Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 120

L&FP, 48h: Building sound Government on a built-in, Natural Law base (The US Declaration of Independence as a case study)

The natural, built in law framework in 48g culminates:

. . . in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle’s terms as cited by Hooker: “because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .”) Thus also,

11] Eleventh, that as the US DoI, 1776 notes in what is the charter of modern constitutional democracy, government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. For preference by regularly scheduled, free, fair, honest elections held every several years . . . .

This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an institutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases. Where, too, the manifest integrity of electoral systems is equally an imperative. Otherwise, it matters not who votes, but who cheats and who counts, as Stalin notoriously suggested.

Someone has said governments/political leaders should be replaced regularly like dirty diapers and for much the same reason. There is a point there, inelegant though the phrasing is.

All of this brings to focus key aspects of the US DoI:

When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God [–> natural law context is explicit] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 – 21, 2:14 – 15; note, law as “the highest reason,” per Cicero on received consensus], that all men are created equal [–> note, equality of humanity], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [–> thus there are correlative duties and freedoms framed by the balance], that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . .

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States [–> so, it is the built in laws of our nature that set basic parameters, in absence of mutual agreement and after petitions under the British system failed]; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor

It is commonly said that this has no part in the law of the USA, by contrast with the 1787 Constitution. But the obvious fact that the Constitution sets out to deliver on its principles and implied promises should give pause. Instead, the DoI is explicitly and by substance a natural law document in its key parts, so that where the argument succeeds it would have universal jurisdiction and legitimacy. THAT is how revolutionary it is, it was not just about the opinions of mankind and getting military help.

The key part in question is highlighted, though we should also note, “Prudence . . . will dictate.” Notice, the part in question pivots on justice and asserts self-evident core rights tied to justice. That is, it is arguing that the civil peace of justice — due balance of rights, freedoms and duties — is to be guarded by government as its primary task. Notice, “JUST powers” of government. It even goes on to suggest that under certain circumstances it becomes “duty” to reform or replace failed, oppressive government in the face of “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”

The point on justice shows itself valid by branch on which we all sit first principle status. Life is the first right without which there are no other rights. Liberty is a natural state, to be limited or curtailed only for just cause. Yes, that is an implicit indictment of kidnapping based chattel slavery, but would be compatible with reasonable indentured service. Pursuit of happiness speaks to fulfillment of one’s life calling. Government is envisioned under the double covenant of nationhood under the creator God and government under God granting JUST powers with consent of the governed. The Articles of Confederation and the later Constitution expressed that consent. And of course, this is anchored in a creation order vision.

What about slavery, doesn’t that turn all of this into hypocritical posturing to be tossed on the ash-heap of history?

No, here were men willing to indict themselves by declaring principle, even if to attain what was barely possible they had to make a compromise with something that was an institutionalised breach of principles. (Locke in his 2nd Treatise on Civil Government spoke of enslavement as an alternative to execution for malefactors.) Where, note, they likely did not see a practical way to abolition that ended well. In the event, civil war and a running sore down to today resulted. Compare the alliance of Britain and the US with Stalin after Hitler’s invasion of Russia in 1941, and the resulting cold war after 1945. Poland’s liberation had to wait until the turn of the 1990’s.

But — warts and all — we see here first principles of Government worked out through the Ciceronian natural law framework, and leading to success. END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP, 48g: Is a child the moral equivalent of a fish we catch and eat for lunch?

Here, we follow up from the yardstick case of a child kidnapped, sexually tortured and murdered. No 60 in L&FP48a:

>>Compare to such, a fish, that we lure to bite on a hook, then land, kill and eat for lunch without compunction. (And even for those who object to so treating a fish, they will do so by extension of the protective sense we have about say the young child — not the other way around.)

But, unless there is a material difference between a young child and a fish, that sense of wrong is frankly delusional, it is just a disguised preference, one that we are simply willing to back up with force. So, already, once we let radical relativism and subjectivism loose, we are looking at the absurdity and chaos of the nihilist abyss, might (and manipulation) makes for ‘right.’

At the pivot of the skeptical objections to objective moral truths such as MY1, notwithstanding persistent reduction to absurdity [see algebra in OP], is the pose that since we may err and since famously there are disagreements on morality, we can reduce moral feelings to subjective perceptions tastes and preferences, dismissing any and all claims of objectivity much less self evidence. So, the objector triumphantly announces: there is an unbridgeable IS-OUGHT gap, game over.

Not so fast, as there is no better reason to imagine that we live in a moral Plato’s Cave world, than that we live in a physical or intellectual Plato’s Cave world.

That is, we consider the imagined world of Plato where the denizens, having been imprisoned from childhood, all imagine that the shadow shows portrayed for their benefit are reality. Until, one is loosed, sees the apparatus of manipulation, then is led outside and learns of the reality that is there to be discovered. Then he tries to rescue his fellows, only to be ridiculed and attacked.

Where, given its importance, let us observe how worldviews shape community life:

WORLDVIEW + CULTURAL/POLICY AGENDA = IDEOLOGY
IDEOLOGY + POWER = REGIME
REGIME + MARCH OF FOLLY = RUIN

Such are the matches we are playing with.

The sound approach is to recognise that MY1 is a test and those who object or evade its force reveal their moral deficiencies.

From this, we may proceed to outline a moral framework (of course, taking a side glance at Cicero’s summary):

1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought, leading to first duties of responsible reason.

(This is manifest in even an objector’s implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial. Expanding slightly, as this has to be hammered home: our rational, responsible intelligent behaviour is inescapably under the moral government of known duties to truth, to right reason, to prudence [so to warrant], to sound conscience, to neighbourliness [thus, the Golden Rule], to fairness and justice, etc. Thus, we find morally rooted law built into our morally governed nature, even for our intellectual life. Thus, too, the civil law extends what is already built in, to our social circumstances, turning on issues of prudence, justice and mutual duties; if it is to be legitimate. Notice, this is itself a theory on what law is or at least should be. And yes, all of this is fraught with implications for the roots of reality.)

2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought.

(Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong/duty on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit. Where, this is no mere emotive appeal to feared consequences, it is an argument by exposing self-referential incoherence. Conscience, when sound, accurately points to duty; accordingly to violate it damages one’s soul, and therefore there is a right to follow sound conscience that is integral to the person and to the civil peace of justice. To be coerced in violation of conscience, is a violation of the person; e.g. rape. But this is as opposed to the need to correct warped, unsound or benumbed souls. This means, conscience must align with morally tinged truth, and must seek wisdom, prudence, right reason and humility to recognise differences, doubts, errors, risks and uncertainties.)

3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, given how pervasive these are, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding.

(That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity. That is, we here expose further self-referential incoherence.)

4] Fourth, as the algebra in the OP 48a indicates, it is true that we are objectively under knowable, warranted obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty, independent of particular biases, errors, delusions or the like of individuals or groups. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise.

5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do.

6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level.

(Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT — so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.)

7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more.

(We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of sound conscience and so too that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first manifestly be in the right.)

8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm one’s neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. (This helps us frame just law.)

9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes ever more clearly self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd.

10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle’s terms as cited by Hooker: “because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .”) Thus also,

11] Eleventh, that as the US DoI, 1776 notes in what is the charter of modern constitutional democracy, government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. For preference by regularly scheduled, free, fair, honest elections held every several years.

(NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting — again — nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation — or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases. Where, too, the manifest integrity of electoral systems is equally an imperative. Otherwise, it matters not who votes, but who cheats and who counts, as Stalin notoriously suggested.)

12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil.

From this we can construct a sound framework for civilisation.>> END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP, 48f: Orwell exposes how Language and meaning are being relativised, too, with hints on how to correct it

When we have to resort to Orwell, it is a sad sign of how far the rot has gone. LF&P 48, no 146:

>>it seems language itself (so, dictionaries and other reference resources by extension . . .) is under the gun of the elephant game. Orwell wrote about Newspeak replacing Oldspeak in the interests of IngSoc . . . English Socialism (the National Socialist English Worker’s Party we suppose), and how part of the dumbing down was to make it impossible to conceptualise heresy against the partyline.

There was also Doublethink:

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink.

Principle of explosion on steroids: ex falso quodlibet, from the false, anything.

Related, though apparently not actually used by Orwell, is Doublespeak; manipulative, onion-layered language with increasingly hidden inner meanings for the core and a very different message for hoi polloi. This is of course outright deceit, lying and corruption of language, meaning and communication. One form is the pretence that perfectly good and well defined existing language is dubious, corrupt, oppressive and needing to be overthrown in the name of liberation or sounder understanding or ideologies dressed up in the lab coat. Another is willful confusion of a perfectly good word such as truth with opinion or the like. And more.

Most subtle is self-referential, often self-contradictory language or claims. For this builds in the obfuscation by explosion problem. Do not overlook brazen denial when such is exposed.

Then comes the sting in the tail, cynical defence of cognitive dissonance by turnabout projection to the despised other. Did you know that in 1939 Poland first attacked Germany? (So, it was promoted, by seizing, dressing Concentration camp prisoners in Polish uniforms and murdering them, putting their bodies next to sites of attack. Such is of course also the big lie stratagem of the official promotion of whoppers so big that ordinary people could not believe they were false. And in defining this, Hitler and company conveniently projected the tactic to the British and a World War I context.)

We could go on, but hopefully this is enough to open eyes to the linked problem of corrupting language.>>

Then, 147:

>>Closely linked, the corrupt revision and censorship of news and archival materials by Minitrue, the Ministry of Truth. These days, pre-news corrupt ideological narratives and censorship, forcing the need for alternative sources with balancing or marginalised facts and analysis. Which, are then subject to further censorship. (Yes, RAM, being such an alternative in defence of soundness, science and principles of civilisation is part of UD’s purpose.)>>

1984 and Animal Farm were satirical exposes, they were not manuals for those who hope to implement corrupt lawless ideological oligarchies. END

PS, again, discussion continues in L&FP 48a, so comments are off here too.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP 48e: Plato’s anticipation of and exposure of radical relativism (and linked evolutionary materialism) c 360 BC in The Laws, Bk X

Now that the six blind men and the elephant paradigm is broken, we may look at Plato with fresh eyes. Here, 92 in LF&P 48a:

>>Plato . . . is highly relevant to our own mutiny on the good ship civilisation. For, the lessons of sound history were bought with blood and tears; those who neglect, forget, dismiss or disdain those lessons doom themselves to pay in the same coin over and over again.

Let’s therefore listen to Plato, as he lays out how ancient evolutionary materialism on the part of the sophists and others of the avant garde of c 430 BC led to radical relativism, amorality, nihilistic factionalism and chaos — and we will also trace the like pattern in our era:

Ath[enian Stranger, in The Laws, Bk X 2,360 ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos — the natural order], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity; observe, too, the trichotomy: “nature” (here, mechanical, blind necessity), “chance” (similar to a tossed fair die), ART (the action of a mind, i.e. intelligently directed configuration)] . . . .

[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-

[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics, so too justice, law and government: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT — leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for “OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”), opening the door to cynicism, hyperskepticism and nihilism . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].

Echoes in our time are not coincidental, and are tied directly to the suppression of otherwise readily accessible, well warranted, objective moral knowledge. For example, in introducing his 2014 In Search of Moral Knowledge, R Scott Smith notes:

we seem to have lost a common body of moral
truths that we all could know. [–> thus, the summary proposition in the OP]

One key way of characterizing our present moral climate is that, generally
speaking, westernized people tend not to view moral claims as giving us
knowledge [–> as in, generally accessible, well warranted, reliable truth]. This is connected to the received “fact-value split”—a mindset
we have inherited from at least the time of Hume and/or Kant. According
to that view, the natural sciences are the set of disciplines that uniquely give
us knowledge, whereas disciplines such as ethics, religion and the human-
ities in general give us just our constructs, whether personal opinions, pref-
erences or mere tastes. This view has become known as strong scientism. A
weaker version of scientism maintains that ethics, religion and the human-
ities give us knowledge, but it is of an inferior sort to that of the natural
sciences. [–> and must bow to it] In light of such a mindset, it is only fitting that we have a vast plurality of moral opinions. [–> the diversity appeal, which does not warrant the no knowledge claim]

For those immersed in such cultures, it is easy to see how people (especially
emerging adults) would take for granted this plurality and bifurcation of facts
from values as simply the way things are, morally speaking. [–> indoctrination] Western cultures,
such as the United States, deeply reinforce the notion that morality is in the
eye of the beholder, something Allan Bloom noted decades ago. 2 Indeed, de-
scriptively, we are very pluralistic morally However, morality involves more
than just whatever is the case; at its core, it is a normative enterprise
But, should morality be seen as being “up to us” and therefore deeply
pluralistic? Is it true that morality is basically a human construct? If so,
to what extent, and in what way(s)? Alternatively, could it be that some
older ethical views that maintained that morals are not human constructs
are perhaps true after all, even though such views have been marginalized
or “discredited”?

We thus see the emergence of evolutionary materialistic scientism, duly dressed in the lab coat as a key context for the narrative that there is just moral debate and opinion, not well warranted knowledge. Or, as Plato summarised the Sophists etc:

[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.

That is, as Plato then aptly drew out, “They are told by them that the highest right is might, ” leading to, “and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others . . . ”

What we see going on about us is, for the historically literate, unsurprising.

But am I making a fallacious emotive appeal to consequences — a favourite dismissive retort by one of the objectors (who refuses to acknowledge that he is here appealing to duty to right reason) — here?

No, I am laying out historically warranted dynamics and patterns, which open the door to lawless oligarchy.

We need to value and learn from history and see how to avoid repeating its many costly blunders.

Here, following Smith, Scientism is key.

The notion that evolutionary materialism-dominated Science dominates or even monopolises knowledge is a gross fallacy. First, pace Sagan and Lewontin et al, the attempt to imply that Science is the only begetter of truth or knowledge is not a scientific but instead an epistemological, i.e. philosophical claim dressed up in a lab coat. It is self-referentially incoherent and absurdly false.

Next, the pattern of responsible warrant leading to reliable, knowable truth is not monopolised by science.

So, yes we are error prone but as the OP summarised:

Relativists typically emphasise diversity of opinions among individuals and cultures etc, but that has never been a matter of controversy. Nor, do presumably well informed relativists merely intend [to confess their inexplicable] ignorance of such accurately described states of affairs regarding duty, right conduct etc, they imply longstanding want of warrant and no reasonable prospect or even possibility of such warrant . . . .

Going on, manifestly, we are an error-prone race, and across time, space etc have many, many areas of profound disagreement. The normal procedure in such areas, is to identify sound first principles for the area, starting with first principles of right reason, logic. Then, if self evident first truths can be listed, a framework for the field can be identified and developed into a body of well warranted so reliable and objective knowable truth independent of the error proneness of our individual or collective opinion-forming. From which, we then have a body of knowledge and best practice to work with.

There is not the slightest reason why we cannot apply such a procedure to develop — or rather, restore confidence in — a body of moral knowledge, thus first duties of responsible reason and onward frameworks for sound ethics, law, governance, civilisation.

Such was outlined in comment 60 above.

Which in reality echoes what was already done in our civilisation across thousands of years but which has latterly been ill-advisedly disregarded.

As for the evolutionary materialism itself that now comes to us dressed in a lab coat, it is first noteworthy that it failed 2400 years ago in Athens, failed in key part because it undermined responsible rationality.

In the modern guise, let it be sufficient to note that it cannot reasonably account for the coded, linguistic information content in the living cell much less our responsible rational freedom that allows us to credibly think for ourselves.

In Haldane’s classic — but as usual too often sidelined (yes, we know the standard rhetorical tactics only too well) — words:

“It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain [–> taking in DNA, epigenetics and matters of computer organisation, programming and dynamic-stochastic processes] I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. In order to escape from this necessity of sawing away the branch on which I am sitting, so to speak, I am compelled to believe that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter.” [“When I am dead,” in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209. Cf. here on (and esp here) on the self-refutation by self-falsifying self referential incoherence and on linked amorality.]

So, now, let us again refuse the patently fallacious stunt, oh, we sidestepped it already, why pay any attention now, and ponder the algebraic reductio in the OP:

Let a proposition [= an assertion that affirms or denies that something is the case, e.g. Socrates is a man] be represented by x [–> symbolisation]
M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [–> subject of relevance]
O = x is objective and knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [–> criterion of objectivity]

[–> patently meaningful; u/d Jan 8: x is a proposition and is to be tested with regard to having properties O and M, M also being a subject-domain regarding duty to right conduct etc, i.e. morality]

It is claimed, Cultural Relativism Thesis: S= ~[O*M] = 1 [–> the there are no objective, warranted, knowable moral truths claim, again meaningful; it is abundantly vindicated that this is a correct summary of a commonly held view by relativists, whether asserted, assumed or implied. To get to subjectivism, simply reduce the scope of the group in question to a party of one.]

{U/D, Jan 12:} [ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: “[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc c 430 BC on hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.” This IMPLIES the Cultural Relativism Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. He continues, “These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . “]

However, the subject of S is M, [–> by simple inspection]
it therefore claims to be objectively true, O and is about M [–> pointing out the implicit thesis that relativists claim to know the accuracy of their claim or implication, on warrant]
where it forbids O-status to any claim of type M [–> patent]
so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [–> reductio]

++++++++++
~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above]
~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true]
__________
O*M = 1 [condensing not of not]
where, M [moral truth claim]
So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true]

That is, there are objective moral truths; and a first, self evident one is that ~[O*M] is false.

The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important. [–> square of opposition issues]

We have a start point for restoring moral knowledge, let us proceed.>>

Where, it is worth the pause to note just what the objectors have sought to overthrow for so many months now:

>>

Recall, the core, branch on which we sit first duties, following Cicero:

1: to truth,
2: to right reason,
3: to warrant and wider prudence,
4: to sound conscience,
5: to neighbour,
6: so too to fairness, and
7: to justice,
. . . ,
x: etc.>> END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP, 48d: The failed six blind men of India paradigm for relativising thought, truth and knowledge

Again, let’s go out of chronological order in 48a (Plato comes later as there is a dismissive attitude) and speak to a paradigm story used to radically relativise our thinking from elementary school days on.

Here, 143:

>>In a world in which abstract processes such as logical inference and explicit argument are increasingly “other” and subject to hyperskeptical side-stepping . . . a world where logic is fast joining morality in the zone of disappeared seemingly discredited “fake” knowledge (oh, the folly of neglecting and dismissing things that were so hard-bought) . . . we have to take up a narrative fight.

Take, then, certain blind men B1 to B6 in India — irony — and a narrator N1, with an elephant, E. B1 – 6 are brought up to E and each somehow only engages a part, p1 – 6, composing attempted global narratives on partial encounter. N1 then announces the somewhat comical tale and the moral becomes a paradigm of pluralism and radical relativisation of experience, insight, understanding , analysis, warrant and claimed knowledge.

It’s all over, but the shouting.

NOT.

There is a seventh man, sighted but even more self-blind, the narrator N1. He quietly takes up the implicitly objective global view and uses it to subvert the perspectives of his perceived blind inferiors. And of course, with his superior insight he at once supplants a laborious process of interaction, exchange of experiments and observations, interaction and synthesis by B1 – 6, to build up a composite picture. And, does anyone seriously doubt the reality of the subject matter, E? (Thus, truth as accurate description of E? [In a world of acid doubt and celebration of such as an intellectual virtue, [selective, hyper-]skepticism, this needs to be duly noted.])

So, we have yet again a case of self reference, inviting incoherence once the implicit objectivity of N1 is improperly used as a magic key to discredit B1 – 6. No, instead we must realise the self-reference and refrain from the relativist’s error. The denial or suggestion that there is no knowable, warranted, objective truth is subverted by the self reference of the narrator’s implied account. Sadly, this subtlety escapes ever so many, as does the reductio strategy of demonstration: assume ~H then deduce from it an absurdity, especially a self contradiction. From this emergence of principle of explosion, reject ~H, i.e. ~(~H) –> H.

Now, we can go further.

First, what if there is no true narrator, s/he is just the next blind man over, N1 = B7. On this supposition, we are then left to correct the pretence to transcend blindness, perhaps by reductio, then by exchange of experiments and observations, discussion and the like we may seek to have a more reliable overall view through analysis and correction. We may even need to clarify what it means to be sighted.

This is of course the historic Western paradigm of the community of scholarship, exploration/experiment and critically aware discussion towards objective synthesis. And to the extent that warrant is indeed established such can create an objective knowledge base that uses logically guided reasoning to compensate for and correct biases. Obviously, open ended and ideally self-correcting. However, prone to captivity of skeptical ideologies.

Another possibility is the existence of a genuine global narrator, N*. Learning to calibrate such and its narrative and granting it trust on establishment of reliability and insight is a major exercise in a cynical, hyperskeptical age. Hence, Plato’s parables of the cave and the ship of state.

(It is not coincidental that certain objectors were very dismissive towards these parables, they expose key gaps in preferred narratives. As for the story of Epictetus and his interlocutor on necessity and branch on which we sit pervasiveness of logic, the concept of pervasive, antecedent, self evident first principles is so alien to the current conventional wisdom that it is routinely side stepped. But it is plain that we need to address cogently paradigmatic real world yardstick cases and related pivotal thought exercises.)

So, there is more to the story than meets the eye.>>

The six blind men and the elephant plus narrator may make relativising of knowledge, truth, morality etc SEEM plausible but actually fails to establish this. END

PS, as usual, no comments, 48a continues.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP 48c: Supplement, addressing the disappearance of core knowledge of first principles of right reason (aka Logic)

In the course of speaking to disappearance/restoration of moral knowledge, I realised that there was need to stop the rot on core right reason also. Accordingly, I commented at 153 in LF&P 48a, and as it is obviously logically prior, I now headline out of rough chronological order:

The issue of self-referential incoherence, regrettably, does not seem to move objectors anymore. That is strongly suggesting to me that we are seeing a SECOND “loss” of knowledge: logic in the historic sense, of first principles and practices of right reason.

In short, relativism spreads.

First, it attacks morality thus justice:

[ NB: Plato, The Laws, Bk X, c 360 BC, in the voice of Athenian Stranger: “[Thus, the Sophists and other opinion leaders etc c 430 BC on hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.” This IMPLIES the CR Thesis, by highlighting disputes (among an error-prone and quarrelsome race!), changing/varied opinions, suggesting that dominance of a view in a place/time is a matter of balance of factions/rulings, and denying that there is an intelligible, warranted natural law. He continues, “These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might . . . “]

Then, it goes for truth and reason, where untruth is the foundation of injustice.

We must never forget the pivotal moment when Pilate — about to knowingly condemn an innocent man to judicial murder then wash his hands of the affair, due to balance of power plays — says to him, “What is truth?”

For, Jesus had reached this point in his interrogation:

Jn 18:33 So Pilate entered his headquarters again and called Jesus and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”

34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?”

35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have delivered you over to me. What have you done?”

36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.” [–> Notice, rejection of the appeal to the sword, cf. Peter and Malchus’ ear . . . he obviously tried to take off his head, but the High Priest’s servant ducked so he only got the ear, [his right one actually so I infer Peter had sword left side and tried to cross-draw and attack in one “back-hand” stroke].]

37 Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?”

Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world— to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.”

Our civilisation is at this point again, and we are dismissive of truth, right reason and moral government in accord with sound first principles.

At 155, I went on to detail:

>>And, what are legitimately, first principles of right reason . . . basic logic now clearly being implicated in the “disappearing” of knowledge.

I find what was likely a Rhetoric 101 example cited by Paul of Tarsus to deal with irrationalism, is a good place to begin, being a real life case in action that is more specific than Epictetus’ decades later exchange with the man who demanded that he prove that logic is necessary:

1 Cor 14:7 If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? 8 And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? 9 So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. 10 There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, 11 but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.

Even an objector, to make said objection intelligibly, must communicate. To do so, he or she will rely on distinct identity of phonemes, glyphs, sounds etc. Modern computer technology rests on the binary digit, 1/0, t/f, hi/lo etc based on distinct states. Music depends on tones. And so forth.

In short, the law of distinct identity is pervasive in rational thought and intelligible communication etc. It is indeed a branch on which we all sit, first law of thought. One, that carries with it as close corollaries, non-contradiction and excluded middle. For, contemplate a world W, in which there is A, a bright red ball on a table. We dichotomise, W = {A|~A}. No x in W can be A AND ~A, any y in W will be A or else — exclusive or — ~A not both or neither. A diagram would make this plain at once.

We have here the famed first three laws of thought, and note that the key is, distinct identity, once we may demark an A, then all else follows. And even those trying to develop a paraconsistent logic or the like or arguing over Quantum theory will be using distinct identity to communicate. (See here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTJTfjYu1k on the principle of explosion. )

Going beyond, make explicit, concept of being, what is or is not, is possible or impossible. We may readily ask why and hope to have a reasonable answer. This is the weak, inquiry form principle of sufficient reason which leads to exploring logic of being and possible worlds, ways this or a world may be, as sufficiently described through a set of propositions. Above, we used the red ball on a table world, no need to explicitly describe a planet, sun, Jupiter, quasars etc.

We can then do a two-fold dichotomy creating a 2 x 2 matrix: a candidate B can be possible or impossible of being, and of possible beings, may be contingent [in at least one world and not in at least one world] or necessary [framework for any world to exist such as two-ness etc].

From such, we readily see as a fifth principle, cause and effect, principle of causality. That is, in a world W’, B is, but in a close neighbour W” it does not, e.g. a fire. The difference being cause.

And so forth.

Going further I would identify the seventeen laws of Boolean Algebra as first tautologies demonstrable from truth tables, etc.We can look at modal operators such as possible or necessary, and much more. S5 is famous.

Going back, we have Aristotle’s syllogisms and framework, which is rehabilitated once we reckon with existential import more in line with his thought and not C17 – 18 thinking. That is:

[Logicians should also note Terence Parsons’ rehabilitative argument here at SEP. It turns out that if we accept the natural language force of the A form [top left], All S is P — that S is non-empty, and render the O form [bottom right], as not every S is P (following Ackrill’s rendering of Aristotle in De Interpretatione 6–7 and with reference to Prior Analytics I.2, 25a.1–25 also) then the classical square of opposition is fully valid. As he goes on to observe: “On this view affirmatives have existential import, and negatives do not—a point that became elevated to a general principle in late medieval times.[6] The ancients thus did not see the incoherence of the square as formulated by Aristotle because there was no incoherence to see.”

The point is, there is no basis for undue suspicion regarding basic principles of right reason.>> END

PS, again, discussion continues in L&FP 48a.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP, 48b: Dallas Willard and the disappearance/ restoration of [authority of] moral knowledge

Knowledge, of course, is best understood as warranted, credibly true [and so, reliable] belief. Where truth is, similarly, accurate description of actual entities, states of affairs etc. Willard, in the closing decades of his life, spoke to the disappearance of moral knowledge (and was writing a book which was completed posthumously in 2018, five years after his passing), as was picked up at 43 in the discussion thread for LF&P 48a:

[DW, in “Where Is Moral Knowledge?,” 2007:] when I speak of the disappearance of moral knowledge, I am not saying that it does not exist, or that it is unattainable. Those are views sometimes maintained in academic circles and by cultural icons who presume to be “in the know” about such things. I cannot take those views up here, but I believe them to be profoundly and clearly mistaken. I am saying, however, that moral knowledge is no longer, as it once was, readily available to persons in the normal course of their lives. That is “the disappearance of moral knowledge.”

We have knowledge of any subject matter when we are capable of representing it as it is on an adequate basis of thought and experience. That is what “knowledge” means in ordinary life, and what you expect of your electrician, auto mechanic, and physician. The subject matter might be the English alphabet, the history of golf, the structure of the hydrogen atom, or others. The “adequate basis” can, sometimes must, include the word of others who have knowledge. We call our knowledge in that case knowledge by “authority”—though the word is more august than the fact. By far the most of what we know we know “by authority,” but that does not mean that it cannot be questioned or, in most cases, that there are no other ways of discovering it or verifying it. Most people who know the multiplication tables have never yet thought out a tiny portion of them to see for sure, and why, they are true. But they do know them, because those tables are given to them in a social context that warrants their acceptance as true. And they are true, and it is possible for a bright and enterprising child to think them out to see that they are true and why they are.

But knowledge can “disappear.” This is because its public presence and availability depends upon the maintenance of a social context with authoritative institutions that sustain, refine and disseminate it. If for whatever reasons social institutions fail to do this, the respective knowledge will “disappear,” cease to be available.

I commented,

Notice his discussion of a body of knowledge, that “[w]e have knowledge of any subject matter when we are capable of representing it as it is on an adequate basis of thought and experience.” We can readily connect that to the more atomic view that knowledge is warranted, credibly true [and so reliable] belief.” Bodies of knowledge are brought together in a coherent whole that facilitates effective learning, practice and advancement. For most users, there is dependence on institutionalised expertise, so that one can be confident that one knows based on cultural support. So, if that breaks down ordinary people are left to fend for themselves, leading to the challenge that for technical matters, few are well equipped to build such a body. Multiply by institutionally dominant messaging that such knowledge does not exist or is even somehow oppressive towards fashionable favoured groups and we begin to see just how far wrong and chaotic things can get.

Hence, needed restoration and hence likelihood of trolling and polarisation.

But morality is so central that we need to address it.

This points to the restoration of moral knowledge thesis, which I tabled at 42:

Given moral yardstick cases and branch on which we sit first principles from Cicero etc, it is not only possible to

(a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also

(b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural, built-in moral law. Thus,

(c) we can now see that a core of law is built into moral government of our responsible, rational freedom (through our known, inescapable duties to truth, right reason, prudence [including, warrant], sound conscience, neighbourliness [thus, the golden rule], fairness & justice, etc). On these,

(d) we may frame moral knowledge, moral understanding and so too just civil law as comporting with that built-in law of our morally governed nature, towards upholding and defending the civil peace of justice through sound government (and broader governance).

Where, at 38 I noted:

One of the factors in the institutional lockout on moral knowledge has been the joining of two key blunders. First, the Kantian self referential incoherence of imposing an ugly gulch between our inner perceptions and contemplation and the outer — dare I say, objective — world of things in themselves. Second, undermining the credibility of rational, intelligible and describable self-contemplation so that the empirical “scientist” no longer regards introspection and rational contemplation or its communication as credible evidence. This leads to the self-referentially absurd shoals of relativism, subjectivism, emotivism and solipsism while cutting off retreat to safer waters. Our mutineers on the good ship civilisation first included intellectuals who should have known, thought and taught better. We need to recognise the fatal little errors in the beginning issue pointed out by Aquinas and highlighted in recent times by Mortimer Adler. Then, we can build a due reformation.

Adding (40):

[I]n short I am more confident in my judgement and that of the general run of history that mathematics develops objective knowledge involving a body of credible truths on various abstracta of logic, structure and quantity than any attempted definition that would imply otherwise. So, I reject any such definition, for cause, as fallacious and failed.

That is, mathematics here is a key test case, a known good yardstick. Let us call it yardstick zero.

For morality, in memorial to a brutalised and murdered child, I will similarly assert as moral yardstick 1:

[MY1:] ASSERTION . . . MORAL YARDSTICK 1: it is self-evidently wrong, bad and evil to kidnap, torture, sexually violate and murder a young child [for fun]. Likewise, by corollary: if we come across such a case in progress, it is our duty to try to intervene to save the child from such a monster.

Here, the point is that anyone who denies demonstrates defective conscience and breakdown of moral rationality, and those who evade demonstrate enabling of the morally insane. So, key, yardstick test cases help us establish the circle of responsible rational discussion towards sound knowledge. Knowledge denoting warranted, credibly true [so reliable[ belief. No quarter will be given to newspeak or doubletalk. Likewise to, we ignored this before how dare you raise it again. No, irresponsible objectors do not get a Wilson’s Arte of Rhetorique sidestep veto.

From rational contemplation of key test cases much will follow.

This intellectual strategy will be key to the outline of a road to reformation to be developed DV below in coming days.

Here, the framework is laid out, details will follow. END

PS: 48a being open, no comments, this is headlining to lay out a framework.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

James Tour on what is wrong with origin of life research – at Inference Review

It’s an impossible exercise if you leave out design:

The same shortcomings and omissions that plague current OOL research can also be found in the paper under review. Indeed, these issues are so routinely ignored by researchers that the field appears to have become numbed to their absence from the literature. OOL researchers are prepared to assume that an ever-increasing list of obstacles were overcome on the prebiotic earth, but do not consider these hurdles as problems to be solved in their own work. The following five shortcomings in the research presented by Krishnamurthy et al., are emblematic of broader issues that need to be addressed.

James Tour, “Much Ado About Nothing” at Inference Review (January 2022)

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At BigThink, an author tries to decide between science and pseudoscience

Not easy because it depends on the judgment of “experts”. Here’s an excerpt from Princeton historian Michael D. Gordin’s book, On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience:

First, today’s science is adversarial. The way a scientist makes her reputation is by building on past findings, but if all she does is confirm what everyone already knew, her career stagnates. The pressures in scientific research are to do something new, and that usually means refuting a tenet of contemporary science. (We detect echoes of Karl Popper’s falsificationism.) Credit in science is allocated for priority (being first) and for being more correct than your competi- tors investigating the same questions. There will always be winners and losers. If the losers persist, they can and will get shunted to the fringe.

The second reason is that science is increasingly expensive. There are limited resources to go around, and there are always too many researchers chasing after coveted grants and high-profile publication opportunities. Within a climate of scarcity, adversarial norms necessarily generate both an incentive for winners to defend their gains and resentment from those who lost. Anyone who jeopardizes your research—say, by defending a fringe theory that contradicts it—may be seen as a threat. When nonmainstream doctrines pose a threat (real or imagined) to professional scientists, the term pseudoscience gets bandied about.

Michael D. Gordin, “What belongs in the “gray area” between science and pseudoscience?” at BigThink (December 27, 2021)

And then there is Big Science vs. COVID. Anyone care to discuss?

At which point, the defense rests.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

How small was the universe when the Big Bang started?

Ethan Siegel offers an opinion offers an opinion at Forbes:

No matter how tempting it may be to think that the Universe arose from a singular point of infinite temperature and density, and that all of space and time emerged from that starting point, we cannot responsibly make that extrapolation and still be consistent with the observations that we’ve made. We can only run the clock back a certain, finite amount until the story changes, with today’s observable Universe — and all the matter and energy within it — allowed to be no smaller than the wingspan of a typical human teenager. Any smaller than that, and we’d see fluctuations in the Big Bang’s leftover glow that simply aren’t there.

Ethan Siegel, “How Small Was The Universe At The Start Of The Big Bang?” at Forbes (August 25, 2021)

So intelligent design is correct, right?

Read The Return of the God Hypothesis to understand what is happening.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana