Wednesday, 9 September 2015

TOO MANY FALLACIOUS HASTY GENERALISATION AND INCREDULOUS APPEALS TO (QUESTIONABLE) POPULATION


you're welcome, I'm happy to offer another point of view.


Thanks for the kind gesture. I bet that is the best greeting a naturalist can give to each other. Kinda reminds me of the hunger games (1) where they say "...may the odds be with you..." to which I respond "how funny" because the odds don't even care neither do they know that they exist hahaha. But from a social POV, thanks for cheering me up :D


"And do you accept the notion/ proposition that "Choices are Free"?" - they cannot be free, but virtually any definition of free will has been debunked.


saying "they cannot be free" is a blanket assertion or argumentum ad lapidem. Please, show us your credible logical arguments. You made that claim, that burden of proof is on you.
saying "virtually any definition of free will has been debunked." does not provide any negation to the logically warranted arguments that freewill does exist. Consider your word "virtually" which according to the dictionary (2) means
"for the most part; almost wholly; just about:"
which by your own definition, and to avoid the fallacy of appealing to populations/ commonalities, there exists a definition of freewill that must be correct.
Now you appear to just Poison the Well rather than make the well better. In order to avoid making a fallacious toupee fallacy of appealing to personal incredulity, can you tell us what would make "Freewill" ACTUALLY "Freewill"?
How do you believe we ought to recognize Freewill if you and I saw one?
Then after you have provided this criteria, show us how every human freewill is NOT actually freewill but (pre)determined-will etc :)


"This "...we..." you keep using, who are the "we"? lol..." - the scientific community.


This is where I totally disagree with you. Your own bias is scientism (3). There are many things science has no authority over, in my opinion:
(1) Metaphysical or Existential Truths
(2) Moral or Ethical Truths
(3) Logical and Mathematical Truths
(4) Historical Truths
(5) Experiential Truths
(6) Aesthetics Truths
(7) Science itself

LONGER EXPLANATION

(1) Metaphysical or Existential Truths : Many Metaphysical truths cannot be proven using science. For instance (and these questions have existed for a LONG time now) Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of something like in “The Matrix”.) It also cannot prove that the world wasn’t created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age (and with fake memories in your head, and half-digested food in your stomach, etc).  However it’s still rational to believe that our memories are true and that the world is real. How do you know you’re not dreaming right now? What if your mind is the only one that exists and your just imagining everyone else? None of these things can be proven but we’re not only reasonable for not believing them but believing one of them may land you in a mental ward lol.

(2) Moral or Ethical Truths : Science can’t prove any ethical truths. Science cannot prove that rape is evil. While it is possible to demonstrate, for example, that there are negative physical or psychological effects of rape, there is no scientific test that can prove it is evil. Science can describe how the natural world is, but moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely is. There will never be an ONTOLOGICALLY SUFFICIENT AND OBJECTIVE/ ABSOLUTE scientific reason that survives logically warranted scrutiny for why what the Nazi’s did was wrong. Yet I think we’re all reasonable to believe they’re wrong.

(3) Logical and Mathematical Truths : Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work. You can’t prove that logic or math work because the only way to do so would be to use logic or math. If all you follow is reason then how can you prove that reason works? This doesn’t mean we should never use logic or math it just means that it’s reasonable to believe in some things regardless if they can be proven.

(4) Historical Truths : Science cannot prove that Barack Obama won the 2008 United States presidential election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable.

(5) Experiential Truths : Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you) but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

(6) Aesthetics Truths : Science can’t prove truths about beauty. Science, try as it might, can’t explain why I like one poem over another. Still we’re all reasonable to believe that some things are beautiful and that some things aren’t - irrespective of qualia and the the golden ratio.

(7) Science itself : Consider the statement “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting (circular reasoning) because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science (as hilarious as it is) can’t prove itself. Similar to number 3, for science to prove that it works it would have to use science. It’s impossible, yet we all are reasonable to believe in science.

Questions regarding scientism


(1) Could the scientific Community ever be wrong? e.g. there was a time the scientific community thought the sun revolved around the earth.
(2) What makes the scientific community correct in this case?
(3) What makes the scientific community an authority over this issue of "freewill"?
(4) Who makes up the scientific community?
(5) Does everyone in the scientific community unanimously agree within themselves concerning this issue or are you fallaciously appealing to certain (majority) population or are you fallaciously appealing to personal incredulity of the (certain population in this) scientific community?
(6) Which scientific community? Medical Doctors? Biologists? Neurologists? You mean neurologist like Wilder Penfield and Roger Sperry?
(7) Can you prove that everyone in the scientific community agrees with this or are you just philosophically assuming it?


"...irrelevant. The fact that 'others' believe the earth is 6000 years old doesn't support the fact you (and they) are wrong (just an example, don't mean to imply you hold this view)..."


But that still proves my point. "Who are this ..."we"... " ...that is the question I want to know and you make a non-sequitur point I agree with. You see, that same argument also falls on you. Watch me use your own arguments logically warranted back at you:
The fact that 'others' believe they dont have freewill doesnt support the fact that you (and they) are wrong...
So it seems to me that you agree with me that this "we" you keep talking of is totally misplaced as a hasty generalisation fallacy as "others" really do exist who dont agree with you :P


"...numerous metaphysical and philosophical presuppositions have been debunked in light of scientific investigations. This is another such instance..."


Again an appeal to population. This does not logically lead to the warranted justification that there are other philosophical arguments that science agrees with.


"...One could say you're appealing to dualism here" - no."


I'm glad you're not appealing to dualism. That is one factor cut out in trying to better understand you :)


"are you implying that we have wrongly locked criminals in prisons" - no.

"and condemned them wrongly because they are not the self-originators of the crimes they performed?" - yes.


So when a psychopathic serial killer and rapist rapes you, your family, kills your family, cuts your limbs in pieces but keeps you alive to traumatize your for 1 whole year. Can you honestly tell me that that guy is not at an moral fault because, as per your argument, he is not the origination and performer of his own action??? Im curious. _


"please demonstrate how Sam Harris semantically deals with the dichotomy between fatalism and determinism" - I invite you to watch his talk(s).


Yeah, please, refer me to his relevant talks :)


"So please, demonstrate a hypothesis to show how "the material world is all that there is". - I do not need to. Ask your doctor, when you are sick, to prove to you that your illness is material. Hint: non sequitur.


So, after my hypothesis that I gave to you - none of which you logically debunked, you refer me to go ask a doctor. hahahahaha ... you sound like the opposite version of a young earth creationist (YEC) who does not know how to argue his case but fallaciously commit an onus probandi lol.

me: demonstrate an hypothesis to show that "the earth is 6000 years old"
YEC: i do not need to. Ask my pastor to show you your sin is spiritual hahahaha

This is a category error and false dichotomy. I do not see the logical dichotomy between "immateriality" and "illness" in this context. The no-sequitur fallacy is in your court bro. This is the core for you bro... if you cannot explain that "materialism" is all that exists... it just seems to me that there is no good counter-argument or good-defeater to use the postulations of
(1) Quantum Physics - and its irregular nature to prove that another nature exists different from the nature of this material world. eg and electron could be in two places at the same time. (4)
(2) String Theory - and its 11 dimensions (5)
(3) Super String Theory - as if String Theory was not enough, now our mathematics is very much coherent with SUPER STRING THEORY (6).
(4) Wilder Penfield and Roger Sperry's experiments of dualism and idealism (7).
(5) The concept of infinity and its repeatable assumption in nature. eg fractals (8)

I'm sorry I am not convinced as you have not tackled the arguments that make me so convinced. This materialistic 3D dimension, in my opinion, is not all that exists - there is more as per the links i've provided you. And yes, I'm not the only one saying it, your very same scientific community is saying it.

God bless you :)

REFERENCES

No comments:

Post a Comment