Friday

DANIEL DENNETT ON HOW TO COMPOSE A SUCCESSFUL CRITICAL COMMENTARY





FROM Daniel Dennett "Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking" (W. Norton & Co: 2014) p.25

... a list of rules promulgated many years ago by the social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport [Rapoport’s Rules ] ...

How to compose a successful critical commentary:
1 - You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.
2 - You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).
3 - You should mention anything you have learned from your target.
4 - Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

Sunday

LOGIC IS THE DOMAIN OF PHILOSOPHY NOT SCIENCE OR ATHEISM

Logic is firmly within the domain of Philosophy. Logical thinking is not automatic for atheists (who like to call themselves "critical thinkers" or "Brights") nor does logic originate in the domain of science.

Thursday

George Hrab gets skepticism wrong


How many different ways can one get a simple philosophical concept wrong? George Hrab ( from the Geologic Podcast) shows us while speaking outside his area of expertise which is music. He has a Bachelor of Music from Moravian College (1993). He has no qualification in philosophy which is the topic of this TED talk found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orSjZaeyISI

Where George Hrab is wrong and at what stage in the lecture:


1. 0.13 "Skepticism. Why? Why not?"

He is only speaking of scientific skepticism which as small part of philosophical skepticism. I quote from https://www.britannica.com/topic/skepticism

"Skepticism ... in Western philosophy, the attitude of doubting knowledge claims set forth in various areas. Skeptics have challenged the adequacy or reliability of these claims by asking what principles they are based upon or what they actually establish. They have questioned whether some such claims really are, as alleged, indubitable or necessarily true, and they have challenged the purported rational grounds of accepted assumptions."


2. 3.47 "[Skepticism is] Evidence based thinking."


I quote from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

"Skepticism ... is the philosophical position that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. "


3. 6:05 "I have no faith in anything. I have trust."

I quote from
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

"faith

NOUN

1 Complete trust or confidence in someone or something."


4. 6:29 "Skepticism is not a belief system ... it is a tool." 

I quote from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html
"Skepticism ... is [a] philosophical position" hence a belief system.


From https://proofwiki.org/wiki/Definition:Philosophical_Position

"A philosophical position is, broadly speaking, a belief that a particular statement is either true or false."


5. 8:37 "Modern skepticism looks like this chart - a co-mingling of science education and consumer protection. ... Right in the middle is skepticism."

I again quote from http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_skepticism.html

"Skepticism ... is the philosophical position that one should refrain from making truth claims, and avoid the postulation of final truths. "

At 22:04 he states: "Learn which resources to trust." I totally agree! Don't trust this TED talk as a reliable resource on philosophical skepticism. It fails the CRAP test.

I quote from hhttps://libraries.mercer.edu/research-tools-help/citation-tools-help/images/PrintableCRAPtest.pdf

"Evaluating Research Sources
Currency ...
Reliability/Relevance ...
Authority
- Who authored this information? ...
- Are their credentials provided?
- What is their reputation or expertise? *[Hint: A degree in music, and doing lots of podcasts, does not make you an expert in philosophy.] ...
Purpose/Point-of-View"

I do agree with him on another point (23:50). Treat this TED talk as an April Fool's joke. Check before you forward this post (21:48). Get an education in philosophical skepticism in the Links below. Scientific skepticism is only a very small part of philosophical skepticism.

CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE INEQUALITY VS MARRIAGE EQUALITY - AUSTRALIA

There are many homophobic Christians in Australia. The Galaxy poll suggests 47% of Christians are homophobic. (53% support marriage equality.) Why should this 47% of 64% of the population (the percentage of Christians in Australia according to the last census) force its minority view on the majority of Australian society? A mere 6,700,000 homophobes forcing their minority view on 17,700,000 other people. (Figures rounded). How can such an imposition be morally (not theologically) justified?

The term "marriage equality" means that this is a debate about the human right of equality under the law. I am speaking specifically about marriage equality as opposed to marriage inequality.

What is the moral good in inequality? (Homophobia promotes inequality.)

Associated with those questions is: What is the harm in equality?

If all anyone has to answer these questions is subjective interpretation of fallible bible verses then it isn't much of a sound valid argument. It is only relevant to Christians who believe subjective interpretation of fallible bible verses.

They embody the exact opposite of the command to "love your neighbour as yourself" as they treat the neighbour differently than one treats oneself. They embody the exact opposite of the fruit of the Spirit:"love ... forbearance, kindness, goodness .. "

All Christian notions of God and "biblical ethics" ( and thus marriage inequality itself) rely on "subjective interpretations of fallible bible verses". Breaking that phrase down:

- "subjective interpretations" All Christian concepts have their roots in bible verses as understood by fallible humans. None of it is totally objective. This means that there are often multiple interpretations of the same bible verse.

- "fallible bible verses". The bible was written by humans and has all the flaws of human writing. Though some parts are history much of it is not history. The bible has not been proven to be inerrant. If every word is "God's Word" then why has God placed so many errors withing the text and words within the Hebrew and Greek that have lost their original meaning? If the bible is "God's Word' and totally reliable then which is the one and only true ending to Mark's gospel as there are several endings written by different people at different stages in time? The bible also contains pseudo-graphs which, in modern parlance, we would call "forgery".

If one takes love as a good as the premise then it has ramifications within Christian dogma and theology where love is central. It also has huge ramifications for Christian marriage inequality.

Christians have a long history of opposing the granting of rights to groups. There is a distinct pattern.

Racism (including slavery): In the past Christian groups argued that people of colour were inferior using bible verses and "the curse of Ham". Slave advocates quoted the fact that the bible condones slavery in both the New and Old Testament. They denied equal rights to people of colour.

Sexism: In the past Christian groups argued that women were to be under the "covering" of a male and quoted bible verses to deny women the same rights as men. For example, opposing women as clergy.

Exactly the same is now happening as Christians argue for marriage inequality that denies equal rights to the LGBTI community.

The premises upon which Christian marriage inequality is built upon are largely invalid arguments such as the following fallacies:
- the appeal to history
- special pleading
- the texas sharp shooter
- genetic
- slippery slope
- appeal to fear
- composition / division
- appeal to emotion
(Not an exhaustive list.)

I haven't seen a single argument for Christian marriage inequality that has not used at least one of the fallacies above.

Tuesday

WHEN DID YOU CHOOSE?

When did you choose to be heterosexual and engage in the heterosexual lifestyle?