
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:19 am
RCSaunders wrote: Fri Jun 11, 2021 9:26 pm...you assume using the rational faculty and the mechanics of reason (logic), no matter how absurd the premises or meaningless the terms are, it is using reason correctly.
You're wrong again, of course. I do not assume any such thing at all, nor is Kant any of my sources. What I am pointing out, though, is that "reason" qua reason does not supply any premises. I'm not only not disputing one must check one's premises...I'm insisting on it.
If you really were you would explain how one goes about doing that without using reason, since you said:
How does one check their premises without using reason?
Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:19 am But I'm also pointing out that "reason" is itself not a set of particular ontological premises. And it's not. That's why people can be "reasonable," and yet live different ways and hold different values. Reason doesn't supply content...it just dictates method by which that content is to be treated.
So you think the formation of concepts is not a rational process. I'll not ask you what you think it is and spare myself from some yarn about empiricism and what all.

All of this because you want to prove human beings have a right (or claim to) what they have not earned or provided themselves by their own effort. No wonder you reject reason. The evil concept of rights could never be justified by reason, so something else must be resorted to, like some superstitious belief in magic a priori knowledge, intuition, or revelation. Good grief!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:37 pm Just where do you think the idea of a priori comes from:
Referring to a Kantian word does not make me a Kantian, anymore than using the word "matriarch" makes me a woman.
What I am pointing out, though, is that "reason" qua reason does not supply any premises. I'm not only not disputing one must check one's premises...I'm insisting on it.
If you really were you would explain how one goes about doing that without using reason, since you said:
How does one check their premises without using reason?
This must be the tenth time I've said this: "empirically." Open your eyes, and see if reality conforms to what you believe.
So you think the formation of concepts is not a rational process.
It depends on how you're invoking the term "rational." If you're only meaning "brain," or "by thinking," then of course it's that sort of process. But if you mean that formal reasoning is involved, then no, it's not "rational" in that strict sense. Empirical judgment are inductive and probabilistic, not formal and absolute.
All of this because you want to prove human beings have a right (or claim to) what they have not earned or provided themselves by their own effort.
This is nothing I ever said. I have no idea what you're foaming on about now.

Do you think one "earns" a right to life? Does one "earn" a right to freedom or even property"? From whom does one "earn" such a thing, and by what process is it "earned"?

Or maybe you just don't know what a "right" is?
No wonder you reject reason.
I do not reject reason. I never have, in our conversation so far. I have merely pointed out that empirical judgment supplies reason with the premises it needs to get started.

And that's beyond reasonable objection, actually. It's manifestly the case.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2665
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 9:01 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Sat Jun 12, 2021 8:37 pm Just where do you think the idea of a priori comes from:
Referring to a Kantian word does not make me a Kantian, anymore than using the word "matriarch" makes me a woman.
What I am pointing out, though, is that "reason" qua reason does not supply any premises. I'm not only not disputing one must check one's premises...I'm insisting on it.
If you really were you would explain how one goes about doing that without using reason, since you said:
How does one check their premises without using reason?
This must be the tenth time I've said this: "empirically." Open your eyes, and see if reality conforms to what you believe.
You can just, "see," what you believe? What color, shape, or size is belief. What does a belief look like? It's nonsense.

Here's one of your examples:
So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.
What do I look at to see whether, "all women are evil," is true?
All of this because you want to prove human beings have a right (or claim to) what they have not earned or provided themselves by their own effort.
This is nothing I ever said. I have no idea what you're foaming on about now.

Do you think one "earns" a right to life?{/quote]
You have a bad memory. This is where we came in. Go back and you'll see I've said from the beginning there is not such thing as rights. It's because no one has a, "right," to anything just because they were born that a human must produce or earn everything their life requires by their own effort. If one want's property they must produce that property or produce the wealth required to buy it. If one want to live thy must provide themselves all the necessities of their life.

There's no point going over all this again, you'll just forget again. Just go back to the first four or five pages of this thread and see how many time I explicitly said, "there is no such thing as rights," and explained why it's true. Don't worry about it.
[/quote]
Age
Posts: 7013
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:34 am What do you need a, "premise," for, if you aren't going to be using reason?
I didn't say you shouldn't use reason. I said that reason qua reason did not have an opinion which premises you might take.

The premises come first. That's true of all logic. One must have at least two premises, both presumed to be true, before logic has any chance of resulting in a sound argument ("sound," meaning both true and logical).

We start with the empirical. We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises. The premises are what we have to have before the first syllogism can be formed -- in other words, before reason can have any contribution to the situation.

But reason comes to the party late. The basic premises are already in place. Reason can tell us what to do with our premises, if we want to treat them reasonably and logically; but it does not dictate the premises themselves.
What method or faculty do you use to determine what is more plausible?

I was giving you one, actually. Empirically, we know that Socialism is a universal failure. We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So Socialism is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.
And the EXACT SAME can be said for "christianity". That is; empirically, we know that "chrisitanity" is a universal failure. We know it has inevitably issued in human rights disasters. So, "christianity" is not plausible, even if people insist on believing in it.

See, how, so called, "logic" and "reason" can be TWISTED and DISTORTED in just about ANY way, when one's BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS become involved. "immanuel can" is an EXPERT, and a PRIME EXAMPLE, of this way of Wrong and Incorrect behaving. But this is just the natural result of those with the STRONGEST HELD ONTO BELIEFS.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
But according to you reason is incapable revealing they should do otherwise.
Reason qua reason has no particular opinions, it's true.

But reason, once supplied with at least two premises from the empirical, can tell us what is reasonable to make of our two premises, and what is not reasonable to try to make of them.
WHAT??

You just gone through explaining that;
"We take the data of our experience to be true. That is presumptive, not certain. Out of this, we form premises. "

Therefore, if whether the 'data' is NOT even known to be true or false, from the very outset, then EVERY thing else afterwards could also be completely and utterly true, or False, or anywhere in between.

So, how can 'reason' be applied to what could inevitably just be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway?

I suggest that ALL of 'you', adult human beings, go back to 'the beginning' and start all over again. Next time look at the, so called, 'data', properly AND correctly, discern what is ACTUALLY True and Right, and then, from there, proceed. The way you are all going, in the days when this is being written, is further, and further DOWN a never-ending spiral of CONFUSION.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
"Rational behavior?" Is that suddenly the same as, "right behavior?"
No.

"Rational" merely refers to the sort of mathematical consistency of one's thinking -- in other words, to how well one is using one's premises.
But HOW could one use one's OWN premises 'well', if the premise is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY Wrong to begin with?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am But "right" refers to moral quality. And a thing can be very "rational" and yet totally not "right."
REALLY?

Will you provide ANY examples of a 'rational behavior' with is NOT a 'right behavior'?

OBVIOUSLY, you could provide countless examples of this if the "premises" are NOT right to begin with, but then they would not be REAL "premises" ANYWAY. But let us SEE if you can provide an example of a 'rational behavior', which is based on True and Right premises, but which is NOT a 'right behavior', itself.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
What difference does it makes what one's premises are or what data they have if reason is not able to tell you what you should and shouldn't do?
But that's the part reason CAN do. It can tell you what you can reasonably deduce from the premises you have.
Remembering for the FACT that those, so called, "premises" could be False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect anyway.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am But it can't tell you that those premises themselves are good or evil, right or wrong. Reason can only tell you what conclusion you can sensibly draw given your premises.
But HOW can you actually draw something sensibly from 'that' what is evil or wrong?

This seems Truly CONTRADICTORY.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am To put it simply: reason doesn't dictate what the premises are. It only dictates what one can do with the premises one has, and still have a rational conclusion.
But you can NOT have a 'rational conclusion' if the, so called, "premise" itself is 'irrational', False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and/or Incorrect, correct?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.


...then reason cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true. But it can tell you what the logical conclusion is...even if that conclusion is immoral.
Is a 'rational conclusion' the same as a 'logical conclusion'?

If yes, then HOW?

But if no, then WHY integrate the two here the way that you have?

This appears to be a DECEPTIVE behavior to 'try to' 'rationalize' your OWN DISTORTED and TWISTED thinking and BELIEFS here, as well as 'trying to' TRICK "others" into BELIEVING the same things that you do.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
Why do you hate to admit that reason is the only faculty human beings have for discovering anything and of making judgments of right and wrong?
False premise.

I'm not "hating" anything, nor am I obligated to "admit" what is simply not true. Reason is not a moral faculty, but rather it is a logical procedure. Like mathematics, it passes no judgments on the material (or numbers) its' working with: it just does what it does.
So, 'what', EXACTLY, to you, DOES discover and make judgments about 'moral' issues?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am
If what you believe is not based on reason, it must be based on something else. If you reject reason, I want to know what that, "something else," is.
As I say: we all get our premises from the empirical.
Is this like we all get "our" "premises" like; "the earth is flat", "the earth began only a few thousand years ago", "the earth is at the center of the Universe", "the Universe began", and/or "the Universe is expanding", et cetera, et cetera, "from the empirical"?

If this is so, then I would suggest NEVER using the, so called, "empirical" again to obtain 'your', so called, "premises".
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am And I don't "reject reason" at all. I merely point out what it is, and what it is not.
Is this a UNIVERSAL "what it is" and "what is it not"? Or, just your OWN relative perspective of "what it is" and "what it is not"?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am The danger of not realizing what reason is, is simple: one starts to think that one's own conclusions are pure products of the only reason possible. One starts to think, "In every situation, I'm the rational guy, and everybody else is idiots."
WOW, that explains 'you', "immanuel can", 'to a T', as some say.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am And what one thinks proves it is no more than that they disagree, or that they arrive at different conclusions from one.
I AGREE.

And what one KNOWS is what EVERY one "else" could AGREE WITH, and ACCEPT as well.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:17 am But people can reason from different premises: and the problem in their judgments (if a problem exists) if often not so much in their reasoning process as in their premises. So they also know (and perhaps correctly) that they are being rational and reasonable, in that they are acting consistently with their own premises. So they remain unconvinced when one calls them "idiots," and they become aware that you simply don't know HOW they are reasoning...but they are well aware that they are.

They are also likely to see one as imperious, prejudiced, and oblivious to their reasoning...which would be quite correct, actually. So they'll dismiss one immediately.

On the other hand, if you want to change minds, most of the time you have to change people's premises. Telling them, "You're unreasonable" just won't work -- especially if they ARE being reasonable.
Let us SEE if this will ACTUALLY WORK or NOT.

So, IF you provide your OWN premises here, then we can take a LOOK AT them, and then 'we' can decide if they NEED changing or not.

But this still does NOT have to have ANY thing to do with "wanting to change minds".

By the way, thinking, "changing minds", is an ACTUAL thing, is a "premise", which NEEDS changing.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 11919
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Basic Human Rights

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:00 am So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.
What do I look at to see whether, "all women are evil," is true?
Out of context. I did not offer it as an example of right judgment, but of a judgment that is formally rational but morally reprehensible. Now, I know that it's morally reprehensible. But then, I'm a believer in moral objectivism. You're not, so far as I know.

Consequently, there is no way you will know whether or not it's true. If don't accept that moral judgments articulate anything in the real world, then how could you believe anything about a moral judgment, except that it's an arbitrary phenomenon? You would have to concede that it might well be right -- especially since its form is perfectly rational. :shock:
Do you think one "earns" a right to life?
...you'll see I've said from the beginning there is not such thing as rights....
Yes, I know that: you don't believe in rights...so what's this "earning" stuff? That was your word, not one of mine...

Oh, I see. You think that nobody can be entitled to anything they haven't "earned" or "provided for themselves by their own efforts." Is that what you meant?

Well, in that case, it's no surprise you don't believe in rights: they're intrinsic. You don't "earn" something intrinsic, obviously.

Your life is given to you by God; you didn't earn it, and you certainly didn't "provide it for yourself." Your freedom was nothing you could guarantee yourself, either; and your property isn't yours to keep, if somebody can wrest it from you. So you have no rights, in your view.

Yeah, I get that. I just think it's wrong.
Post Reply